|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 27, 2008 19:36:22 GMT -6
I think to be convinced a closed ballot is best, I'd want to know VERY CLEARLY how the Republic monitors the fair dealing involved.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 27, 2008 18:23:54 GMT -6
MC Preston, I think you know investigating the methods of secret balloting to see if they are suitable is not the same as refusing to tell anyone anything, ever.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 27, 2008 12:30:26 GMT -6
I certainly believe we should seek to understand the processes the Republic uses, though I for one favour open ballots.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 27, 2008 19:00:01 GMT -6
This raises the whole issue of defining Provincial membership and the idea of "constituency" within Talossa. Can of worms much?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 27, 2008 12:27:01 GMT -6
I do think there is a kernel of necessary change here, but it will need to be whittled down to that.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 30, 2008 9:07:52 GMT -6
*Senator Holmes and MC Edwards, I think you meant =p
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 27, 2008 6:22:24 GMT -6
I will be withdrawing my Bill, though I do believe two classifications would be very useful, and commend that such classifications be made clear within the body of this Bill.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 26, 2008 10:30:32 GMT -6
I proposed a new classification - Daisy, though that's easily changed to something more fitting - to cover immigrant children.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 26, 2008 8:56:41 GMT -6
P.S. I think the author of this Bill might also consider how this Bill would fit into the proposed review of the OrgLaw.
It could be explicated that the proposed amendment is there to cover specific groups of children of Talossan parents, ie those born before citizenship or during "remission".
Also, is Broadleaf Dandelion a variety of Dandelion? Which Dandelion is intended for Talossa-born children?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 26, 2008 8:47:49 GMT -6
Dreu, I am assured that the Bill was started and conceived before mine was posted - it being brought forward, and the issues concerning
I would actually suggest the Senator should redact his Bill somewhat, because I think it is a little verbose. I think it is a more entertaining Bill than mine, which is an important consideration within Talossa.
I would not say mine has been withdrawn, but given we now have a RUMP Bill (and I am happy I am not an instinctively suspicious person, given the implications), there is now an issue whereby the waters are thoroughly muddied. I will take advice on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 26, 2008 5:48:01 GMT -6
"Given that the bulk of the latter part of this discussion has consisted of a discussion of how to legally foolproof an admittedly facetious first line, I am wondering what else people would change.
This member notes the advent of Senator Holmes' Bill, and applauds it for the French-insulting content therein - but I am somewhat concerned that its arrival upon the scene, and given its similar pratcical effects to this Bill (if via a Bill amendment rather than introducing a new classification), that some, more suspicious Talossans may consider it akin to "wrecking", as practised in partisan legislature across the world.
I am, futhermore, surprised that the traditional role of the Hopper in focussing a Bill and tidying it has been ignored by some members in apparent anticipation of Senator Holmes' Bill.
Thanks to Dreu, Flip, V, Alex, Mick et al for their assistance on this - though it may be my first Bill is not Clarked, it has been a wonderful learning experience. "
cross-posted.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 4, 2008 17:15:57 GMT -6
An admirable Bill.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 27, 2008 6:22:46 GMT -6
Withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 26, 2008 5:47:32 GMT -6
Given that the bulk of the latter part of this discussion has consisted of a discussion of how to legally foolproof an admittedly facetious first line, I am wondering what else people would change.
This member notes the advent of Senator Holmes' Bill, and applauds it for the French-insulting content therein - but I am somewhat concerned that its arrival upon the scene, and given its similar pratcical effects to this Bill (if via a Bill amendment rather than introducing a new classification), that some, more suspicious Talossans may consider it akin to "wrecking", as practised in partisan legislature across the world.
I am, futhermore, surprised that the traditional role of the Hopper in focussing a Bill and tidying it has been ignored by some members in apparent anticipation of Senator Holmes' Bill.
Thanks to Dreu, Flip, V, Alex, Mick et al for their assistance on this - though it may be my first Bill is not Clarked, it has been a wonderful learning experience.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 26, 2008 5:42:28 GMT -6
WHEREAS when a man or a woman may produce or adopt a child (or children);
WHEREAS such men and such women may be Talossans;
WHEREAS the child (or children) may fall through a "loophole", by being born before their parent's citizenship, or during a period of their parent's renunciation or removal of citizenship;
WHEREAS this is a glaring error in the process of handling the citizenship of children within Talossa, as there is no real reason why such children should not have rights as Talossans;
THEREFORE, it is resolved that, until such time as the Organic Law undergoes the proposed thorough review, the following measures be put into place:
1) A Talossan may petition for citizenship on behalf of any of their non-Dandelion children who are under the age of 14, without any probationary period, in the traditional manner of making petitions for citizenship.
2) Upon being seconded, thirded and so forth in the traditional manner, and assuming that no objection is brought, a limited form of citizenship shall be granted to the subject of the petition, who shall be known as a "Daisy", a term carrying in all other ways the legal status and implications of "Dandelion".
|
|