|
Post by Istefan Lorentzescu on Feb 24, 2009 19:00:30 GMT -6
dont bills(unless noted specifically otherwise) that come into law have to be passed by both houses then signed by the King anyway ?
|
|
Cjara B
Citizen since 5-3-2007
Citizen of Talossa, and now Florencia
Posts: 368
|
Post by Cjara B on Feb 25, 2009 0:09:51 GMT -6
dont bills(unless noted specifically otherwise) that come into law have to be passed by both houses then signed by the King anyway ? Yes the bills all do. But that's not what is under debate here. I would suggest rereading the discussion in full
|
|
|
Post by Istefan Lorentzescu on Feb 25, 2009 0:32:25 GMT -6
dont bills(unless noted specifically otherwise) that come into law have to be passed by both houses then signed by the King anyway ? Yes the bills all do. But that's not what is under debate here. I would suggest rereading the discussion in full I have read the full discusion. My query is that it seems it would require a bill remove the senator therefore the removal of a senator would be voted on by both houses and signed off by thing king. My apologies I seem to have upset people
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Feb 25, 2009 17:26:12 GMT -6
I have read the full discusion. My query is that it seems it would require a bill remove the senator therefore the removal of a senator would be voted on by both houses and signed off by thing king. My apologies I seem to have upset people The recall of an MC reads like the vote of removing an MC is an internal issue within the Cosa, sent to the King for approval, independent of a Clark. The recall of a Senator, as proposed by this Amendment, would be an issue voted on the whole Ziu. So you're correct. The method proposed by this Amendment (a bill submitted and Clarked) would require both houses. As for adding royal approval to this Amendment, it might already be a moot point since it is a normally (except for maybe the time table) Clarked bill. Another problem may come from that time table. Let's say that the Provincial recall election happens after the deadline to Clark a bill. Does the Senator get until the next Clark to clark his bill, or would a compressed time line come into play? Mr. SoS, would you kindly weigh in on this?
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Feb 25, 2009 18:21:55 GMT -6
I would say that a special session of the Ziu could be called, or a bill automatically gets Clarked and the next opportunity.
This would avoid a vote having to wait if the recall came just before a "No Business" month, or right before a General Election.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 26, 2009 2:22:57 GMT -6
Let me publicly note that I will send this on to the people as I did with its predecessor.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2009 9:34:30 GMT -6
Owen does bring up a good point....
I think the most recent modification prevents any ridiculous abuses.
|
|
Ieremiac'h Ventrutx
Former Senator of Florencia ~ Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 990
Talossan Since: 3-1-1997
|
Post by Ieremiac'h Ventrutx on Mar 3, 2009 19:39:25 GMT -6
"WHEREAS this means a group of a few can override the will of the people as a whole and"
Senators are elected by the will of the people... you override their will by having the assembly doing the vote rather than the people... each province needs to have their own way to recall a Senator.
Let me publicly go on record that I object to this as it doesn't allow the provinces to take care of their own issues.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2009 20:05:38 GMT -6
So your contention is that a representative body doesn't represent the will of the people?
JP, you are walking yourself in a logical circle....let's examine...
This is true, and the purpose of the bill is to recall SEnators who ignore the will of the people who elected them
No....the Senator overrode their will by going against their will in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 3, 2009 20:09:53 GMT -6
I'm genuinely puzzled by your objection JP. This gives provinces the OPTION of recalling a failed Senator (who otherwise has a lengthy two Cosa term).
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Mar 3, 2009 21:11:18 GMT -6
Has anyone considered shrinking the term of Senators? I understand the cup and saucer argument for bicameral legislatures but we seem to have a very large saucer and a small cup. Maybe they need to be equalized?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2009 21:15:37 GMT -6
Well, I'm hoping this will indeed shrink the size of the saucer.
Presently, the only way an MC's vote counts is if they vote NON on the VOC...
Otherwise, 7 individuals hold the fate of all legislation in their hand.
But it shouldn't bother us. Some of our Senators have assured us, after all, that the more seasoned and professional Senators know what's good for us better than the silly little MC.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 3, 2009 23:56:36 GMT -6
MC Asmourescu, are you suggesting that if a majority of MCs voted against a measure, it would still pass? I don't really understand your meaning. Please clarify.
|
|
Ieremiac'h Ventrutx
Former Senator of Florencia ~ Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 990
Talossan Since: 3-1-1997
|
Post by Ieremiac'h Ventrutx on Mar 4, 2009 7:56:41 GMT -6
Not all provinces have the same constitution ... there is no reason for the Zui to interfere with the way a province does something ... IF the province chooses to have a recall done by the assembly then great. If they choose to have it decided by the will of the people then great. Bottom line this is a provincial issue and further reform should come from there. You are mandating something that a province should have a choice on.
Honestly, I am now against this bill more than before. I strongly encourage my fellow senators to vote against it and allow our own provinces to introduce further reform... IF it is actually needed.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 4, 2009 7:59:55 GMT -6
except this relates to a national institution...this ISN'T a matter for states ALONE to decide upon (though yes, perhaps they might have some direct input)...you're on really shaky legal ground, because you're saying that the OrgLaw can effectively be modified by the actions of provinces, who are not amending the OrgLaw
I'm not suggesting we're quite at Fort Sumter yet, but that is a really dangerous statement, philosophically and legally. That's my legal opinion anyway.
|
|