|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 6:56:22 GMT -6
Why not? Their decisions can be appealed to the UC anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 14:02:24 GMT -6
Perhaps is part was missed: With the current flux of Provincial Governments, many of them in infancy or non existent or non functioning, I feel this should NOT be an option.
|
|
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 Aug 8, 2009 14:19:18 GMT -6
I'm not sure what your concern is. A non-existent or non-functioning provincial court won't be taking any action against senators, so why should that be a problem for provincial courts that ARE existent and functioning?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 14:39:19 GMT -6
I'm not sure what your concern is. A non-existent or non-functioning provincial court won't be taking any action against senators, so why should that be a problem for provincial courts that ARE existent and functioning? Right, and even if a provincial court is new: 1) Saying that a new court cannot fairly render a verdict is foolish 2) The ruling could be appealed to the Uppermost Cort by law and 3) Even at the provincial level, judges and justices are bound to make a ruling based on law
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 15:59:23 GMT -6
It's actually quite simple, I do not feel that we should put so much power into courts in their infancy or who are non existent and/or non functioning. Just because it can be appealed doesn't mean it is right. As more provinces form governments and judicial systems spread throughout the land on the local levels, we will have a better idea on the types of governments and the power individual branches will and/or can wield on the local level. At the moment, I am not comfortable with assigning power to something that is completely and utterly unknown to us. That all being said, presenting the argument that it may be appealed to the Uppermost Cort, to me, until we have a functioning Uppermost Cort, shouldn't be used.
It seems to me that we want to assign a great level of power to Corts that aren't necessarily functioning quite yet. I cannot agree to something that is completely unanswered. If we had functioning provincial level governments with Corts that were working (on all levels of government) I am sure my opinion would be quite different.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 16:05:26 GMT -6
Let me add, I feel "shouldn't be used" may not have accurately portrayed my point. I feel that the argument is a valid counter argument but doesn't go far enough. Our uppermost cort is barely functional. How can something be appealed?
Also, perhaps this is answered in Org Law, say we do remove a senator and s/he decides to appeal, say this happened tomorrow, what happens now? Is the government on hold? Do we function without a senator? How is that province being accurately represented on the federal level? Do we assign another senator while the appeal is going on? So many unanswered questions, I cannot support this act.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 19:54:02 GMT -6
Your argument is fundamentally flawed.
We shouldn't entrust power to a "court in its infancy?"
Then how will any new court ever be vested with its powers? Are you saying that the Magistracy (which was just recently born) is more capable of rendering a fair and just verdict than a provincial court? Why? Because it's new? The judge cannot read the law and deliver a decision based on it?
Provinces have governments. If they don't have courts, then the point is moot. If they have courts but they are new, then we have to rely on those courts to deliver fair verdicts. If they don't, then there is a safeguard.
As to the appeals process, I would say the Senator would remain in office pending appeal. The key difference then between the Provincial Court and the UC removing the Senator would be that a Provincial Court could still remove a Senator, however, the UC can overturn or uphold that ruling by reviewing the decision against applicable law.
This would permit provinces with COURTS, not provinces who have tribunals of citizens or systems of arbitration, only established COURTS, who derive their authority from the Organic Law just as the Magistracy does.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 8, 2009 23:56:03 GMT -6
One change I would like made: I do not want, and would not consider valid, a judgment from another province removing me from office. Only the province in question should be allowed to recall their Senator. This is a necessary change.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2009 4:42:30 GMT -6
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. We shouldn't entrust power to a "court in its infancy?" Then how will any new court ever be vested with its powers? Are you saying that the Magistracy (which was just recently born) is more capable of rendering a fair and just verdict than a provincial court? Why? Because it's new? The judge cannot read the law and deliver a decision based on it? Provinces have governments. If they don't have courts, then the point is moot. If they have courts but they are new, then we have to rely on those courts to deliver fair verdicts. If they don't, then there is a safeguard. As to the appeals process, I would say the Senator would remain in office pending appeal. The key difference then between the Provincial Court and the UC removing the Senator would be that a Provincial Court could still remove a Senator, however, the UC can overturn or uphold that ruling by reviewing the decision against applicable law. This would permit provinces with COURTS, not provinces who have tribunals of citizens or systems of arbitration, only established COURTS, who derive their authority from the Organic Law just as the Magistracy does. It is not fundamentally flawed. Your bill is fundamentally flawed. By assigning a huge responsibility to provincial corts (that may or may not exist) when our own federal cort system isn't fully functioning (and with the departure of Owen, who is the new Magistrcy?), I find it asinine this would even be an option. I said, I do not support this NOW! Give it some time, provinces form more substantial and solid governments, the Cort begins to hear cases, I'm fine with it. Unfortunately, the current state of our Judicial system would leave the Senator in a legal limbo. I'm not about doing it. Tell me, Vuode has no functioning government, how would I recall my Senator (no offense to that Senator, just an example) without a Cort? And if I managed to do it and he appealed, how would he get it heard in a Cort that hasn't even heard cases form well over a year ago? You bill needs working or more time. *edit* It's 6 a and I just got home from a night of debauchery, I had some fixes to make.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2009 6:43:09 GMT -6
One change I would like made: I do not want, and would not consider valid, a judgment from another province removing me from office. Only the province in question should be allowed to recall their Senator. This is a necessary change. Good point. I would think that is an issue of jurisdiction more than the law itself. A provincial court, by its very nature, deals with legal matters of the province. So a provincial court could not charge a Senator any more than it can just randomly charge any other citizen who is not a resident of that province. That said, I am happy to amend it in any fashion that you feel would adequately clarify this little jurisdictional quirk so that it was a non-issue.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2009 6:49:19 GMT -6
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. We shouldn't entrust power to a "court in its infancy?" Then how will any new court ever be vested with its powers? Are you saying that the Magistracy (which was just recently born) is more capable of rendering a fair and just verdict than a provincial court? Why? Because it's new? The judge cannot read the law and deliver a decision based on it? Provinces have governments. If they don't have courts, then the point is moot. If they have courts but they are new, then we have to rely on those courts to deliver fair verdicts. If they don't, then there is a safeguard. As to the appeals process, I would say the Senator would remain in office pending appeal. The key difference then between the Provincial Court and the UC removing the Senator would be that a Provincial Court could still remove a Senator, however, the UC can overturn or uphold that ruling by reviewing the decision against applicable law. This would permit provinces with COURTS, not provinces who have tribunals of citizens or systems of arbitration, only established COURTS, who derive their authority from the Organic Law just as the Magistracy does. It is not fundamentally flawed. Your bill is fundamentally flawed. By assigning a huge responsibility to provincial corts (that may or may not exist) when our own federal cort system isn't fully functioning (and with the departure of Owen, who is the new Magistrcy?), I find it asinine this would even be an option. I said, I do not support this NOW! Give it some time, provinces form more substantial and solid governments, the Cort begins to hear cases, I'm fine with it. Unfortunately, the current state of our Judicial system would leave the Senator in a legal limbo. I'm not about doing it. Tell me, Vuode has no functioning government, how would I recall my Senator (no offense to that Senator, just an example) without a Cort? And if I managed to do it and he appealed, how would he get it heard in a Cort that hasn't even heard cases form well over a year ago? You bill needs working or more time. *edit* It's 6 a and I just got home from a night of debauchery, I had some fixes to make. In the case of Vuode, I would be delighted to answer. You do not "recall your Senator." That is not the purpose of this bill. If the Senator from Vuode (simply using V's example) did something illegal, that is violated some provincial or Talossan law which constitutes misconduct, you could file charges with the applicable court. If the Senator violated provincial law, the Provincial court has a right to hear the case first. What you are proposing would be that a person could violate Provincial law and the case then skip over the provincial court system right to the Talossan court. If the Senator's misconduct was a violation defined by a Talossan court, the charges would be filed with the UC or the Magistracy. It has nothing to do with "assigning a huge responsibility to provincial courts" it has to do with accurately assigning cases to their respective court. If the violation is provincial law, it should go to a provincial court, if the violation is a Talossan law, it should go to a Talossan court. In the case of the former, the Senator has the right to appeal the decision, where the ruling and the law can be reviewed to ensure a province did not attempt to enforce an inorganic law or to impose a ruling based on something other than law.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2009 11:42:58 GMT -6
It is not fundamentally flawed. Your bill is fundamentally flawed. By assigning a huge responsibility to provincial corts (that may or may not exist) when our own federal cort system isn't fully functioning (and with the departure of Owen, who is the new Magistrcy?), I find it asinine this would even be an option. I said, I do not support this NOW! Give it some time, provinces form more substantial and solid governments, the Cort begins to hear cases, I'm fine with it. Unfortunately, the current state of our Judicial system would leave the Senator in a legal limbo. I'm not about doing it. Tell me, Vuode has no functioning government, how would I recall my Senator (no offense to that Senator, just an example) without a Cort? And if I managed to do it and he appealed, how would he get it heard in a Cort that hasn't even heard cases form well over a year ago? You bill needs working or more time. *edit* It's 6 a and I just got home from a night of debauchery, I had some fixes to make. In the case of Vuode, I would be delighted to answer. You do not "recall your Senator." That is not the purpose of this bill. If the Senator from Vuode (simply using V's example) did something illegal, that is violated some provincial or Talossan law which constitutes misconduct, you could file charges with the applicable court. If the Senator violated provincial law, the Provincial court has a right to hear the case first. What you are proposing would be that a person could violate Provincial law and the case then skip over the provincial court system right to the Talossan court. If the Senator's misconduct was a violation defined by a Talossan court, the charges would be filed with the UC or the Magistracy. It has nothing to do with "assigning a huge responsibility to provincial courts" it has to do with accurately assigning cases to their respective court. If the violation is provincial law, it should go to a provincial court, if the violation is a Talossan law, it should go to a Talossan court. In the case of the former, the Senator has the right to appeal the decision, where the ruling and the law can be reviewed to ensure a province did not attempt to enforce an inorganic law or to impose a ruling based on something other than law. If they disagree with the provincial Cort, do they have a right to appeal to Uppermost Cort (which seems to be how it is worded and how you have said it)? It entirely is assigning a huge responsibility, mostly to something that doesn't exist. I think we're at the point, S:reu Asmoureascu, where we are beating a dead horse. Neither of us are going to relent. I'm eager to hear what my fellow Talossans feel about this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2009 14:18:40 GMT -6
By law, a Provincial Court must allow individuals to appeal their cases all the way up to the Uppermost Cort.
However, again , it depends on the law. If a Provincial law is broken, the Provincial court handles it. If a Province has neither applicable provincial law nor a provincial court, then the amendment does not apply to them.
I think the point has been made as clearly as it can be, let our fellow Talossans weigh in their opinions so that we might tackle the next set of issues.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2009 15:28:32 GMT -6
agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2009 9:36:17 GMT -6
Senator Davis,
As per your concerns in the last Clark, I have revised my wording while preserving the desired intent. I clarified the point further, not only because of the example given (that the court of one province tries to remove the Senator of another), but also clarifying who has jurisdiction to remove a Senator when the Senator is a citizen of another province.
So, if a Senator is a citizen of Vuode but represents Benito, who has the authority to remove them for misconduct? Vuode? Benito? Both? Certainly, as a citizen of Vuode, the senator is subject to the laws of Vuode. While that individual could be charged with any number of crimes by a provincial court, they would not have the authority to remove them from the seat to which they were elected by the people of Benito.
|
|