la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ |
> > 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 Yes, it is a feature of this law that it can be amended or even repealed by Parlamînt without another referendum.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!
|
