Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Arveyres Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:31 pm

We vote against both things aforementioned.

Aloia Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:36 pm

THE IMPERIAL STATES OF ALOIA votes AGAINST on the original proposal.

THE IMPERIAL STATES OF ALOIA votes AGAINST on the amendment proposed by Atletius.

Marquette (of Pacific) Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:44 pm

Texania wrote:Bustedddd

A Republican Ireland wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:The Kingdom of Atletius votes in AGAINST on the original proposal.

The Kingdom of Atletius votes in AGAINST on the amendment proposed by Atletius.
Why are you voting on behalf of Atletius or is Atletius your puppet?

Both of you, get out of here. The time for debate is over, so only Parliament members are allowed here. It makes counting the votes easier and it limits congestion if only MP's are allowed here during voting.

United States of Europe Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:52 am

We vote against the law and against the amendment.

New Tarajan Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:29 am

New Tarjana votes in FAVOUR of both the law and the Atletian amendment.

Marquette (of Pacific) Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:23 am

Voting for the Revocation of the New Year's Land Grab has officially closed. Please wait while the votes are counted, which should be shortly.

Marquette (of Pacific) Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:31 am

The official tally:

Votes in FAVOR of the original proposal: 7
Votes AGAINST the original proposal: 6

Votes in FAVOR of the amendment by Atletius: 7
Votes AGAINST the amendment by Atletius: 6

With a majority in FAVOR the bill and the amendment have been passed, and is now law.

New-Zealand Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:16 pm

I appeal this motion (due to the initial tie) and thus forward a proposal to the WA Council to repeal the actions of this bill.

As the higher governing body, the decision of the council will supersede that of the parliament.

Great Eurussia Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:19 pm

New-Zealand wrote:I appeal this motion (due to the initial tie) and thus forward a proposal to the WA Council to repeal the actions of this bill.

As the higher governing body, the decision of the council will supersede that of the parliament.

I'm confused with the results. If there is a tie, the proposal has not passed and cannot become a law.

New-Zealand Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:50 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:I appeal this motion (due to the initial tie) and thus forward a proposal to the WA Council to repeal the actions of this bill.

As the higher governing body, the decision of the council will supersede that of the parliament.

I'm confused with the results. If there is a tie, the proposal has not passed and cannot become a law.

I have put forward a case to the council : https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t386-re-instate-the-new-year-land-grab#12761

But you are right. Constitutionally, if the proposal was a tie, it failed. It HAS to be a simple majority to pass, anything else is a fail.

Marquette (of Pacific) Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:06 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:I appeal this motion (due to the initial tie) and thus forward a proposal to the WA Council to repeal the actions of this bill.

As the higher governing body, the decision of the council will supersede that of the parliament.

I'm confused with the results. If there is a tie, the proposal has not passed and cannot become a law.

The constitution says I as Speaker have the ability to break ties, so I broke the tie. What's wrong with that?

New-Zealand Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:41 am

Sorry about that Marquette. I seem to have missed that clause (My bad). So yea, you're right this bill did pass properly. I have thus retracted my motion in the council.

Marquette (of Pacific) Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:51 am

New-Zealand wrote:Sorry about that Marquette. I seem to have missed that clause (My bad). So yea, you're right this bill did pass properly. I have thus retracted my motion in the council.

No worries man, it's not very visible at first glance anyway.

Great Eurussia Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:24 pm

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:The official tally:

Votes in FAVOR of the original proposal: 7
Votes AGAINST the original proposal: 6

Votes in FAVOR of the amendment by Atletius: 7
Votes AGAINST the amendment by Atletius: 6

With a majority in FAVOR the bill and the amendment have been passed, and is now law.

CHALLENGED! https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t389-pending-eurussia-vs-wa#12946

Marquette (of Pacific) Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:57 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:The official tally:

Votes in FAVOR of the original proposal: 7
Votes AGAINST the original proposal: 6

Votes in FAVOR of the amendment by Atletius: 7
Votes AGAINST the amendment by Atletius: 6

With a majority in FAVOR the bill and the amendment have been passed, and is now law.

CHALLENGED! https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t389-pending-eurussia-vs-wa#12946

THIS BILL HAS PASSED. STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD. ANYONE WHO CONTINUES TO POST HERE WILL HAVE TO BE REPORTED FOR SPAMMING.

Great Eurussia Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:50 pm

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t389p30-pending-secretary-general-vs-parliament#13138

I believe the law has been declared unconstitutional :-)

Marquette (of Pacific) Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:25 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t389p30-pending-secretary-general-vs-parliament#13138

I believe the law has been declared unconstitutional :-)

Oh, really? Thanks for the link, I'm too dumb to be able to read what E&A wrote. :-P

Great Eurussia Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:01 pm

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t389p30-pending-secretary-general-vs-parliament#13138

I believe the law has been declared unconstitutional :-)

Oh, really? Thanks for the link, I'm too dumb to be able to read what E&A wrote. :-P

Yeah obviously :-D

New Tarajan Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:09 pm

I wish to specify: the law has been "frozen", until it will be duly submitted to the Council for approval. The vote of the Parliament keeps its validity, until the Council will decide what to do.

Great Eurussia Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:33 pm

New Tarajan wrote:I wish to specify: the law has been "frozen", until it will be duly submitted to the Council for approval. The vote of the Parliament keeps its validity, until the Council will decide what to do.

Unfortunately, frozening an already repealed law due to unconstitutionality as per the court's ruling is something we are questioning due to the irregularity of that process itself. As a Party to the case, we question it so we do not recognize that frozen thing. Sorry.

New Tarajan Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:14 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:I wish to specify: the law has been "frozen", until it will be duly submitted to the Council for approval. The vote of the Parliament keeps its validity, until the Council will decide what to do.

Unfortunately, frozening an already repealed law due to unconstitutionality as per the court's ruling is something we are questioning due to the irregularity of that process itself. As a Party to the case, we question it so we do not recognize that frozen thing. Sorry.

You know, I'm basing my statement exactly over the Court decision. It's natural: the Court proclaimed the uncostitutionality of the law basing on the fact it wasn't submitted to the Council for approval AFTER the vote expressed by the Parliament. So, the law is frozen until the problem is not resolved with the only thing to do: submit it to the Council for approval.
Since I directly asked to the Court in the apposite thread, and this was the response of the Court itself, I believe it is the duty of the WA government to respect and follow the Court statement.

Great Eurussia Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:29 pm

New Tarajan wrote:
You know, I'm basing my statement exactly over the Court decision. It's natural: the Court proclaimed the uncostitutionality of the law basing on the fact it wasn't submitted to the Council for approval AFTER the vote expressed by the Parliament. So, the law is frozen until the problem is not resolved with the only thing to do: submit it to the Council for approval.
Since I directly asked to the Court in the apposite thread, and this was the response of the Court itself, I believe it is the duty of the WA government to respect and follow the Court statement.

Yes, as Secretary General and as an institution of the WA Government, we are inclined to adhere to the rulings of the tribunal but as a reminder and at the same time, we are questioning that frozening thing at this time.

New Tarajan Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:32 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
You know, I'm basing my statement exactly over the Court decision. It's natural: the Court proclaimed the uncostitutionality of the law basing on the fact it wasn't submitted to the Council for approval AFTER the vote expressed by the Parliament. So, the law is frozen until the problem is not resolved with the only thing to do: submit it to the Council for approval.
Since I directly asked to the Court in the apposite thread, and this was the response of the Court itself, I believe it is the duty of the WA government to respect and follow the Court statement.

Yes, as Secretary General and as an institution of the WA Government, we are inclined to adhere to the rulings of the tribunal but as a reminder and at the same time, we are questioning that frozening thing at this time.

I suppose the Court has already taken into account your questioning of the decision. Anyway, as Secretary General (in your case) and as Parliament (in our case) we both has the duty to respect the decisions of the Court.

Sponsored content