Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

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


Getting you started...
News and Announcements
Government
Regional Assembly Business
Introduce yourself!

Claim your spot on the map

Join the Regional Assembly

Check out the Hall of Guidance

Get involved in some Open Roleplays
Donate to our Recruitment Program

Time until The Independent Order's Fourth Birthday:

Grand Chancellor: Beatrice
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
Votes:
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.

Username:   Password:
Debate: Regional Governance (Referendum) Act (2015); About the Referendum to be held
Topic Started: 9th October 2015 - 10:22 PM (851 Views)
Morganus
Member Avatar

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!

Quote:
 
Regional Governance (Referendum) Act (2015)

An act to make provision for the holding of a referendum on the question of the Regional Governance Act (2015).


Short Title

(1) This act may be referred to as the Regional Governance (Referendum) Act (2015).

The Referendum

(2) A referendum is to be held on a question about the Regional Governance Act (2015) (herein ’The Act’).

(3) The question is–
“Should the Regional Governance Act (2015) come into force?”

(4) Members of the Independent Order may vote in the affirmative (Yes), negative (No), or cast an abstention (Abstain).

(5) The referendum shall be conducted by the Grand Chancellor, in accordance with set procedure.

(6) The dates on which the poll at the referendum is to be held are 27-28 October 2015, unless before then an order is made under Section (7).

(7) The Grand Chancellor may, by Order, appoint later days (being no later than 21-22 November 2015) as the days on which he poll at the referendum is to be held.

(8) Section (7) applies if the Grand Chancellor, with the advice of the Premier, is satisfied:
(a) That it is impossible or impracticable for the poll at the referendum to be held on 27-28 October 2015, or
(b) That it cannot be conducted properly if held on these dates.

Franchise

(9) A member shall be entitled to vote in the referendum if, on the date on which the poll at the referendum is held, the member has—
(a) Been a member of the Independent Order for no less than fourteen (14) days;
(b) Made no less than six (6) non-spam posts on the forum;
(c) Made at least three (3) posts in the previous fourteen (14) days; and
(d) not been otherwise excluded from voting in Senate elections.

(10) The Grand Chancellor may amend Section (9), by Order, with the advice of the Premier, should they be satisfied that this Act does not provide sufficient safeguards against abuse of the referendum process.

Postal voting

(11) Should a member be unable to vote in the referendum, due to a declared leave of absence, a member may notify the Grand Chancellor, or any appointed person by Order, of their intention to vote prior to the opening of the poll, and upon receiving assent from the Grand Chancellor or appointed person, may cast their vote by private message prior to the opening of the poll.

(12) Upon the opening of polls, the Grand Chancellor, or appointed person, shall formally list the members voting by post and the way in which they voted. Postal votes shall have the same authority.

Result

(13) The result of the referendum shall be counted and declared by the Grand Chancellor.

(14) Should at least fifty per cent (50%) of members voting, excluding those casting an abstention, vote affirmatively, then the Grand Chancellor shall, by Order bring the Act into force on the 1st November 2015.

(15) Should more than fifty per cent (50%) of members voting, excluding those casting an abstention, vote in the negative, then the Act shall, by Order, be repealed with immediate effect.

Campaigning

(16) There shall be two official campaign groups, one advocating an affirmative vote, and one advocating a negative vote,.

(17) Appropriate provision shall be made to allow members of these two official campaign groups to organise and implement a strategy to campaign in favour of their desired cause.

(18) Provisions in Section (17) shall be implemented as soon as reasonably possible.

(19) A campaign period of fourteen (14) days prior to the opening of polls shall be allotted for members of both campaigns to convince members of their cause.

(20) During the campaign period, and during the polling days, campaigners shall be entitled to:–
(a) Post in the Politics and Elections forum (and any relevant subforum);
(b) Alter their avatar, signature or Custom Profile field;
(c) Send private messages to members of the Independent Order; and
(d) Post messages in the forum Shoutbox or any other relevant location.

(21) Campaigners shall not be entitled, at any point, to:-
(a) Post in the Regional Message Board to promote their campaign in any way;
(b) Promote their campaign by posting in non-relevant forums or topics;
(c) Act contrary to the Constitution of the Independent Order or Criminal Code (2013);
(d) Spam the forum Shoutbox with campaign messages; or
(e) Use the the forum email function to promote their campaign in any way.

(22) The Grand Chancellor may amend Sections (20) and (21), by Order, with the advice of the Premier, should they be satisfied that this Act does not provide sufficient safeguards against abuse of the referendum or campaigning process.

(23) Members campaigning for an alternative outcome, or campaigning for one of the stated outcomes but who do not wish to join either official campaign group, must remain compliant with Sections (20) and (21), but no provisions under Section (17) need to be made by the Grand Chancellor in relation to their campaign.

Repeal

(24) This Act ceases to have effect on 30th November 2015, or when either Sections (14) or (15) have been brought into force, whichever is sooner.
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
DaveIronside
Member Avatar
Bendix Landau (1880-1939)
Take out 21a and I'm happy
Posted Image
"Togetherness Is Strength"
May The Gods Watch Over You and Your Aim Be True
Factbook


Military Awards and Commendations
Posted Image
Infinite Alliance Liberation Medal
Posted Image
"Stand Firm and Strike Hard"
Factbook of Mercia
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Achkaerin
Member Avatar

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.

Also Dave you're going to have to explain why that should come out because I can see at least one major issue if this were campaigned about on the RMB

Having re-read the Act I strike the relevant statement.
Edited by Achkaerin, 9th October 2015 - 10:35 PM.
Posted Image
The Rt. Hon Achkaerin PC
Marquess, Lord Chief Justice,
TIO Cartographer, Sports Coordinator

National Roleplay
Achkaerin Chronicles (Vignettes)
Isanity (Vignettes)
Maestro, Muse and Expressionism (Specialist Vignette)
Encyclopedia Achkaerin
Who's Who? (Characters)
Achkaerin News Service
Achkaerin Press Office


Legal LegislationJPSE Act
Judiciary Act


Other FictionDetective Jack Sullivan Stories

Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Morganus
Member Avatar

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.
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Achkaerin
Member Avatar

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.
Posted Image
The Rt. Hon Achkaerin PC
Marquess, Lord Chief Justice,
TIO Cartographer, Sports Coordinator

National Roleplay
Achkaerin Chronicles (Vignettes)
Isanity (Vignettes)
Maestro, Muse and Expressionism (Specialist Vignette)
Encyclopedia Achkaerin
Who's Who? (Characters)
Achkaerin News Service
Achkaerin Press Office


Legal LegislationJPSE Act
Judiciary Act


Other FictionDetective Jack Sullivan Stories

Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Morganus
Member Avatar

True, section 9 is reasonable if 21(a) is no more.
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Achkaerin
Member Avatar

Well if everyone's happy we can consider 21(a) struck out.
Posted Image
The Rt. Hon Achkaerin PC
Marquess, Lord Chief Justice,
TIO Cartographer, Sports Coordinator

National Roleplay
Achkaerin Chronicles (Vignettes)
Isanity (Vignettes)
Maestro, Muse and Expressionism (Specialist Vignette)
Encyclopedia Achkaerin
Who's Who? (Characters)
Achkaerin News Service
Achkaerin Press Office


Legal LegislationJPSE Act
Judiciary Act


Other FictionDetective Jack Sullivan Stories

Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
DaveIronside
Member Avatar
Bendix Landau (1880-1939)
Then I support the act
Posted Image
"Togetherness Is Strength"
May The Gods Watch Over You and Your Aim Be True
Factbook


Military Awards and Commendations
Posted Image
Infinite Alliance Liberation Medal
Posted Image
"Stand Firm and Strike Hard"
Factbook of Mercia
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
zachpack11
Member Avatar
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.
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Morganus
Member Avatar

Can we move it to a vote then?
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Achkaerin
Member Avatar

This is where we run into a bit of an issue. The Constitution states:

Constitution
 
(18) Any proposed bill or act shall be debated in the Senate for no less than three (3) days, after such time any Senator may move to vote on the bill. If a majority of the Senate supports the motion, the Speaker must move the bill to vote within twenty-four (24) hours.


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.
Posted Image
The Rt. Hon Achkaerin PC
Marquess, Lord Chief Justice,
TIO Cartographer, Sports Coordinator

National Roleplay
Achkaerin Chronicles (Vignettes)
Isanity (Vignettes)
Maestro, Muse and Expressionism (Specialist Vignette)
Encyclopedia Achkaerin
Who's Who? (Characters)
Achkaerin News Service
Achkaerin Press Office


Legal LegislationJPSE Act
Judiciary Act


Other FictionDetective Jack Sullivan Stories

Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
DaveIronside
Member Avatar
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.
Posted Image
"Togetherness Is Strength"
May The Gods Watch Over You and Your Aim Be True
Factbook


Military Awards and Commendations
Posted Image
Infinite Alliance Liberation Medal
Posted Image
"Stand Firm and Strike Hard"
Factbook of Mercia
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Beatrice
Member Avatar

DaveIronside
10th October 2015 - 11:13 AM
As the majority of the Senate support the motion then surely the second part applies and the vote can take place.
I would concur with this interpretation, and would not move against an affirmative vote to enact this Act.
Posted ImagePosted Image
Beatrice Anselmo
Marchioness, Grand Chancellor of the Independent Order
Empress of the First Empire of Rokkenjima

Rokkenjiman Factbook | RBC | Office of the Press
Gadshack: "As Premier you end up doing everyone yourself"
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Achkaerin
Member Avatar

Well with the Grand Chancellor's agreement. *clears throat*

I move that this Bill be put to vote.
Posted Image
The Rt. Hon Achkaerin PC
Marquess, Lord Chief Justice,
TIO Cartographer, Sports Coordinator

National Roleplay
Achkaerin Chronicles (Vignettes)
Isanity (Vignettes)
Maestro, Muse and Expressionism (Specialist Vignette)
Encyclopedia Achkaerin
Who's Who? (Characters)
Achkaerin News Service
Achkaerin Press Office


Legal LegislationJPSE Act
Judiciary Act


Other FictionDetective Jack Sullivan Stories

Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Morganus
Member Avatar

Seconded.
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
CGJ
Member Avatar
Franz Kaufmann (1886-1944)
Beatrice
10th October 2015 - 03:10 PM
DaveIronside
10th October 2015 - 11:13 AM
As the majority of the Senate support the motion then surely the second part applies and the vote can take place.
I would concur with this interpretation, and would not move against an affirmative vote to enact this Act.
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.
Posted ImageThe Most Honourable Marquess CGJ PC
Vice Chancellor


Coauthor of the Order's most viewed vignette series: Beaxander, as well as BeaXtra, 50 Shades of Chalk and Beaxotica.

Submitted Legislation

The Kingdom of Dartfordia (Factbook - Vignettes - News - Press Office)
Founding member of the Cross-Straits Treaty Alliance (CSTO), Commonwealth Treaty Organisation (CTO) and Congress of Albion (PAC).
Member of the Cultural Exchange Treaty Organisation (CETO).
Signatory to the Mundus Convention on Universal Rights (MCUR), Fair Seas Concordat (FSC) and Uppsala Convention.
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Achkaerin
Member Avatar

This was my issue as well, which is why I asked for the Grand Chancellor's opinion.
Posted Image
The Rt. Hon Achkaerin PC
Marquess, Lord Chief Justice,
TIO Cartographer, Sports Coordinator

National Roleplay
Achkaerin Chronicles (Vignettes)
Isanity (Vignettes)
Maestro, Muse and Expressionism (Specialist Vignette)
Encyclopedia Achkaerin
Who's Who? (Characters)
Achkaerin News Service
Achkaerin Press Office


Legal LegislationJPSE Act
Judiciary Act


Other FictionDetective Jack Sullivan Stories

Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Morganus
Member Avatar

CGJ
10th October 2015 - 04:45 PM
Beatrice
10th October 2015 - 03:10 PM
DaveIronside
10th October 2015 - 11:13 AM
As the majority of the Senate support the motion then surely the second part applies and the vote can take place.
I would concur with this interpretation, and would not move against an affirmative vote to enact this Act.
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.
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:

Quote:
 
(21) The Senate may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of its members, expel a member.


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.
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
CGJ
Member Avatar
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:

Morganus
 
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)


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.

Morganus
 
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.


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.
Posted ImageThe Most Honourable Marquess CGJ PC
Vice Chancellor


Coauthor of the Order's most viewed vignette series: Beaxander, as well as BeaXtra, 50 Shades of Chalk and Beaxotica.

Submitted Legislation

The Kingdom of Dartfordia (Factbook - Vignettes - News - Press Office)
Founding member of the Cross-Straits Treaty Alliance (CSTO), Commonwealth Treaty Organisation (CTO) and Congress of Albion (PAC).
Member of the Cultural Exchange Treaty Organisation (CETO).
Signatory to the Mundus Convention on Universal Rights (MCUR), Fair Seas Concordat (FSC) and Uppsala Convention.
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Tytor
Member Avatar

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
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Achkaerin
Member Avatar

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).
Posted Image
The Rt. Hon Achkaerin PC
Marquess, Lord Chief Justice,
TIO Cartographer, Sports Coordinator

National Roleplay
Achkaerin Chronicles (Vignettes)
Isanity (Vignettes)
Maestro, Muse and Expressionism (Specialist Vignette)
Encyclopedia Achkaerin
Who's Who? (Characters)
Achkaerin News Service
Achkaerin Press Office


Legal LegislationJPSE Act
Judiciary Act


Other FictionDetective Jack Sullivan Stories

Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
CGJ
Member Avatar
Franz Kaufmann (1886-1944)
Achkaerin
 
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).


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).
Posted ImageThe Most Honourable Marquess CGJ PC
Vice Chancellor


Coauthor of the Order's most viewed vignette series: Beaxander, as well as BeaXtra, 50 Shades of Chalk and Beaxotica.

Submitted Legislation

The Kingdom of Dartfordia (Factbook - Vignettes - News - Press Office)
Founding member of the Cross-Straits Treaty Alliance (CSTO), Commonwealth Treaty Organisation (CTO) and Congress of Albion (PAC).
Member of the Cultural Exchange Treaty Organisation (CETO).
Signatory to the Mundus Convention on Universal Rights (MCUR), Fair Seas Concordat (FSC) and Uppsala Convention.
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Achkaerin
Member Avatar

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.
Posted Image
The Rt. Hon Achkaerin PC
Marquess, Lord Chief Justice,
TIO Cartographer, Sports Coordinator

National Roleplay
Achkaerin Chronicles (Vignettes)
Isanity (Vignettes)
Maestro, Muse and Expressionism (Specialist Vignette)
Encyclopedia Achkaerin
Who's Who? (Characters)
Achkaerin News Service
Achkaerin Press Office


Legal LegislationJPSE Act
Judiciary Act


Other FictionDetective Jack Sullivan Stories

Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
zachpack11
Member Avatar
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.
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
CGJ
Member Avatar
Franz Kaufmann (1886-1944)
Achkaerin
10th October 2015 - 09:32 PM
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.
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.
Posted ImageThe Most Honourable Marquess CGJ PC
Vice Chancellor


Coauthor of the Order's most viewed vignette series: Beaxander, as well as BeaXtra, 50 Shades of Chalk and Beaxotica.

Submitted Legislation

The Kingdom of Dartfordia (Factbook - Vignettes - News - Press Office)
Founding member of the Cross-Straits Treaty Alliance (CSTO), Commonwealth Treaty Organisation (CTO) and Congress of Albion (PAC).
Member of the Cultural Exchange Treaty Organisation (CETO).
Signatory to the Mundus Convention on Universal Rights (MCUR), Fair Seas Concordat (FSC) and Uppsala Convention.
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Achkaerin
Member Avatar

Ok let's try this again...

I move that this Bill be put to vote.
Posted Image
The Rt. Hon Achkaerin PC
Marquess, Lord Chief Justice,
TIO Cartographer, Sports Coordinator

National Roleplay
Achkaerin Chronicles (Vignettes)
Isanity (Vignettes)
Maestro, Muse and Expressionism (Specialist Vignette)
Encyclopedia Achkaerin
Who's Who? (Characters)
Achkaerin News Service
Achkaerin Press Office


Legal LegislationJPSE Act
Judiciary Act


Other FictionDetective Jack Sullivan Stories

Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
DaveIronside
Member Avatar
Bendix Landau (1880-1939)
me too....seconded
Posted Image
"Togetherness Is Strength"
May The Gods Watch Over You and Your Aim Be True
Factbook


Military Awards and Commendations
Posted Image
Infinite Alliance Liberation Medal
Posted Image
"Stand Firm and Strike Hard"
Factbook of Mercia
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Morganus
Member Avatar

Seconded
Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
Achkaerin
Member Avatar

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.
Posted Image
The Rt. Hon Achkaerin PC
Marquess, Lord Chief Justice,
TIO Cartographer, Sports Coordinator

National Roleplay
Achkaerin Chronicles (Vignettes)
Isanity (Vignettes)
Maestro, Muse and Expressionism (Specialist Vignette)
Encyclopedia Achkaerin
Who's Who? (Characters)
Achkaerin News Service
Achkaerin Press Office


Legal LegislationJPSE Act
Judiciary Act


Other FictionDetective Jack Sullivan Stories

Off | --
Profile
Quote
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Public Gallery · Next Topic »

May the force be with you.