Users browsing this thread:

Awe · 03-07-2016, 07:00 AM

Honourable Justice,

My question is to the Court:

Following the failure of the motion to recall Sam111 from the Committee of State Security, does the five-day mandated discussion period for the recall motion restart?

I ask this question in relation to a renewed motion to recall Sam111 from the Committee of State Security, in addition to considering that with few exceptions, being atypical for other motions and proposals in the Assembly, the motion to recall features a mandated five-day discussion period, as outlined by Article 2.2 and 2.3 of the Code of Laws, which states:

Quote:2. Discussions on a recall motion will occur for at least five days.

3. A recall motion requires at least a second to be brought to a vote, unless either the original motion or the second has been withdrawn.

Given in this instance that the requirements stipulated in Article 2.3 has been met, does the provision stipulated in Article 2.2 still apply, considering that this is a second motion to recall of the same official?

I'd appreciate a response at the Court's earliest convenience. Thank you.

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

RP Information

Feirmont · 03-07-2016, 08:16 AM

The Court will hear this Legal Question. Any interested parties may submit an amicus brief on the matter.

#EC4Lyfe

Previous Positions

Feirmont · 03-07-2016, 04:19 PM

[Image: 73XbpIq.png]

HCLQ1604

March 7th, 2016

Petitioner

Awe

Presiding Justice

Feirmont

Honourable Justice,

My question is to the Court:

Following the failure of the motion to recall Sam111 from the Committee of State Security, does the five-day mandated discussion period for the recall motion restart?

I ask this question in relation to a renewed motion to recall Sam111 from the Committee of State Security, in addition to considering that with few exceptions, being atypical for other motions and proposals in the Assembly, the motion to recall features a mandated five-day discussion period, as outlined by Article 2.2 and 2.3 of the Code of Laws, which states:

Quote:2. Discussions on a recall motion will occur for at least five days.

3. A recall motion requires at least a second to be brought to a vote, unless either the original motion or the second has been withdrawn.

Given in this instance that the requirements stipulated in Article 2.3 has been met, does the provision stipulated in Article 2.2 still apply, considering that this is a second motion to recall of the same official?

I'd appreciate a response at the Court's earliest convenience. Thank you.

Ruling

After a review of Article 2 of the Code of Laws, it is the Court's Opinion that any vote to recall, even reoccurring in the same discussion after a previous vote has failed, should follow the stipulation in Article 2.2:

Code of Laws of the South Pacific Wrote:Article 2: Recall Procedures

1. The Assembly may recall any elected or appointed official.
2. Discussions on a recall motion will occur for at least five days.
3. A recall motion requires at least a second to be brought to a vote, unless either the original motion or the second has been withdrawn.
4. The official is recalled should 75% of votes cast in favor of such.

The idea being that a new recall in a thread with a previous failed recall will bring new information to the discussion. The five days allowing the Assembly adequate time to read any new arguments that have arisen and the elected or appointed official being recalled at the time to address such new arguments; thus allowing all members the time to understand the situation.