We are, of course, waiting on the Assembly to be constituted before we find out who's Maestro and thus how many appointed Senators we will have this term. As soon as that is set, we'll go to our first order of business, which is electing a Speaker for this term.
Post by Lüc da Schir on Jun 6, 2016 12:53:05 GMT -6
I would like to inform the Senate that a bill, the Judiciary Act of 2016, has passed the Assembly on June 6th, having been introduced there on May 25th. It now falls upon the Senate to either pass the bill as it stands, send an amended version back to the Assembly, or reject it outright.
The vote is scheduled for Sunday 12th, or later if amendments are accepted. For the purpose of "accepting" an amendment without a vote (like it happened in the lower house last week), since the sponsor does not sit in the Senate, I propose that, seeing as the sponsor is the Maestro, the Deputy Maestro be put in charge of accepting amendments to the bill without a vote, should they arise. This might also become a general rule, eventually. We do need to estabilish some kind of formal set of rules of order, but in the meantime this might work.
The Judiciary Act of 2016 (proposed by Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu)
WHEREAS referring all matters of provincial justice is an abdication of our responsibilities, and
WHEREAS the justice system established in the past has sat moribund for over half a decade, and
WHEREAS there is no need to create additional titles for an institution that is already stretched for personnel,
THEREFOR the Legislative Chancellory of the Province of Benito enacts the following:
A.) The "High Court Act" is repealed in its entirety.
B.) The Judiciary of the province of Benito is hereby established as a system of binding, voluntary, and citizen-led arbitration.
C.) In the case of a conflict over provincial law, the aggreived shal publicly declare their grievance and the two shall find a mutually agreeable party to function as arbiter.
D.) An arbiter may be any full Benitian citizen in good standing.
E.) Should the parties be unable to agree on an arbiter, the office of the Arvitieir Prima shall be charged with finding an arbiter, from outside the province if needs be.
F.) Upon appointment of an arbiter, each side shall plead their case. The arbiter shall not issue a ruling until both sides of the case have been heard.
G.) The arbiter shall base their decision on appropriate provincial and national law as well as custom and judicial precedent with an eye toward fair play.
H.) The arbiter's decision is final and binding upon all parties. All such decisions may be appealed to the national court system.
I.) While conducting judiciary business, the arbiter shall wear a special hat of their own devising. For the interests of cultural legacy, the province will maintain a registry of all such hats.
J.) This law shall take effect upon the passage of an amendment to the provincial Constitution giving original jurisdiction to the provincial judiciary system.
Munditenens Tresplet: Happy to see the Atatürk legislature of one unanimously exercise their provincial right to determine their own cultural dicta today, even if it confused the purpose of the currently Hoppered bill to repeal 52PD1.
Sept 18, 2018 18:08:37 GMT -6
Munditenens Tresplet: The stated purpose of the Hoppered bill is as simple as the title: "The Provincial Depiction Right of Determination Act". Indeed, thanks to the Organic clarification already provided by this act, Atatürk has now exercised their right of determination.
Sept 18, 2018 18:11:39 GMT -6
Lüc da Schir: I hate using the term "vibes" but I'm getting awfully bad vibes from certain recent happenings in Talossa.
Sept 20, 2018 11:50:37 GMT -6
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: The second-highest-ranking member of the Government is suing for the right to be able to doxx other Talossans. Yeah, it's not a good situation.
Sept 20, 2018 12:36:17 GMT -6
V: That's not doxxing. Do you ever stop lying?
Sept 20, 2018 13:11:06 GMT -6
Lüc da Schir: You are both proving my point.
Sept 20, 2018 13:20:33 GMT -6
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: Not sure what you want me to do, Luc? Do I just not criticize problematic bills if V is the sponsor? Do I just ignore when he breaks Wittiquette?
Sept 20, 2018 14:40:02 GMT -6
Lüc da Schir: I don't intend to enter the discussion, I've got other stuff to do, but while I don't like V's recent antics and you're right re. Wittiquette, I don't think you have been entirely honest in your arguments against the bill. Just a personal opinion though.
Sept 20, 2018 15:04:13 GMT -6
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: look, I have been straight from the beginning. I think some of the charges being brought for impeachment are nonsense. Some are not. I want a bill that doesn't include the nonsense so that we can have an honest vote.
Sept 20, 2018 15:12:21 GMT -6
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: Actually, they would also be fair to say that I have viewed all of his charges with some skepticism since the end of them. That really is a fair point, on second thought. It does feel like the well has been a little bit since every time I looked at one of
Sept 20, 2018 15:14:54 GMT -6
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: The case is cited as evidence it didn't really seem to back up the charges.
Sept 20, 2018 15:15:18 GMT -6
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: So either way, hopefully we can get a better version of the bill together. A honest version.
Sept 20, 2018 15:48:06 GMT -6
V: Perhaps we can get honest critiques.
Sept 20, 2018 16:06:52 GMT -6
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: I have presented a bunch of different critiques of fundamental flaws in the bill, in each case backed by specific arguments.
Sept 20, 2018 17:22:09 GMT -6
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: Indeed, if you reread the thread, you will see that was all I ever wanted to do: discuss the merits of specific points of the bill!
Sept 20, 2018 17:22:31 GMT -6
V: You're not discussing the merits. You're arguing for outright removal of entire provisions and then attacking each of the merits to reduce it to, "well it's really just this one thing; can't we overlook this?" You're not debating in good faith.
Sept 20, 2018 18:03:32 GMT -6
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: Yes, I'm arguing for outright removal of entire provisions because the evidence which underlies them does not seem to bear up the actual charges. I have written about this at length in the thread multiple times already, always being specific!
Sept 20, 2018 18:15:10 GMT -6
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: Yay! One problem solved, now just a bill to work through and fix (assuming it fails, as I hope it will).
Sept 20, 2018 18:44:11 GMT -6
V: There was no "internal spanking." I, on my own accord, said I would edit your name.
Sept 20, 2018 19:41:39 GMT -6