|
| Submission of RC9 to the Court | Justice dal Navâ | August 13, 2005 - 23:02 | | Art Verbotten | August 17, 2005 - 01:50 |
|
Parent message | | Submission of RC9 to the Court | Justice dal Navâ | August 13, 2005 - 23:02 |
| RE: Submission of RC9 to the Court(#67), posted by Art Verbotten, [IP Hidden], August 17, 2005 - 01:50. Viewed 872 times. |
|
Art Verbotten
Group: citizens
(850 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 13:16)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | A general note to the legislature from the Court.
I am a Justice of the Court, not a medical examiner.
I will be rendering a decision as requested on RC9, but let it be known that this is the last time I will be analyzing the legality of a failed piece of legislation.
The vetting process for legal/illegal is really suppose to take place before you submit, not after you vote and have it shot down.
I see another Talossan tradition has followed us to our new place. :-(
A.V.
If Jesus was a carpenter I wonder how much he charged for bookshelves.--W. Allen |
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | August 17, 2005 - 07:09 |
|
Parent message | | Art Verbotten | August 17, 2005 - 01:50 |
| RE: A suggestion from the Att.-Gen.(#69), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], August 17, 2005 - 07:09. Viewed 820 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > A general note to the legislature from the Court.
>
> I am a Justice of the Court, not a medical examiner.
>
> I will be rendering a decision as requested on RC9, but let it be known that this is the last time I will be analyzing the legality of a failed piece of legislation.
>
> The vetting process for legal/illegal is really suppose to take place before you submit, not after you vote and have it shot down.
>
> I see another Talossan tradition has followed us to our new place. :-(
Your Honour, assuming a neutral position for a while, I think that RC9 is legal; and those involved in the legislative procedure who didn't support the bill did never question the legality of the bill, as far as I remember.
But looking back, maybe a detail of the procedure how the bill "sailed through" has been questionable. One Deputy, the esteemed Mr. Furxheir, was forced to retract his "contrâ" following a tie breaking rule in the Standing Orders. Maybe this rule is an undue restriction of the democratic rights of Mr. Furxheir, and maybe this rule should be declared null and void and replaced by something else, for instance by some setting aside of a proposed bill once it fails to "sail through" because of a tie.
Now off to some days in France,
the Att.-Gen.,
- D. N. Vercáriâ
¡Pecüliárismeu és escasençâ - MRP!
|
|
| | la garçâ malpadert | August 17, 2005 - 20:46 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | August 17, 2005 - 07:09 |
| RE: A suggestion from the Att.-Gen.(#70), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], August 17, 2005 - 20:46. Viewed 794 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber |
> But looking back, maybe a detail of the procedure how the bill "sailed through" has been questionable. One Deputy, the esteemed Mr. Furxheir, was forced to retract his "contrâ" following a tie breaking rule in the Standing Orders. Maybe this rule is an undue restriction of the democratic rights of Mr. Furxheir, and maybe this rule should be declared null and void and replaced by something else, for instance by some setting aside of a proposed bill once it fails to "sail through" because of a tie.
I would like to strongly argue against this suggestion. The Constitution of the Republic states as follows concerning how the two Houses of Parlamînt are to conduct their business (section 2.2.19-22):
19. The Chamber of Deputies and the Senäts shall each elect a Chair (called the Túischac'h and Mençéi respectively) from among their members who will organise the business of that house, keep a published archive of the proceedings and decisions of that House, and enforce the Standing Orders of that House. Neither Chair shall be a member of the Government.
20. The Chamber of Deputies and the Senäts may discuss their business in person, by mail, by telephone, by electronic messaging, or by any combination of the above.
21. Each House is sovereign in the conduct of its business. Each Houses shall conduct its business in accordance with its own Standing Orders, which shall be adopted by majority vote of that House and made public. Standing Orders may include a quorum for any decisions of either House.
22. The meetings of both Houses of Parlamînt, and the votes cast by all members in those Houses, are public. Decisions of each House require a majority of votes cast unless this Constitution provides otherwise.
Thus the Constitution only requires that there be a set of Standing Orders; a Speaker who enforces these standing orders and publishes the proceedings and decisions of the Chamber; and that each bill must pass by a majority. Other than that, the Chamber is sovereign - that is, it can set whatever rules it sees fit.
Therefore, the High Court has no jurisdiction to set aside any properly adopted Standing Order of the Chamber of Deputies. I am frankly amazed that the MRP leader is even bringing this possibility up, since his party gave its full support to those very orders he now wants declared illegal. I look forward to the MRP leader making suggestions to change the Standing Orders in the next Chamber, but the High Court is not the right venue for that discussion.
Miestrâ Schivâ
Seneschál dal Repúblicâ Talossán / Prime Minister of the Republic of Talossa
"The Republic's Most Articulate Spokeswhatever" - R. B. Madison
Don't mess with success. Re-elect the best.
Votetz PSD dîn la Eleziun dal Camerâ, Guscht xxvi/II!
|
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | August 21, 2005 - 17:52 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | August 17, 2005 - 20:46 |
| RE: Ahem.(#76), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], August 21, 2005 - 17:52. Viewed 790 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > Miestrâ Schivâ
I'm looking forward to discuss every iota of what you've said ... outside of the Court. ;-)
D.
- D. N. Vercáriâ
¡Pecüliárismeu és escasençâ - MRP!
|
|
| | Mr. Furxheir, R.M.W. | August 19, 2005 - 13:15 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | August 17, 2005 - 20:46 |
| I agree...(#74), posted by Mr. Furxheir, R.M.W., [IP Hidden], August 19, 2005 - 13:15. Viewed 861 times. |
|
Mr. Furxheir, R.M.W.
Group: admins
(1791 posts total)
(last post: November 24, 2007 - 15:07)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | I do not feel my democratic rights were violated in any way. I have a reserve on the fact the bill won by a single vote, not because my vote was retracted.
When a deputy accepts the role of Speaker, he accepts that his vote might be retracted to break a tie. I fully accept that.
Talossan-language.com : because languages CANNOT be copyrighted. |
|
| | Justice dal Navâ | August 17, 2005 - 03:51 |
|
Parent message | | Art Verbotten | August 17, 2005 - 01:50 |
| RE: Submission of RC9 to the Court(#68), posted by Justice dal Navâ, [IP Hidden], August 17, 2005 - 03:51. Viewed 820 times. |
|
Justice dal Navâ
Group: admins
(5222 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 13:43)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > A general note to the legislature from the Court.
>
> I am a Justice of the Court, not a medical examiner.
>
> I will be rendering a decision as requested on RC9, but let it be known that this is the last time I will be analyzing the legality of a failed piece of legislation.
>
> The vetting process for legal/illegal is really suppose to take place before you submit, not after you vote and have it shot down.
It's in the Constitution, "Art." Sorry.
________________________
Chirischtôval Curt Cavéir,
President of the Republic of Talossa
Minister of Information
Minister of Defence
Board of l'Icastolâ: Keeping el Glheþ safe, legal, and free since Twenty-Aught-Five
caramidâ és eic'hán
 |
|
| | Art Verbotten | August 18, 2005 - 23:06 |
|
Parent message | | Justice dal Navâ | August 17, 2005 - 03:51 |
| RE: Submission of RC9 to the Court(#71), posted by Art Verbotten, [IP Hidden], August 18, 2005 - 23:06. Viewed 822 times. |
|
Art Verbotten
Group: citizens
(850 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 13:16)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | I was hoping we'd worked to eliminate that here,....sigh...... but I guess I can blame myself for lack of vigilance when you folks were doing the writing. :-(
Oh well.
(Several minutes of thought pass)
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize that this scenario never will go away.
Folks seem to like to spring legislation on everyone rather than test the waters with it beforehand. I always thought conversations and networking a piece of legislation were the way to get sound legislation written and passed.
I also have to say that voting contra on legislation that is of questionable constitutionality shows diligence on the part of the ministers as well.
Now that I've situated all of that, I should actually make a statement about the original question that was asked this weekend. Don't you think? :-)
A.V.
If Jesus was a carpenter I wonder how much he charged for bookshelves.--W. Allen |
|
| | Art Verbotten | August 15, 2005 - 00:42 |
|
Parent message | | Submission of RC9 to the Court | Justice dal Navâ | August 13, 2005 - 23:02 |
| RE: Submission of RC9 to the Court(#66), posted by Art Verbotten, [IP Hidden], August 15, 2005 - 00:42. Viewed 846 times. |
|
Art Verbotten
Group: citizens
(850 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 13:16)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | Hello Mr. President (and all onlookers),
I just got back from a weekend camping trip so I please give me a day or two to review the bill in question .
A.V.
If Jesus was a carpenter I wonder how much he charged for bookshelves.--W. Allen |
|
|
|
