| [DEBATING] AB.1903.04 — Amendment to Article VIII of the Charter |
(04-01-2019, 03:30 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: No law is designed to protect players “regardless of” the Bill of Rights. Laws are (or should be) designed to protect players “within the context of” the Bill of Rights. So, let me get this straight: We're proposing that a law is found useful, yet unconstitutional, instead of giving the Assembly time to rectify the situation, we'd sooner have the Cabinet make an executive order — that would seemingly also be unconstitutional? Beyond that, executive orders must be voted on within three days and are only allowed where there's a hole or ambiguity in the law, as per Sections VI.13 and VI.14 of the Charter. So, that would be rushing this even more so that the seven days I'm proposing and create even more issues since ... the Cabinet isn't able to make executive orders whether they feel it. The proposal — as Nat mentioned — would be to amend the Charter in the timeframe provided, not just leave it up to the justice to alert the Cabinet ahead of it's release and the Cabinet to take the required action (which, would also require the entire Cabinet to be on the same page). Finally, I understand that we all want to be high minded here and protect people's rights and all that touchy-feely ish. But, at the end of the day some of this sucks and the only reason we're even having this debate is because a subsection of the population knows the forum admins and/or delegate would step in before this actual got out of hand.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] (04-01-2019, 03:58 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: ... So, let me get this straight: We're proposing that a law is found useful, yet unconstitutional, instead of giving the Assembly time to rectify the situation, we'd sooner have the Cabinet make an executive order — that would seemingly also be unconstitutional? ... Apologies if I have misinterpreted your remarks but why would the executive order by Cabinet be unconstitutional? (04-02-2019, 02:15 AM)Amerion Wrote:(04-01-2019, 03:58 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: ... So, let me get this straight: We're proposing that a law is found useful, yet unconstitutional, instead of giving the Assembly time to rectify the situation, we'd sooner have the Cabinet make an executive order — that would seemingly also be unconstitutional? ... Not to put words in Tsu's mouth, and if I'm wrong he can correct me, but, having read the thread, I believe he was referencing how in this hypothetical situation the cabinet would be having to make an executive order to fix an emergency situation caused by the absence of an important law that was voided by the court because part of it was deemed unconstitutional and how, in this case, the executive order itself would be seemingly unconstitutional since it would be made in order to fill the place, or otherwise do the same or similar things that the law did, of a law that the court deemed unconstitutional. Apologies if my attempt at clarification only served to confuse things further for you or came from a point of an implicit misunderstanding of what was being discussed.
Nation: 073 039 109 032 080 111 112 112 121
I'm more active gameside than here but either place I'd love to talk ^-^
I think thats what he was getting at as I read it... But I think thats silly. Why would the Cabinet release an Executive Order essentially repeating what the Court JUST deemed unconstitutional? Why would they not say "Ok, that was unconstitutional in *insert specific reason(s)*... Lets reword it so its not."
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
(04-02-2019, 08:34 AM)Rebeltopia Wrote: I think thats what he was getting at as I read it... But I think thats silly. Why would the Cabinet release an Executive Order essentially repeating what the Court JUST deemed unconstitutional? Why would they not say "Ok, that was unconstitutional in *insert specific reason(s)*... Lets reword it so its not." I'm going to go back to the current issue before the court. If the court rules that we need to court case to eject practically anyone — there's nothing the Cabinet nor anyone else could do to make that Constitutional unless we re-write the Charter. In any case, even under your scenario, Reb, we're still relaying on the court giving a clear ruling (without the need to request further information) in a timely manner (or hypothetically alerting the Cabinet ahead of time), and that the entire Cabinet will be on the same page nearly immediately following. That all seems ... unlikely.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
With the Court growing from (currently) 2 Justices, to (hopefully) 4, I think that rulings will be clearer and offer better information initially, then expanding on if necessary.
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium (04-02-2019, 02:33 AM)Poppy Wrote: Not to put words in Tsu's mouth, and if I'm wrong he can correct me, but, having read the thread, I believe he was referencing how in this hypothetical situation the cabinet would be having to make an executive order to fix an emergency situation caused by the absence of an important law that was voided by the court because part of it was deemed unconstitutional and how, in this case, the executive order itself would be seemingly unconstitutional since it would be made in order to fill the place, or otherwise do the same or similar things that the law did, of a law that the court deemed unconstitutional. Your explanation is great, it clears things up very well  I'm not wholly opposed to providing a time period for a legislative fix. It seems like a sound idea. |
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |