D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
Citizen #26:
Dieter N Vercáriâ | > 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 It should either be voted on as the final text or withdrawn and resubmitted so all Deputies have an equal right to present any further changes.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.
|
