|
|
Post by Everestopia on Mar 10, 2015 21:23:34 GMT
Thanks. But I'm not trying to patch up loopholes I'm trying to prevent them. The CONST is flawed in that it does not express those things which you mentioned and needs to. So I commend this Bill for even pointing this out. Although, I stand firm with my reasoning as to the legality of this Bill. My problem is not with the creation of new offices. My problem with the power this office is hoping to have, being the veto. My arguments are all aimed at the fact that the HoP's veto power needs to be a added to the CONS as an Amendment. Yes, it's the CONST that I am looking to fix while at the same time pointing out that you need to fix the CONST before this Bill is passed. Because the veto power is rested solely in the Chancellor. So any other office having such a power in legislative affairs needs to be affirmed in the CONST first. Ruclax does hold a very good point. I hereby withdraw my Endorsement until further notice. |
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 10, 2015 21:37:44 GMT
Thanks. But I'm not trying to patch up loopholes I'm trying to prevent them. The CONST is flawed in that it does not express those things which you mentioned and needs to. So I commend this Bill for even pointing this out. Although, I stand firm with my reasoning as to the legality of this Bill. My problem is not with the creation of new offices. My problem with the power this office is hoping to have, being the veto. My arguments are all aimed at the fact that the HoP's veto power needs to be a added to the CONS as an Amendment. Yes, it's the CONST that I am looking to fix while at the same time pointing out that you need to fix the CONST before this Bill is passed. Because the veto power is rested solely in the Chancellor. So any other office having such a power in legislative affairs needs to be affirmed in the CONST first. It isn't explicitly said that new offices need to be added to the constitution. It also isn't stated that all offices with veto powers need to be included in the constitution. It also doesn't say that the Chancellor is the only sole veto power allowed in the region. I don't know what I can tell you. The constitution overlooking this issue isn't my problem, this bill can't be held responsible just because the creators of the constitution didn't include a clause about office creation and whether or not the chancellor is the sole veto holder. The notion of it is simply ludicrous. |
|
|
|
Post by Jaslandia on Mar 10, 2015 23:14:46 GMT
While I approve of the general concept of the bill, like Ruclax, I am a bit uncertain about the HoP's power to veto. Until I feel that issue is resolved, I hereby abstain from voting on this bill.
|
|
Ruclax
Court Administrator
Posts: 328 
WA Member: Yes
CFN Political Party: Liberal Party
|
Post by Ruclax on Mar 11, 2015 3:32:09 GMT
Thanks. But I'm not trying to patch up loopholes I'm trying to prevent them. The CONST is flawed in that it does not express those things which you mentioned and needs to. So I commend this Bill for even pointing this out. Although, I stand firm with my reasoning as to the legality of this Bill. My problem is not with the creation of new offices. My problem with the power this office is hoping to have, being the veto. My arguments are all aimed at the fact that the HoP's veto power needs to be a added to the CONS as an Amendment. Yes, it's the CONST that I am looking to fix while at the same time pointing out that you need to fix the CONST before this Bill is passed. Because the veto power is rested solely in the Chancellor. So any other office having such a power in legislative affairs needs to be affirmed in the CONST first. It isn't explicitly said that new offices need to be added to the constitution. It also isn't stated that all offices with veto powers need to be included in the constitution. It also doesn't say that the Chancellor is the only sole veto power allowed in the region. I don't know what I can tell you. The constitution overlooking this issue isn't my problem, this bill can't be held responsible just because the creators of the constitution didn't include a clause about office creation and whether or not the chancellor is the sole veto holder. The notion of it is simply ludicrous. Again, with respect to you Sir. I will have to restate what I already said in earlier replies as to why. Creating offices is not the problem. Giving a new office veto power over legislation is. Once again, the Chancellor is the sole person who holds veto power. The Consiituion does not uses the term veto anywhere else but in association with the Chancellor. And it is his right to do so. In addition to this his veto power is part of the entire government mechanism. The Parliament proposes, votes, it's ascended to the Cabinet and the Chancellor signs or vetos. To add a third party to that system to me is ludicrous, to make the point to you. Why mess with a system that works and that is legally sound. I am not going to go over why exactly this is not legal. I have already said explicitly why in my earlier replies. You want this Bill to pass...you need to amend the CONST first to make room for a third party who is involved in the parliamentary process and who can veto Bills. If this Bill is passed though, I will bring this to the Supreme Court for a vote on it's legality and you can be sure my vote will be nay. Other than this, I have no more to say to the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 11, 2015 8:15:21 GMT
It isn't explicitly said that new offices need to be added to the constitution. It also isn't stated that all offices with veto powers need to be included in the constitution. It also doesn't say that the Chancellor is the only sole veto power allowed in the region. I don't know what I can tell you. The constitution overlooking this issue isn't my problem, this bill can't be held responsible just because the creators of the constitution didn't include a clause about office creation and whether or not the chancellor is the sole veto holder. The notion of it is simply ludicrous. Again, with respect to you Sir. I will have to restate what I already said in earlier replies as to why. Creating offices is not the problem. Giving a new office veto power over legislation is. Once again, the Chancellor is the sole person who holds veto power. The Consiituion does not uses the term veto anywhere else but in association with the Chancellor. And it is his right to do so. In addition to this his veto power is part of the entire government mechanism. The Parliament proposes, votes, it's ascended to the Cabinet and the Chancellor signs or vetos. To add a third party to that system to me is ludicrous, to make the point to you. Why mess with a system that works and that is legally sound. I am not going to go over why exactly this is not legal. I have already said explicitly why in my earlier replies. You want this Bill to pass...you need to amend the CONST first to make room for a third party who is involved in the parliamentary process and who can veto Bills. If this Bill is passed though, I will bring this to the Supreme Court for a vote on it's legality and you can be sure my vote will be nay. Other than this, I have no more to say to the matter. Whatever you think of doing given your present involvement I would object to you being on the deciding committee presiding over this bill's legality. |
|
|
|
Post by Vladovaskia on Mar 11, 2015 18:18:05 GMT
I agree with Ruclax, and I hereby denounce this bill.
For one, the MoI already holds the Head of Parliament position.
For two, this seems like another attempt to sway democracy via party politics.
Also, to solidify Ruclax's claim, the interpretation of the Constitution is solely for the Supreme Court. Our interpretation is final, and if needed, this bill will be called for review, as it does seem to violate several clauses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vladovaskia on Mar 11, 2015 18:22:46 GMT
Also, this bill is adding another office, which would need to be stated in the Constitution, meaning the bill itself does not have the power to do that.
If you were creating an executive department of sorts, like the Department of Culture or whatever, that would be fine, as it's simply a bureaucratic organization to handle Cabinet issues, led by the Cabinet. This, however, puts executive power directly into the hands of a political party, overriding even the Chancellor, and overriding the democratic process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 11, 2015 18:30:55 GMT
Also, this bill is adding another office, which would need to be stated in the Constitution, meaning the bill itself does not have the power to do that. If you were creating an executive department of sorts, like the Department of Culture or whatever, that would be fine, as it's simply a bureaucratic organization to handle Cabinet issues, led by the Cabinet. This, however, puts executive power directly into the hands of a political party, overriding even the Chancellor, and overriding the democratic process. The 'it hurts democracy' statement was bound to be brought up sometime. This bill is extremely specific in regards to how the position is handled and who it is given to. The position gives the most power to the average party member, not to the leaders. What do you do if your party leader isn't representing your views? You leave. Enough people leave and the HoP must resign and the position but be re-assigned by the new largest party. That seems like a good deal to me. This position is easier to remove someone from than any cabinet position or the chancellery. It can happen literally overnight. But yeah. You just pull the undemocratic card on it because a region-wide election isn't held every 2 months. In regards to the constitutional dispute, I'll continue to host this as a bill until such time as it passes the 1 week mark. If it is called into court I will gladly defend it to the best of my abilities and, failing that, propose it as as a constitutional amendment anyway. However, I thoroughly believe the failing of the constitution to account for bills such as this should not be used as a way to depose and remove this bill. |
|
|
|
Post by Vladovaskia on Mar 11, 2015 18:52:19 GMT
Also, this bill is adding another office, which would need to be stated in the Constitution, meaning the bill itself does not have the power to do that. If you were creating an executive department of sorts, like the Department of Culture or whatever, that would be fine, as it's simply a bureaucratic organization to handle Cabinet issues, led by the Cabinet. This, however, puts executive power directly into the hands of a political party, overriding even the Chancellor, and overriding the democratic process. The 'it hurts democracy' statement was bound to be brought up sometime. This bill is extremely specific in regards to how the position is handled and who it is given to. The position gives the most power to the average party member, not to the leaders. What do you do if your party leader isn't representing your views? You leave. Enough people leave and the HoP must resign and the position but be re-assigned by the new largest party. That seems like a good deal to me. This position is easier to remove someone from than any cabinet position or the chancellery. It can happen literally overnight. But yeah. You just pull the undemocratic card on it because a region-wide election isn't held every 2 months. In regards to the constitutional dispute, I'll continue to host this as a bill until such time as it passes the 1 week mark. If it is called into court I will gladly defend it to the best of my abilities and, failing that, propose it as as a constitutional amendment anyway. However, I thoroughly believe the failing of the constitution to account for bills such as this should not be used as a way to depose and remove this bill. The 'undemocratic' clause you speak of is a real threat. No matter what you say, this bill is still attempting to garner power, more power than the Chancellor almost, for a position which is not publicly voted upon. I'd rather not trust in a supply and demand type system to manage that power. Also, the Constitution does not fail to accommodate such bills. It purposely doesn't accommodate them, as then it wouldn't be a very good Constitution, now would it? *cough*liquid clause*cough* The Constitution is a shield against these types of bills. I'd rather not continue to debate this, as Ruclax and I have both shown the general view of the Court, and after that, it is not our place to act as Justices in Parliament. If anyone has a question about the legality of this bill, I'm more than willing to answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 11, 2015 19:03:55 GMT
The 'it hurts democracy' statement was bound to be brought up sometime. This bill is extremely specific in regards to how the position is handled and who it is given to. The position gives the most power to the average party member, not to the leaders. What do you do if your party leader isn't representing your views? You leave. Enough people leave and the HoP must resign and the position but be re-assigned by the new largest party. That seems like a good deal to me. This position is easier to remove someone from than any cabinet position or the chancellery. It can happen literally overnight. But yeah. You just pull the undemocratic card on it because a region-wide election isn't held every 2 months. In regards to the constitutional dispute, I'll continue to host this as a bill until such time as it passes the 1 week mark. If it is called into court I will gladly defend it to the best of my abilities and, failing that, propose it as as a constitutional amendment anyway. However, I thoroughly believe the failing of the constitution to account for bills such as this should not be used as a way to depose and remove this bill. The 'undemocratic' clause you speak of is a real threat. No matter what you say, this bill is still attempting to garner power, more power than the Chancellor almost, for a position which is not publicly voted upon. I'd rather not trust in a supply and demand type system to manage that power. Also, the Constitution does not fail to accommodate such bills. It purposely doesn't accommodate them, as then it wouldn't be a very good Constitution, now would it? *cough*liquid clause*cough* The Constitution is a shield against these types of bills. I'd rather not continue to debate this, as Ruclax and I have both shown the general view of the Court, and after that, it is not our place to act as Justices in Parliament. If anyone has a question about the legality of this bill, I'm more than willing to answer. If it had accommodated these types of bills this discussion wouldn't need to happen. I'd argue that because the constitution fails to accommodate for a bill such as this that it has failed in an aspect of its purpose. I will repeat once again for the 11th time: The constitution does not say offices need to be established via amendment. The constitution does not say that veto powers may only be given to an office via constitutional amendment. Under those two statements I will stand under that this bill is sound and any quarrel you have with it's legality is due to a constitutional oversight of which this bill cannot be held accountable. I hate to disagree with the court on this one, but that's what I'm going to have to do. If attempting to give political parties a role in the region's politics is a crime then by God this region has bigger problems than constitutional oversights. |
|
|
|
Post by Vladovaskia on Mar 11, 2015 19:14:49 GMT
As Ruclax has said, the veto is only specified to the Chancellor. As I will enumerate upon that, the offices and workings of the government are also outlined. The UK wouldn't suddenly declare there to be 2 Prime Ministers; the same goes for the CFN.
Once again, if the Constitution allowed things like this, then we wouldn't have a Constitution. It would merely be an unorganized law code, complete with a legal tangle of messes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 11, 2015 19:33:09 GMT
As Ruclax has said, the veto is only specified to the Chancellor. As I will enumerate upon that, the offices and workings of the government are also outlined. The UK wouldn't suddenly declare there to be 2 Prime Ministers; the same goes for the CFN. Once again, if the Constitution allowed things like this, then we wouldn't have a Constitution. It would merely be an unorganized law code, complete with a legal tangle of messes. The UK has no single constitution . If a law passed declaring 2 prime ministers and no current law objects to this then there would be. An oversight in the Constitution has allowed this. The Veto is given to the chancellor, but it is not given only to the chancellor. "The Executive Veto is to be given to the Chancellor" If it said 'The executive veto is to be given ONLY to the Chancellor' then I would yield. However this is not the case. Plus no bill actually requires there to be an amendment for the establishment of another office. And yet again the 2 points still stand. The constitution does not disallow this bill. I'm not saying that it shouldn't disallow it. I believe offices should only be established via amendment, but it isn't in the constitution that this is required. So it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Vladovaskia on Mar 11, 2015 19:35:55 GMT
Well, this region isn't based around the UK. And, to end this, we are the Supreme Court. Our authority and interpretation is final, and if this bill needs to go for review, then we will see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 11, 2015 19:39:09 GMT
Well, this region isn't based around the UK. And, to end this, we are the Supreme Court. Our authority and interpretation is final, and if this bill needs to go for review, then we will see. I was fixing your example. Your both bias against this bill, you more so since you've in fact denounced it. Surely an independent commission will be set up? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trial |
|
|
|
Post by Vladovaskia on Mar 11, 2015 19:43:04 GMT
Well, this region isn't based around the UK. And, to end this, we are the Supreme Court. Our authority and interpretation is final, and if this bill needs to go for review, then we will see. I was fixing your example. Your both bias against this bill, you more so since you've in fact denounced it. Surely an independent commission will be set up? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trialNo, actually, because neither one of us are biased. We're both rightly Members of Parliament, and we have no association that would bias us. We don't like the bill because of it's legality. I actually was going to endorse it until I read the latter portion. Also, this isn't a trial. It's judicial review. Also also, you can't replace a Supreme Court Justice. |
|
