WE HAVE MOVED. CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE NEW FORUM!
Please note that this forum is now archived, and some links may not work. To access forums, please click on the text above the banner and NOT the banner itself. If you have any questions please contact CGJ
|
|
|
|
|
Claim your spot on the map Join the Regional Assembly Check out the Hall of Guidance Get involved in some Open Roleplays |
Time until The Independent Order's Fourth Birthday: |
Vice Chancellor: CGJ Premier: DaveIronside Vice Premier: SatanLord Minister for Home Affairs: Yolotan Minister for Foreign Affairs: Tama Speaker of the Assembly: Zee Lord Chief Justice: Achkaerin Roleplay Moderator: DaveIronside |
None Debates: Roleplay Realism Buff Act Request for an Inquiry into the use of mass-alts in the Z-Day episode |
| Welcome to the Independent Order Archive. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. If you previously had an account on the forum, then feel free to login. If you're new, please note we have moved to a new forum and have left this forum here to serve as an archive. |
| Debate: Regional Governance (Referendum) Act (2015); About the Referendum to be held | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topic Started: 9th October 2015 - 10:22 PM (851 Views) | ||||
| Morganus | 9th October 2015 - 10:22 PM Post #1 | |||
![]()
|
I hereby open debate on the following bill: The Regional (Referendum) Governance Act (2015). Not to be confused with the The Regional Governance Act (2015), although they are related. As we are on a clock here, the debate will close on Oct. 11th, 2015 at 11:59pm, unless closed earlier by majority vote. Senators, we need your input and fast!
|
|||
| DaveIronside | 9th October 2015 - 10:24 PM Post #2 | |||
![]()
Bendix Landau (1880-1939)
|
Take out 21a and I'm happy | |||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 9th October 2015 - 10:32 PM Post #3 | |||
![]()
|
Two things I'm going to say here 1) Senators will note that section 14 names the 1st of November as the day the Regional Governance would be in effect from should the referendum be in the affirmative that would be day one of the first sixty five day term if it passes (we'd obviously have the Premier election in the intervening period) I will state that there's no mention in that section of the date should the referendum be held in November I would suggest December the 1st but that would cut the next Senate term down in size somewhat- so any suggestions welcomed. 2) Since we're on the clock here to ensure we get the 14 day campaigning period if we're to do this in October this needs to be at vote late Sunday so that we have a chance of voting this through on Monday and getting the Chancellery's signature on it on the same day. Which means campaigns can then prospectively speaking open as of Tuesday. Having re-read the Act I strike the relevant statement. Edited by Achkaerin, 9th October 2015 - 10:35 PM.
|
|||
| ||||
| Morganus | 9th October 2015 - 10:38 PM Post #4 | |||
![]()
|
I am with Dave regarding 21(a). Section 9 is quite strict in my oppinion, so we need to reach those who want to be part of the voters and give them the opportunity to be able to meet the requirements. | |||
| Achkaerin | 9th October 2015 - 10:47 PM Post #5 | |||
![]()
|
Originally this Act was a copy and paste of CGJ's version for the referendum in relation to the Constitutional Settlement Act, at that time there was a need to guard against a potential vote abuse scenario since we were looking at a longer time frame between the time that referendum would have gone through the Senate and the campaign starting date. In this instance however the Campaign start day would be Tuesday if we want 14 days and since that's the same as stated in 21(a) only people who are members from that day backwards would be eligible, so yeah we can scrap 21(a). Section 9 I believe is reasonable to ensure a legitimate outcome, we cannot have a situation where people simply join the region to vote in this one thing, not having what is effectively voter registration would most certainly leave the vote wide open to 'fixing' by a sudden influx of members. |
|||
| ||||
| Morganus | 9th October 2015 - 10:59 PM Post #6 | |||
![]()
|
True, section 9 is reasonable if 21(a) is no more. | |||
| Achkaerin | 9th October 2015 - 11:03 PM Post #7 | |||
![]()
|
Well if everyone's happy we can consider 21(a) struck out. | |||
| ||||
| DaveIronside | 9th October 2015 - 11:08 PM Post #8 | |||
![]()
Bendix Landau (1880-1939)
|
Then I support the act | |||
| ||||
| zachpack11 | 9th October 2015 - 11:24 PM Post #9 | |||
![]()
Indisputeable Emperor of Anarchy
|
Well, I'll be sure to vote No in the referendum, this particular act seems fine, now that we took out 21a. | |||
| Morganus | 10th October 2015 - 07:56 AM Post #10 | |||
![]()
|
Can we move it to a vote then? | |||
| Achkaerin | 10th October 2015 - 10:26 AM Post #11 | |||
![]()
|
This is where we run into a bit of an issue. The Constitution states:
Which would mean that we'd have to wait to vote on this. However my concern if we wait would be that the longer we wait the shorter the campaign time and the more likely it becomes that we end up with the referendum in November rather than October and I'd personally like to have this referendum this term. It's an unprecedented situation because I don't believe we've ever had a piece of legislation that relies as heavily on time as this one so with that in mind I will consult with the Grand Chancellor about what to do in this case. |
|||
| ||||
| DaveIronside | 10th October 2015 - 11:13 AM Post #12 | |||
![]()
Bendix Landau (1880-1939)
|
As the majority of the Senate support the motion then surely the second part applies and the vote can take place. | |||
| ||||
| Beatrice | 10th October 2015 - 03:10 PM Post #13 | |||
![]()
|
I would concur with this interpretation, and would not move against an affirmative vote to enact this Act. |
|||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 10th October 2015 - 03:12 PM Post #14 | |||
![]()
|
Well with the Grand Chancellor's agreement. *clears throat* I move that this Bill be put to vote. |
|||
| ||||
| Morganus | 10th October 2015 - 03:25 PM Post #15 | |||
![]()
|
Seconded. | |||
| CGJ | 10th October 2015 - 04:45 PM Post #16 | |||
![]()
Franz Kaufmann (1886-1944)
|
Am I the only one who doesn't agree with this interpretation? The 3 day rule was specifically put into place to guarantee 3 days of debate/discussion. Not that I'm particularly bothered, but it just seems sort of...illegal. |
|||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 10th October 2015 - 05:25 PM Post #17 | |||
![]()
|
This was my issue as well, which is why I asked for the Grand Chancellor's opinion. | |||
| ||||
| Morganus | 10th October 2015 - 06:05 PM Post #18 | |||
![]()
|
Mr Vice Chancellor, although I understand your concerns, I'd like to point out it is my responsiblity, so if there is fault it shall be mine. I'd also like to point out the following from Article II of our Constitution:
As the Speaker of the Senate I determined that we have to apply a different rule to our proceedings, because as I said before, we are on the clock here. My reasons for this were the following: 1. This bill is a procedural one, its existance is tied to another, already passed and thoroughly debated bill (our new constitution), and will cease to exist after it helped us determine the legitimacy of that bill. 2. We have an active and constructive Senate, so as the Speaker I find it that even with a shorter time frame we can have the needed checking and input of Senators. 3. We have and will have a sufficient appeal system if anyone find it 'illegal' just because we rush it. According to (18) from Article II of the Constituion, if I will get any "petition to delay, amend or block a proposed bill or act is submitted to the public gallery" about this issue, I will immediately put it to a hold. We also have the Office of Accountability to ask about this issue. We also have a High Court, I guess, that can "provide advice on the constitutional legality of any matter brought before it" (40 from Article IV of the Constitution) So my oppinion as the Speaker is this: If there will be an official complaint against our proceeding on this issue, we will have to comply, but otherwise I used my authority given by (21) as a member and Speaker of the Senate to determine a bit different rule on this particular case of proceeding. |
|||
| CGJ | 10th October 2015 - 07:46 PM Post #19 | |||
![]()
Franz Kaufmann (1886-1944)
|
I didn't want to drag this out (honest!), but as someone who's spent an awful lot of time working on the current Constitution, I don't really like it being bent deliberately. People make honest mistakes *cough*me*cough*, but let me explain:
1. Legally there are two types of Bill: Regular Bills (RBs) and Constitutional Bills (CBs). Constitutionally 'Procedural Bills' do not exist. If anything one could argue that this is a CB (since it enacts/repeals another CB), but since the previous CB gives provision this Bill, passing it off as an RB (I think) is acceptable as it does not directly alter the Constitution beyond what has already been provided for in a CB. However, it cannot be passed off as anything less than an RB. It is not a piece of secondary legislation (a.k.a Order-in-Council), it is a bill that, even when repealed, will come into force like every other Bill – as equal and as valid as the rest. 2. We may have an active and constructive Senate – but that was exactly why the three day rule was introduced. Bills were being rushed through. I'm not suggesting this is being rushed (though I could probably find at least 3 minor amendments required), but the simple fact that we have an active Senate is not a real reason as to circumvent the rules – because an overactive Senate is exactly the reason they were introduced in the first place. 3. We have many avenues to delay the Bill. But to bring it before the Courts would push it back until 2016 and I don't think anybody wants that. It would be helpful, therefore, to just follow the rules as they are written.
Consider this a formal complaint, then. Section (21) of the Constitution allows the Senate to determine the rules of its proceedings, but only insofar as is compliant with the rest of the Constitution. The meaning of that particular section is, was, and will be until those words are used no more: where the Constitution hasn't included it, work it out yourself. Either that or a Speaker could use Section (21) to override Sections 14-20 whenever they pleased – and that most certainly was not the intention of Section (21). Therefore, as Section (18) specifically prescribes that "Any proposed bill or act shall be debated in the Senate for no less than three (3) days" before a "Senator may move to vote on the bill", Section (21) cannot be used to override this. |
|||
| ||||
| Tytor | 10th October 2015 - 08:30 PM Post #20 | |||
![]()
|
Since this is in the Public Gallery, I think I can pop in here, but feel free to let me know if I'm mistaken. Anyway, as a former Senator (and Speaker) myself, I think that what CGJ's pointed out hits the nail on the head, so to speak. The minimum debate time is in the Constitution for a reason, and does not include the words "unless overridden by a whim of the Senate". While it might seem like a nice idea to push this act faster than is constitutionally allowed, it is important to remember that the document has not actually been replaced yet, and it does, in fact, remain in force until or unless that occurs, which is what this act is intended to find out. So yeah, let's please try not to create a situation where the Senate could be prosecuted for acting outside its established boundaries. |
|||
|
His Majesty Michael the First, by the Grace of God, King of Tytor and her Colonies, and Lord Protector of Floodwater His Excellency Juvenal Massaquoi, President of Ubakasa, Protector of the Revolution, and Father of His People Factbook -- News -- Press Office Former Governor-General of The Infinite Alliance Former Ambassador to Albion and the Global Right Alliance Former Vice Premier and Speaker of the Senate of the Independent Order Professional Procrastinator In firm opposition to Donald Trump's inevitable reelection campaign in 2020 Non-partisan and proud of it "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire | ||||
| Achkaerin | 10th October 2015 - 08:43 PM Post #21 | |||
![]()
|
Ok that's enough. The interpretation of the Constitution falls within the remit of the Attorney General, and as the Attorney General my interpretation falls broadly in line with that of the Vice Chancellor. There is no doubt that section 18 of the Constitution prevails over section 21, since the procedure is clearly established in 18. The issue is that when I drafted this piece of legislation I checked the dates of the term and put the referendum as late as I could in the term whilst still allowing time for the election cycle in the event that it passes, then factoring in the 14 day campaign time which is perfectly reasonable I found that we were looking at needing the campaign's to start on the 13th which is Monday. Now experienced Senators will realize that the debating period and voting period are conventionally three days meaning a combined total of six days, in this instance we do not have the luxury of that amount of time. Knowing that section 18 was potentially going to pose a problem I consulted with the Grand Chancellor explaining that due to us being on the clock this was a problem, going by the three day rule this can to vote tomorrow evening. It can only go to vote tomorrow evening (and even then only in accordance with section 18), it's important after all to get the referendum on time, that this Act now that wording is agreed clears the Senate quickly. I'd also like to add this rather unconventional suggestion- if on Monday evening (and with all my timings I'm talking UK time) this Act is at vote with a majority in favor i.e. 3/5 then I would suggest that the Speaker at that point close the vote so that it can in accordance with the Constitution be presented to the Grand Chancellor for signature (4/5 would negate this). |
|||
| ||||
| CGJ | 10th October 2015 - 09:27 PM Post #22 | |||
![]()
Franz Kaufmann (1886-1944)
|
We have three days to debate. So if the debating period ends on Monday, and all Senators vote that day (or the day after), then the vote can be closed early. We can't close a vote before all Senators have voted (or the time has elapsed). |
|||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 10th October 2015 - 09:32 PM Post #23 | |||
![]()
|
Just so we're clear can the Vice Chancellor point out the specific piece of legislation that states that there's a fixed voting period? Because if that does not exist (and I can't find it) then I believe section 21 would apply in that instance. Meaning that we would have the debate for three days (as per section 18) and then we can have the vote and unless there is legislation that fixes that and states it then we would be able under section 21 of the constitution to have a shorter voting period. Edited by Achkaerin, 10th October 2015 - 09:36 PM.
|
|||
| ||||
| zachpack11 | 11th October 2015 - 12:17 AM Post #24 | |||
![]()
Indisputeable Emperor of Anarchy
|
Well, if we all agreed to pass the bill, whatever, if all senators are in agreement, what's the reason to debate. However, Cool has yet to voice his opinion, so we should wait until our 3 days is up. | |||
| CGJ | 11th October 2015 - 01:43 AM Post #25 | |||
![]()
Franz Kaufmann (1886-1944)
|
Oh, my apologies – generally we leave 48 hours for voting, but it's not written specifically into the Constitution. I'd still recommend 48 hours, then closing it when all members have voted (or at the end of 48 hours). Anything less doesn't seem appropriate. |
|||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 12th October 2015 - 08:06 PM Post #26 | |||
![]()
|
Ok let's try this again... I move that this Bill be put to vote. |
|||
| ||||
| DaveIronside | 12th October 2015 - 10:10 PM Post #27 | |||
![]()
Bendix Landau (1880-1939)
|
me too....seconded | |||
| ||||
| Morganus | 12th October 2015 - 10:23 PM Post #28 | |||
![]()
|
Seconded | |||
| Achkaerin | 12th October 2015 - 10:38 PM Post #29 | |||
![]()
|
Ok that's a majority to put the vote. I'm just going to note as a reminder at this point for the Speaker's benefit that when the vote is put the Act stands as it is with the amendment of section 21(a) being struck out and the rest of the lettered points in that section being relabeled accordingly. |
|||
| ||||
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | ||||
| « Previous Topic · Public Gallery · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
^ 12:46 AM Jul 11
|
May the force be with you.













