|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Nov 4, 2017 7:13:52 GMT -6
I welcome the honourable members of the Senäts to the first Clark of this legislative period. Before we begin this business here, I ask that the Senators direct their attention to the Emergency Session invoked recently, which deals with Béneditsch Ardpresteir and his possibly criminal acts as a Justice of the Uppermost Cort. No comment to the Clark will be heard before a member has voiced his opinion in the matter of Justice Ardpresteir. With that in mind, I open the discussions for the first Clark, which can be found here. Again, welcome to the Senäts, and may the discussions always be cordial, and never lose their heat!
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Nov 5, 2017 6:50:43 GMT -6
I must object to the Mencei instating rules limiting Senators ability to comment on the clark. Senators should always be free to discuss legislation that is being voted on without asking for permission. Nor can they be forced to comment on an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Nov 5, 2017 7:57:08 GMT -6
I must object to the Mencei instating rules limiting Senators ability to comment on the clark. Senators should always be free to discuss legislation that is being voted on without asking for permission. Nor can they be forced to comment on an issue. Senators can voice their opinion that they do not want to comment on a matter. But the Mençei has the prerogative to set orders of business, and thus coordinate which topics get discussed first. As emergency sessions are an extraordinary measure for addressing extreme situations (which take place seldom), it is not unusual for the Mençei to require that Members of the Senäts direct their attention to that session first. The Mençei has few tools to ensure Members of the Senäts follow the rules. This limitation forces Members of the Senäts to direct their attention to an urgent matter. It is also the Mençei’s prerogative to allow a Member of the Senäts to speak, or to order that a Member not be heard. As you will have noticed, Members of Senäts must ask leave from the Mençei to address the House where no general discussion has been initiated by said Mençei. Which also means that Senators are not, in fact, free to discuss currently voted-upon legislation without asking for permission. There is a reason for the Mençei starting a discussion thread, and asking that Senators begin commenting. To sum it up: I could easily have not started the Discussion thread, until such time as everyone had attended the Emergency Session, and voiced their opinions. For the sake of expediency, and transparency as to the Clark, I have formally begun a Discussion, and drawn attention to the current Clark. But it is still within my rights to selectively direct Members of the Senäts’ attention to one or another matter. It would be no different in a Living Senäts session, since you could not discuss two things at the same time. The fact that the marvels of technology allow you to ‘be’ in two different ‘places’ at the same time is irrelevant to the rules of this House.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Nov 5, 2017 9:24:26 GMT -6
Are these rules based on any law or have they ever been approved in a voter, or did the Senator from Mariitimi-Maxhestic just make them up?
It seems to me that the best way of conducting business is indeed for the Mencei to start discussion and voting threads, but if the Mencei fails to do that, what prevents other senators from starting up these threads about the matters we are supposed to be discussing?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Nov 21, 2017 6:00:26 GMT -6
Lest the 1st Clark of the term go entirely without discussion in this body, I rise to make an observation regarding RZ3, and the discussion of that bill that has taken place in the other chamber of the Ziu. We are very fortunate, I think, that no one argued for Dame Miestra's theory of the assertion of Talossan sovereignty in defiance of Wisconsin law back when Talossa incorporated a right to euthanasia and attempted suicide into the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms.
|
|