la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ |
> 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!
|
