World Alliance
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

+7
Europe and Asia
New Tarajan
New-Zealand
Atletius
Planitan Commonwealth
Marquette (of Pacific)
Great Eurussia
11 posters

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Marquette (of Pacific) Fri Jan 24, 2014 11:57 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
So would you have the law repealed because it passed by one vote? What would that say to other regions if we took such an authoritarian route?

That is not what Aloia meant. He is not even referring to authoritarianism. Why would we even bothered by other regions when we are simply perorming checks and balances in accordance with own laws.
We request Marquette to stop making the court look like a forum for debates. As Speaker, we advice Marquette to focus on defending the law, however, we will not be surprised if the law has no basis to lean on, that is why we are questioning its constitutionality.

Are you blind? Atletius and New Tarajan have already argued the case for the bill beautifully, while you and Aloia are bringing us off topic.
Marquette (of Pacific)
Marquette (of Pacific)
Potential World Power

Posts : 597
Join date : 2013-04-16
Age : 24
Location : Snowy Minnesota

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Great Eurussia Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:08 pm

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
So would you have the law repealed because it passed by one vote? What would that say to other regions if we took such an authoritarian route?

That is not what Aloia meant. He is not even referring to authoritarianism. Why would we even bothered by other regions when we are simply perorming checks and balances in accordance with own laws.
We request Marquette to stop making the court look like a forum for debates. As Speaker, we advice Marquette to focus on defending the law, however, we will not be surprised if the law has no basis to lean on, that is why we are questioning its constitutionality.

Are you blind? Atletius and New Tarajan have already argued the case for the bill beautifully, while you and Aloia are bringing us off topic.

We are not talking about how it passed within the Parliament.
What we are discussing here are its legal grounds within the Constitution.
Great Eurussia
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  New-Zealand Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:22 pm

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
So would you have the law repealed because it passed by one vote? What would that say to other regions if we took such an authoritarian route?

That is not what Aloia meant. He is not even referring to authoritarianism. Why would we even bothered by other regions when we are simply perorming checks and balances in accordance with own laws.
We request Marquette to stop making the court look like a forum for debates. As Speaker, we advice Marquette to focus on defending the law, however, we will not be surprised if the law has no basis to lean on, that is why we are questioning its constitutionality.

Are you blind? Atletius and New Tarajan have already argued the case for the bill beautifully, while you and Aloia are bringing us off topic.

1) There's no need for the insults, let's keep this civil. 

2) You're missing the point of Eurussia's case. He's not arguing the procedure that was taken during the parliamentary voting period. He is arguing the constitutional legality of the law altogether.
New-Zealand
New-Zealand
Emerging Power

Posts : 973
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : New Zealand

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=new-zealand

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Marquette (of Pacific) Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:02 am

New-Zealand wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
So would you have the law repealed because it passed by one vote? What would that say to other regions if we took such an authoritarian route?

That is not what Aloia meant. He is not even referring to authoritarianism. Why would we even bothered by other regions when we are simply perorming checks and balances in accordance with own laws.
We request Marquette to stop making the court look like a forum for debates. As Speaker, we advice Marquette to focus on defending the law, however, we will not be surprised if the law has no basis to lean on, that is why we are questioning its constitutionality.

Are you blind? Atletius and New Tarajan have already argued the case for the bill beautifully, while you and Aloia are bringing us off topic.

1) There's no need for the insults, let's keep this civil. 

2) You're missing the point of Eurussia's case. He's not arguing the procedure that was taken during the parliamentary voting period. He is arguing the constitutional legality of the law altogether.

1) Blindness is not an insult, you should know that as you're the "equal rights" one.

2) I know that, and NT has already argued that.
Marquette (of Pacific)
Marquette (of Pacific)
Potential World Power

Posts : 597
Join date : 2013-04-16
Age : 24
Location : Snowy Minnesota

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Europe and Asia Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:12 am

The court requests that the prosecution and the defense remain civil. Furthermore, the court asks if both the prosecution and the defense have issued their final statements.
Europe and Asia
Europe and Asia
Emerging Power

Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 48
Location : Ann Arbor, MI

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Eurussian Position

Post  Great Eurussia Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:49 am

Europe and Asia wrote:The court requests that the prosecution and the defense remain civil. Furthermore, the court asks if both the prosecution and the defense have issued their final statements.

Eurussia, herein as the Secretary General of the World Alliance, is extremely confident of our arguments, statements, and the case itself, citing the persistent insults coming from Marquette, herein as the Speaker of the Parliament of the World Alliance, that instead of defending the issue, diverts the attention of us all to personal attacks that is unacceptable in all international diplomatic standards much more in due course in front of this honourable tribunal. Nevertheless, we leave it to the court to take these for consideration.

Nevertheless, here are our arguments:
Great Eurussia wrote:

SECRETARY GENERAL vs PARLIAMENT

Challenging the Legality of the Revocation of the New Year Land Grab
As a blatant and obvious violation of the World Alliance Constitution
In relation to the Land Grab 2014! Happy New Year Celebration!

Thus, the aforementioned law must be declared NULL & VOID!


In our desire to uphold the basic law of the region, and in our desire to strengthen the institutions of the WA Government which includes but not limited to the Secretary General, the Council, the Parliament, the Court of Justice, and the Delegate. We do not desire to shame the Members of the Parliament, in which we are a member therewith, nor accuse the proponent of the law, Marquette, with which we are both members of the WA Royalist Party, an incumbent bloc which has members in both the Council and Parliament.
It is our desire to CLARIFY the legality of the law, thus interpreting it under the court's understanding and consideration, and humbly asks the court to SUSPEND the implementation of the law until the resolution of this pending case.
And to put things on there proper perspective, we seek the clarification of the following powers of the Secretary General in contrast to the exercise of powers of the Parliament. As Article III of the Constitution versus that of Article V states that;
"The Secretary General, as the Founder of the World Alliance, is the sole executor of administrative powers over the World Alliance and may create administrative roles, if necessary; and has the power to ban and eject any member state, which can be overturned by the Court of Justice, provided that there is a minimum endorsement from fifteen member states, as certified by the head of the Court of Justice, or there is a minimum endorsement from ten member states and an endorsement from the Delegate."
"The Parliament is the sole legislature of the World Alliance composed of twenty elected seats distributed via proportional representation whose terms of office are three months and where proposals must be approved by simple majority, within three days, to become a law. It must be headed by the Speaker, elected by the Parliament itself, which is also the tie breaker and successor to the President of the Council, in case of resignation."

As we deeply respect the Parliament, being a part thereof, notwithstanding our constitutional duty to maintain the efficiency and enjoyment of the region being the Secretary General, it is our belief that having INVOKED those provisions of the constitution, the Land Grab 2014, which is just a celebratory act of the region for the New Year, is solely under the discretion of the Secretary General notwithstanding the rules and guidelines implemented thereof to ensure equal opportunity for all, as prescribed in the Constitution.
Not to mention, that since ALL NATIONS, have regularly seek permission to the MAP ADMINISTRATOR, which is in this case is the Secretary General with the help of Dromoda, that whenever changes has to be done on the map, it is the discretion, as protected by the Constitution, of the Secretary General in deciding the management of the map. Notwithstanding the FACT, that since nations have enjoyed and accepted this system and in belief of fairness due to the existing guidelines thereof, the law have violated as well the following rights of ALL inviolable under the WA Constitution.
Right to exist - as nations have willingly participated in the Land Grab 2014, thus, in effect, accepting the rules and guidelines thereof and NO LAW can simply revoke what they possess already as nations only followed the guidelines of the Land Grab 2014.
Right to self determination - as nations have chosen to participate in the Land Grab 2014, thus, in effect, NO LAW can simple revoke their territories already approved in the map.
Right to due process and fair trial - as nations have only followed the rules and guidelines of the Land Grab 2014, thus, in effect, NO LAW must infringe their rights to revoke all the claims and lands they have just because the Parliament says so.

Hence, we rest our case and hopes for the court's constitutional verdict. We believe on the strength of our case, in ALL aspects. Thank you.

In addition to this, the statement coming from the Speaker of Parliament himself:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:Eurussia, your case does not have any sound evidence or proof to support it. By passing the law, we did not infringe on anyone's right to exist, as we did not prevent any nations from claiming land and we did not advocate for or carry out in the mass murders of anyone. Everyone still exists...

The right of Self Determination is extremely vague to begin with, and you cannot just define it in this court where it suits you. No law or clause in the constitution says we cannot revoke territories already approved by the administrator. And besides, it was indiscriminate, EVERYONE who participated got their land revoked, so it's not infringing on anyone's rights in that respect. 

The Parliament chose to repeal the New Year's Land Grab because it was ridiculously extravagant and allowed nations to claim too much land, which will fill our map up too quickly.  

On this NOTE, as prescribed by the WA Constitution, and we would like to even CONSIDER by the honourable tribunal, that, is the LAW itself even worthy of being called a LEGISLATION in the very first place? When the Speaker himself admitted that they are revoking an act of a legal institution in the region, which is the Secretary General?

Isn't it more appropriate to call the Act of the Parliament as an "executive action" which should have been in the very first place to be exercised by the WA Council? And if that so is the case, shouldn't it more appropriate that the WA Council be in defense of this?

ANYWAYS, WE AFFIRM TO THIS COURT THAT THIS IS NOW PART OF OUR CASE.

In addition to this, a statement coming from the Speaker, again:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Sure, it's an executive power that was exercised by the Parliament, but nowhere does it say that we cannot exercise the powers we have.

We appreciate this argument coming from the Speaker. As it has been admitted that the Speaker knew from the very beginning that the proposal, now the law, is an executive act. Thus, making the law even UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as it has been explicitly stated there that only the Council is the sole executive organ of the region.

WE SUBMIT THIS AS PART OF OUR EVIDENCE.

Last but not the least, this statement from New Zealand, the WA Delegate:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:If I may say something. There are four levels of management in the World Alliance. 

They are :

1) The Legislative Body (Parliament) - This is basically RP Based laws and legislations. The bodies which can question or contradict the operation of the Council is the COJ and the Council. 

2) The Executive Body (Council) - This body passes laws relating to OOC laws, constitutional changes. On top of this, they "supervise" the parliament. (That's why I took up a Council case when I thought the "Revocation of the New Years Land Grab" law didn't go through proper voting procedure, I was wrong though, so the Council Meeting was dismissed). The only bodies which can question or contradict the operation of the Council is the COJ. 

3) The Administrative Body (Moderators, Secretary General, Delegate) - The people in this body all have independent tasks ranging from policing the RMB to managing the forums or maps. These people thus have complete authority over their individual tasks. For example, Eurussia and Dromoda have complete authority over the maps and all map related things (Such as expansions and Land Grabs), however Eurussia has the right overrule Dromoda on map related things. The only body with power to question or contradict this organ is the COJ. 

4) The Judicial Body (Court of Justice) - The court of justice has ultimate power and it's verdicts are final. They have the ability to reverse, contradict or question the actions of EVERY member and body in the WA. As far as the authoritative hierarchy goes, the COJ is at the very top, they are king. 



I just though that as delegate I should probably just inform you all. I'm apologise for any inconvenience my interruption has caused the Court.

Thank you for strengthening further our CASE.

I am also inclined to submit this as EVIDENCE as it also represents the hierarchy and division of powers as prescribed within our Constitution, at the very least.

We rest our case. We leave it to the decision of the honourable tribunal.
Eurussia, as the Secretary General, will respect the decision of the WA Court.
Great Eurussia
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Marquette (of Pacific) Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:33 am

^^Eurussia, I also said the constitution never says we could not exercise the power we did. There is a lack of regulation for actions taken by the Parliament, thus this case has no base.
Marquette (of Pacific)
Marquette (of Pacific)
Potential World Power

Posts : 597
Join date : 2013-04-16
Age : 24
Location : Snowy Minnesota

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Great Eurussia Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:12 pm

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:^^Eurussia, I also said the constitution never says we could not exercise the power we did. There is a lack of regulation for actions taken by the Parliament, thus this case has no base.

Well, that is where separation of powers exist. Even if it is not explicitly stated, it doesn't mean a branch of government can simply overstep another branch's power, responsibility or duty. 
And having you as the Speaker said that, well this is shall we say checks and balances where the Court of Justice will have to step in to correct the mistakes for the overall good and long term benefit of our region from nations trying to undermine the independent institutions of the World Alliance Government.
Great Eurussia
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Europe and Asia Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:23 pm

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:^^Eurussia, I also said the constitution never says we could not exercise the power we did. There is a lack of regulation for actions taken by the Parliament, thus this case has no base.

The court requests clarification as to whether or not this, ipsissima verba, will be the Speker's defense.

Furthermore, the court will now issue a memorandum of the case before a verdict is issued.
Europe and Asia
Europe and Asia
Emerging Power

Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 48
Location : Ann Arbor, MI

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Europe and Asia Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:52 pm

OFFICIAL COURT MEMORANDUM

Land Grab Revocation Act
Revocation of 2014 Celebratory Land Grab Act
Passed with Atlieus Amendment, allowing nations to resubmit claims.

Constitutional Application
Eurussia Claims violation of sovereignty clause, right to exist clause.

Prosecution Position (Eurussia(Sec.Gen.))
Revocation act unconstitutional.
Parliament cannot exercise executive action.

Defense Position (Marquette(Speaker))
Revocation is constitutional.
Parliament exercised executive action.

Furthermore, the court grants Eurussia the right to use evidence provided by amicus curiae New Zealand.
Europe and Asia
Europe and Asia
Emerging Power

Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 48
Location : Ann Arbor, MI

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Marquette (of Pacific) Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:45 pm

Europe and Asia wrote:OFFICIAL COURT MEMORANDUM

Land Grab Revocation Act
Revocation of 2014 Celebratory Land Grab Act
Passed with Atlieus Amendment, allowing nations to resubmit claims.

Constitutional Application
Eurussia Claims violation of sovereignty clause, right to exist clause.

Prosecution Position (Eurussia(Sec.Gen.))
Revocation act unconstitutional.
Parliament cannot exercise executive action.

Defense Position (Marquette(Speaker))
Revocation is constitutional.
Parliament exercised executive action.

Furthermore, the court grants Eurussia the right to use evidence provided by amicus curiae New Zealand.

That is not my defense, you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. First of all, I'm not really the one being prosecuted here; it's the entire Parliament, so I don't know why I'm the only one listed as being the Defense.

Secondly, our defense is that nowhere, whether it be the constitution or previous legislation passed, does it say the Parliament cannot approve of legislation regarding the map. Our bill was constitutional, as it did not violate any clause of the constitution.

Finally, Your Honor, I would like to clarify my definition of "executive" from one of my earlier statements. You see, one can argue that the actions carried out by the Parliament were "executive," but what I mean by "executive" is a different executive than the type of power the Secretary General or the Council wields. You see, this "executive" is the sort of power that the Parliament wields to pass legislation, but not in the sense that we have the final decision, like the Council or Secretary General. I hope I have made my point clear.
Marquette (of Pacific)
Marquette (of Pacific)
Potential World Power

Posts : 597
Join date : 2013-04-16
Age : 24
Location : Snowy Minnesota

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty SG Position

Post  Great Eurussia Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:25 pm

Finally, Your Honor, I would like to clarify my definition of "executive" from one of my earlier statements. You see, one can argue that the actions carried out by the Parliament were "executive," but what I mean by "executive" is a different executive than the type of power the Secretary General or the Council wields. You see, this "executive" is the sort of power that the Parliament wields to pass legislation, but not in the sense that we have the final decision, like the Council or Secretary General. I hope I have made my point clear.

Unfortunately for Marquette, his clarification is obviously contrary to the meaning of his statements during the exchange of arguments of executive power. Nevertheless, we urge the Speaker to issue a lawfup defense.

Europe and Asia wrote:OFFICIAL COURT MEMORANDUM

Land Grab Revocation Act
Revocation of 2014 Celebratory Land Grab Act
Passed with Atlieus Amendment, allowing nations to resubmit claims.

Constitutional Application
Eurussia Claims violation of sovereignty clause, right to exist clause.

Prosecution Position (Eurussia(Sec.Gen.))
Revocation act unconstitutional.
Parliament cannot exercise executive action.

Defense Position (Marquette(Speaker))
Revocation is constitutional.
Parliament exercised executive action.

Furthermore, the court grants Eurussia the right to use evidence provided by amicus curiae New Zealand.


Eurussia welcomes the memorandum of the honourable tribunal.

We respectfully remind the Court that it have missed the following points of our case.

* We request the tribunal's interpretation of Article III versus V of the Constitution, regarding the exclusivity of administrative powers solely granted to the Secretary General versus that of the exclusivity of legislative powers solely granted to the Parliament.

* Right to self determination,  as nations have chosen to participate in the Land Grab 2014, thus, in effect, NO LAW can simply revoke their territories already approved in the map, and if roleplay speaking, those lands are already their territories and removing them outright would result to another violation below.

Right to due process and fair trial - as nations have only followed the rules and guidelines of the Land Grab 2014, thus, in effect, NO LAW must infringe their rights to revoke all the claims (OOC speaking) and, in effect, forcefully relinquishing and giving up their lands which are already part of their sovereign territory just because the WA Parliament says so (RP speaking).


Thank you.
Great Eurussia
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Marquette (of Pacific) Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:26 am

* Right to self determination,  as nations have chosen to participate in the Land Grab 2014, thus, in effect, NO LAW can simply revoke their territories already approved in the map, and if roleplay speaking, those lands are already their territories and removing them outright would result to another violation below.

Again, you're making stuff up. The constitution doesn't say we cannot revoke land if we believe the Secretary General wasn't doing his job as Map Administrator correctly. You can give out land, but you can't give out so much land, and you did not have the right to give Syrakhstan's land to Articmainia while Syrakhstan was still in the region!

Sure, it's an executive power that was exercised by the Parliament, but nowhere does it say that we cannot exercise the powers we have [exercised]. It was a piece of legislation that I proposed to the Parliament and it was a piece of legislation that was passed by the Parliament.

Here is what I said. Apply my definition of "executive" here and you can understand what I mean. The constitution never says anything about the Parliament getting involved in matters relating to the map.
Marquette (of Pacific)
Marquette (of Pacific)
Potential World Power

Posts : 597
Join date : 2013-04-16
Age : 24
Location : Snowy Minnesota

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Europe and Asia Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:04 am

Have the litigants submitted thier final arguements?
Europe and Asia
Europe and Asia
Emerging Power

Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 48
Location : Ann Arbor, MI

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Great Eurussia Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:54 am

Europe and Asia wrote:Have the litigants submitted thier final arguements?

Yes.
Great Eurussia
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Marquette (of Pacific) Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:34 am

As long as no other member of Parliament has anything else to say, yes.
Marquette (of Pacific)
Marquette (of Pacific)
Potential World Power

Posts : 597
Join date : 2013-04-16
Age : 24
Location : Snowy Minnesota

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Europe and Asia Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:11 am

The court will soon issue a verdict. Thank you.
Europe and Asia
Europe and Asia
Emerging Power

Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 48
Location : Ann Arbor, MI

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Europe and Asia Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:53 am

COURT VERDICT

Summarizing the evidence produced by amicus curiae New Zealand, the court finds that the World Alliance Map is under the control of both OOC and IC forces. The parliament, concerning itself with IC and RP related affairs, exceeded its power in revoking the land grab act. The proper channels should have been used, insofar as a revocation should have been attempted first by parliamentary vote, and should the vote succeed, then to the council.

Essentially, as the map is both IC and OOC, the vote should have first gone through Parliament, IC, then through the council, OOC.

Thusly, the court finds the 2014 Land Grab Revocation Act unconstitutional and unlawful as it did not go through the proper channels. Ergo, the Land Grab Revocation is officially repealed by this court for unconstitutionality.

Europe and Asia
Europe and Asia
Emerging Power

Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 48
Location : Ann Arbor, MI

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Marquette (of Pacific) Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:38 am

The Council is not needed for passing legislation, though. I don't think it works like a regular bicameral system, as the upper house is not required to be called upon to pass legislation. It did go through the right channels.

EDIT: If you think it must go through the Council in addition to the Parliament, then you might as well declare every other bill passed this term as unconstitutional, because the Council did absolutely nothing this term.
Marquette (of Pacific)
Marquette (of Pacific)
Potential World Power

Posts : 597
Join date : 2013-04-16
Age : 24
Location : Snowy Minnesota

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Europe and Asia Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:05 am

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:The Council is not needed for passing legislation, though. I don't think it works like a regular bicameral system, as the upper house is not required to be called upon to pass legislation. It did go through the right channels.

EDIT: If you think it must go through the Council in addition to the Parliament, then you might as well declare every other bill passed this term as unconstitutional, because the Council did absolutely nothing this term.

If you read what I said, you'd understand. I said that because the map is both IC and OOC, it should go through both parts of the system, as parliament is IC and the Council is OOC.

Furthermore, this case is closed. There will be no more posting. Of you want to appeal it, go ahead, but this case thread is closed.
Europe and Asia
Europe and Asia
Emerging Power

Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 48
Location : Ann Arbor, MI

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  New Tarajan Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:19 am

Before the definitive closure of the case: Is it not possible, then, to "freeze" the law and submit it to the Council in order to correct the mistake, instead of repeating all the process?
New Tarajan
New Tarajan
Recognized Power

Posts : 1340
Join date : 2013-06-23
Location : Rome, Italy

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Europe and Asia Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:59 am

That would be possible, but it is at the speakers discretion.
Europe and Asia
Europe and Asia
Emerging Power

Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 48
Location : Ann Arbor, MI

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Federation of Antanares Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:40 am

I will suggest, if the speaker would accept the proposal of New Tarajan, to wait the ending of the current election of the Parliament and of the future Council.
Federation of Antanares
Federation of Antanares
Potential World Power

Posts : 580
Join date : 2013-07-14
Location : Roma, Italy

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Europe and Asia Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:40 am

Either way, the law is suspended until further notice.
Europe and Asia
Europe and Asia
Emerging Power

Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 48
Location : Ann Arbor, MI

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  New Tarajan Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:49 am

Thank you.
So, we could say the law is "frozen".
New Tarajan
New Tarajan
Recognized Power

Posts : 1340
Join date : 2013-06-23
Location : Rome, Italy

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament - Page 2 Empty Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum