[Talossa.com portal] [Citizens Toolbox] [Immigration]

No Running elections

Verdict on RC9(#72), posted by Art Verbotten, [IP Hidden], August 19, 2005 - 00:51. Viewed 863 times.

User Info Text Art Verbotten Group: citizens (850 posts total) (last post: March 14, 2008 - 13:16) Citizen #19: Art Verbotten Greetings folks, The President citing Constitution 2.2.32 posed the question to the Court, "Is Bill RC9 legal". The bill reads thusly: "Whereas the Talossan population of Benton County, WA has always felt strong cultural ties to Cézembre Province, be it resolved that the territory of Benton County, WA is assigned to Cézembre Province, and that the Provincial Assignment Act will be amended accordingly." Avoiding all the debates & opinions that accompanied this question I would have to say, "Yes Mr. President, RC9 is a legal piece of legislation. I also did not find anything in it that was indirect or misguided that could lead to it doing something undesireable under Parliament's nose." I arrived at this decision after reading our Constitution, Articles 3.2 A & B, and 3.3 They state: 3.2 A) Every citizen of the Republic who lives outside the territory of any Province shall be assigned to a Province by act of Parlamînt. B) The "citizens of a Province" shall include all citizens resident in the territory of that province, as well as any non-resident citizen assigned to that Province. 3.3 Parlamînt shall assign non-resident citizens to provinces on the basis of their geographical residence. The assignment of citizens to a province shall not be changed without the approval of that province's legislature, if any. It states very emphatically that it is an "act of Parliament" that decides where folks are assigned. It further goes to define, in 3.3, that provincial assignments are done according to "geographical residence". Bill RC9 is a simple request to have a small geographical area reassigned in accordance with 3.3. While I can sympathize with the President's dislike for bills of this nature, this is the only way a person can be reassigned to another province. Some may argue that it is Parliament that determines this alone. That may be true but it is also beyond the scope of our question. While I see the President's demeanor towards this bill as negative, that is merely his opinion. We have already made an exception to this rule with some of our founding fathers, allowing them to petition for their provincial assignments. I should think that some minor rearranging would be acceptable. Those are my finding folks. Hope this didn't sound too tired because I sure am. Thank you for tuning in. 8-18-05 A.V. If Jesus was a carpenter I wonder how much he charged for bookshelves.--W. Allen

Verdict on RC9 Art Verbotten August 19, 2005 - 00:51 Question to the Court Justice dal Navâ August 19, 2005 - 06:27 Parent message Verdict on RC9 Art Verbotten August 19, 2005 - 00:51 Question to the Court(#73), posted by Justice dal Navâ, [IP Hidden], August 19, 2005 - 06:27. Viewed 832 times. User Info Text Justice dal Navâ Group: admins (5222 posts total) (last post: March 14, 2008 - 13:43) Citizen #19: Art Verbotten > We have already made an exception to this rule with some of our founding fathers, allowing them to petition for their provincial assignments. I should think that some minor rearranging would be acceptable. While I am not arguing with the ruling (you already know my feelings), may I ask when and where did we make any exception to this rule? Everyone (save JKK, apparently) is assigned to the province the Provincial Assignments Code (Code II.5.1) requires, no exceptions. If no such exception is found and if the Honourable Justice based his decision on such perceived exceptions, then I would humbly request an appeal on this matter. If that perception did not have any real bearing on the Justice's decision, then the point would be moot and the judgment would naturally stand as is. I thank you for your time. ________________________ 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
RE: Question to the Court	Art Verbotten	August 19, 2005 - 23:51
Parent message Question to the Court Justice dal Navâ August 19, 2005 - 06:27 RE: Question to the Court(#75), posted by Art Verbotten, [IP Hidden], August 19, 2005 - 23:51. Viewed 851 times.
User Info Text Art Verbotten Group: citizens (850 posts total) (last post: March 14, 2008 - 13:16) Citizen #19: Art Verbotten Mr. President, Thank you for your question. I did not base my decision on that last comment, only on the comments that I cited with the Constitution backing them. It does however give the decision more weight which is why I mentioned it. There is in fact an exception to the provincial assignments, and I believe that person is me. According to the new citizens code, Florencians are from Wisconsin, but from territories outside of the Republic. I live east of I-43, North of 94 (that should actually be 794), and south of Glendale so I am within the Republic's boundaries, but I am not not in Florencia province. I'm not even sure what province I am suppose to be in, but since I requested being in the one I founded on my own a decade or so ago, I assumed that folks conceded the point. I moved out of Florencia proper in Spring of 97. My provincial assignment was not changed because: 1. I did so before the laws changed so I was grandfathered in. 2. I requested not to be reassigned and used my clout to avoid the reassignment vote of the Cosa. 3. I was told if I ever moved, the assignment would change. I'm not sure how this effects my current assignment, but that is the way it is folks. A.V. If Jesus was a carpenter I wonder how much he charged for bookshelves.--W. Allen

Reply to this post | Back to the forum | Forums Overview| Deactivate Thread View Forums Overview | Login | Register | Lost your password? Cyphor (Release: 0.19, PHP 5.2.5)