|
| RE: I wish to make one tiny final amendment. | Ep Inxheneu Crovâ | February 02, 2008 - 12:38 | | D. N. Vercáriâ | February 02, 2008 - 12:56 |
|
Parent message | | Ep Inxheneu Crovâ | February 02, 2008 - 12:38 |
| RE: I wish to make one tiny final amendment.(#1970), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], February 02, 2008 - 12:56. Viewed 244 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
Citizen #34:
Dermot | > Tuischa'ch,
>
> As I will not be in these hallowed halls for much longer, I feel that I must hog a little more of the limelight by objecting to this amendment.
>
> The Deputy should not have two opportunities to amend this Bill-this is the purpose of the amendment phase. It should either be voted on as the final text or withdrawn and resubmitted so all Deputies have an equal right to present any further changes. I am emphatically not an expert on parliamentary procedure, and am about to watch the first episode of the second season of Dexter with my Other Half (the soul of romance, thats me), so I will leave it to the eggheads to resolve this issue.
It's true, no tiny final amendmends during the phase that is called "Final Vote", say the Standing Orders.
> Another, more weighty but perhaps equally ridiculous problem occured to me as I was considering this Bill. The Bill prescribes that it shall not come into force without popular ratification-which makes it a quasi-constitutional measure. However, since it is technically an ordinary Bill, nothing prevents a future Chamber from simply repealing or amending it without reference to the people. Is this not an inconsistency?
AFAIK, a referendum is compulsory when it comes to amendments of the Constitution, yes, but an option at any other occasion. It is indeed an interesting theoretical question whether laws that have been "entrenched" by a referendum could be abolished without a referendum; AFAIK again, our laws don't say anything about this.
_________________
- Dieter
A long history is fine, a long future is better.
|
|
| | la garçâ malpadert | February 02, 2008 - 14:46 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | February 02, 2008 - 12:56 |
| RE: I wish to make one tiny final amendment.(#1974), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], February 02, 2008 - 14:46. Viewed 270 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #34:
Dermot |
> > The Deputy should not have two opportunities to amend this Bill-this is the purpose of the amendment phase.
>
> It's true, no tiny final amendmends during the phase that is called "Final Vote", say the Standing Orders.
We've made tiny final "tweaks" to wording before. But in the interests of consensus, I withdraw my suggestion.
> > However, since it is technically an ordinary Bill, nothing prevents a future Chamber from simply repealing or amending it without reference to the people. Is this not an inconsistency?
>
> It is indeed an interesting theoretical question whether laws that have been "entrenched" by a referendum could be abolished without a referendum; AFAIK again, our laws don't say anything about this.
I think it is a basic tenet of a functioning legal democracy that if the law doesn't say it's forbidden, it's allowed. Yes, it is a feature of this law that it can be amended or even repealed by Parlamînt without another referendum. When I suggested "entrenching" it (making it unamendable without another referendum) people shouted me down. So this is the halfway house. I'm surprised you don't remember that.
Miestrâ Schivâ
Minister of Immigration
Editor, Qator Itrìns
Founder-President, ZRT - Party of National Unity
Chief High Language Geek of the Talossan Republic
TALOSSA, C’È ASÚNTS SERIÖSEN!
|
|
| | Ep Inxheneu Crovâ | February 03, 2008 - 10:36 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | February 02, 2008 - 14:46 |
| RE: I wish to make one tiny final amendment.(#1983), posted by Ep Inxheneu Crovâ, [IP Hidden], February 03, 2008 - 10:36. Viewed 259 times. |
|
Ep Inxheneu Crovâ
Group: admins
(1303 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 03:56)
Citizen #34:
Dermot | > I think it is a basic tenet of a functioning legal democracy that if the law doesn't say it's forbidden, it's allowed. Yes, it is a feature of this law that it can be amended or even repealed by Parlamînt without another referendum. When I suggested "entrenching" it (making it unamendable without another referendum) people shouted me down. So this is the halfway house. I'm surprised you don't remember that.
>
We already entrench certain laws-thats why we have a written constitution. This requires a higher standard of approval by Parliament, so perhaps this is why it was not done in this way. All other laws should on principle be reversible by an elected Parliament. Those who objected were perfectly right to do so, IMHO.
================================
'I don't make predictions, and I never will.....' Paul Gascoigne. |
|
|
|
