Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2012 16:54:11 GMT -6
Boy, I sure feel funny commenting on a Bills that contain my name within the body....
Anyway, let me suggest a possible legal remedy.
Right now, the problem I see with this Act is that it is, as His Majesty states, a nomination, but not really, for a time in the future, maybe.
Two possible alternatives, as I see it.
The first (and easiest) way is to put the nomination together with the removal. "We remove Justice X and appoint Mr. Y." There can be three separate bills, or one big one that removes all three and appoints another three. I would recommend keeping them separate to allow His Majesty to make his appointments individually.
The second is to include wording in this bill that removes the vague "in the event of a vacancy" and states that the nominee "is nominated to fill a vacancy created on the Uppermost Cort upon the removal of Justice X, Y, Z through separate articles of removal pursuant to OrgLaw XXX"
Anyway, let me suggest a possible legal remedy.
Right now, the problem I see with this Act is that it is, as His Majesty states, a nomination, but not really, for a time in the future, maybe.
Two possible alternatives, as I see it.
The first (and easiest) way is to put the nomination together with the removal. "We remove Justice X and appoint Mr. Y." There can be three separate bills, or one big one that removes all three and appoints another three. I would recommend keeping them separate to allow His Majesty to make his appointments individually.
The second is to include wording in this bill that removes the vague "in the event of a vacancy" and states that the nominee "is nominated to fill a vacancy created on the Uppermost Cort upon the removal of Justice X, Y, Z through separate articles of removal pursuant to OrgLaw XXX"
