|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Apr 4, 2016 18:20:33 GMT -6
Senators, please use this thread to discuss the First Clark of the 49th.
|
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Apr 4, 2016 18:57:14 GMT -6
49RZ1 - I intend to vote PER, it's clear to me that things are not quite working at the moment and this seems like a sensible reform.
49RZ2 - This seems uncontroversial to me, and thus I intend to vote PER on this also.
49RZ3 - This is difficult, I think it would be better not to interfere with the work currently being done by the Royal Commission. I think the way the bill is worded, it lets the King off the hook for potentially not doing his job. We should either push for automatic dissolution or keep it as it is, rather than giving the King the option of just not doing his job. As it stands, I intend to vote CONTRA.
|
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Apr 6, 2016 18:25:19 GMT -6
Anybody?
|
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Apr 14, 2016 17:02:50 GMT -6
On 49RZ3, I also intend to vote Contrâ. I believe that we should keep the requirement to dissolve the Cosa prior to another election, instead of dodging the requirement by changing it to "following the last Clark or final month of Recess".
In addition, the dissolution of the Cosa is mentioned eight other times in OrgLaw outside of this particular section, and without amending any of the other places where it is included, this section will only make Talossan election law even more confusing. As an example, Section 2 of OrgLaw Article VII states that the Cosa "shall be elected by universal ballot after each dissolution", but if there is no dissolution or a dissolution comes after an election has started or taken place, then wouldn't the proposed amendment to Section 3 stand in conflict with the unamended Section 2?
|
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Apr 17, 2016 11:07:06 GMT -6
Is there anyone else who would like to discuss the bills on this Clark, such as 49RZ3?
|
|
