Since this is hardly the place to bash elected officials, perhaps you two could stay on topic? I'd like to rephrase my previous question.

Since HEM's proposal gives TSP's legislative body judicial power over parolees, my question is, Would HEM's proposed amendment to The Code of Laws contradict The Charter?

There are a lot of outstanding issues with HEM's draft - in regards to possible contradictions with The Charter and such, and the question of what it does if it passes. I would have liked if the law had been clarified, but seems HEM is away at the moment (? I can't follow this thread, it's too big).

I'll give him a bit of time to show up and consider some of the problems that have been brought in regards to its legality (I wouldn't want to see it tied up in the Courts) and put it vote sometime soon regardless. I wish some here would stop accusing me of a vested interest - this is just an unusual circumstance of a law not being particularly clear with regards to its intent. There's also the open problem of contradictory legislation (which has never been resolved - *sighs*).

(12-02-2014, 09:29 PM)Unibot Wrote: Democracy also involves discussion - there is no way for this law to not apply ex post facto. We have no bill of rights against ex post facto (like TNP) and we have no way for it to not be applied ex post facto without legislation stipulating otherwise.

The real death of democracy will come when we accept the idea of 'fundamental disagreements' which impede dialogue and compromise. Democracy is hard work. Get to it.

First question - if none of us want the law to be applied retroactively, why can't we just clarify in the text that changes to this section are not to apply retroactively?

You keep saying this issue is unresolved, yet three people have answered your question and obviously some members of the region feel that it has been answered satisfactory, otherwise it wouldn't have been motioned to vote TWICE.  I don't think your interpenetration makes any sense, we have never had a law apply retroactively in TSP, and if that was a worry, it wouldn't make any sense to add 'this law doesn't apply retroactively' to every law.  It would make sense to address it as it's own issue.


Bring it to vote.  I have put up with your unfair attempt to question it to death under the guise of being diligent.



In fact, you've been anything but diligent.  You had no questions for the proposal until I asked why a seconded motion was not brought to vote.  If these questions were anything but political grandstanding, you would have asked them when the vote was seconded.  Not wait for a reminder before suddenly have concerns.


I'll Remind everyone of the time table of events

On 11/19, you made a call for specific reforms and not just general ideals and yourself and HEM posted specific proposals

On 11/25, I motion HEM’s proposal to vote with a second from Apad
From 11/27-12/2 not a single post is made in the thread (Already at 18 pages of debate)
12/2 I point out that it has not been brought to vote and you insist that it was not discussed enough

12/3 Tsu drafts his proposal, HEM's proposal gets revised and both get seconded it.  HEM's proposal being seconded first.

Today, Tsu's proposal is up to vote, and HEM's isn't.  It's amazing how Tsu's proposal only needs 24 of possible discussion time, yet HEM's at 16 days, being motioned to vote twice before Tsu's was motioned to vote once is still not eligible to be put up to vote.  Anyone who isn't being willfully ignorant sees that the assembly only functions if you support a law.  Anything else is subject to total gridlock at your whim.  AND of all things this is put up to vote while the forum servers are down.

You legally have to put this to vote, and I want to end this post with a direct quote from the high courts who to address the debate about the role of the speaker: 

Quote:It is in the Court’s opinion that the use of the word ‘may’ is only an implication that the Chair of the Assembly, in the execution of his duties, is allowed to put legislation that has been motioned and seconded to vote. The use of the word ‘may’ in this context does not permit the Chair of the Assembly to move legislation to vote at his discretion. 

What is explicitly not permitted by the high court is what the chair is doing.

There are outstanding issues with HEM's proposal, SB. Again, you guys are spending all your time complaining about being asked to respond, instead of just responding.

This isn't the first and won't be the last time a chair hasn't brought bills to vote under their discretion because they felt there were issues.

Either we want a chair or we want a robot. Which is it?

The Court Justice said earlier that I was allowed to wait to put something to vote - only that I could not refuse to put something to vote full-stop. That is what I am doing.

HEM needs 16 days of discussion, because in 16 days of discussion, nobody was able to amend the law to clarify what it actually does and there has been an open question of its constitutionality because of yours and HEM's refusal to make any changes to the existing proposal to bring it within clear fidelity of the constitution.

Now, I will bring it up to vote, because I am done with this conservation. I am -so- done. I have two essays to finish and I genuinely have NO time to respond in full to this provocation from you. But do note that there is an open question of whether this proposal is even legal and for the past sixteen days, nobody surrounding the proposal has put any effort in resolving these problems with a rewrite - out of, presumably, sheer stubbornness.

It's my job as Chair to try to make sure that the proposals that go to vote have been properly vetted - I don't believe that this proposal HAS been properly vetted (despite sixteen days of apparent vetting) and for that, I apologize to the Assembly.

EDIT: Up to vote. 

You're the only one who thinks this is a massive issue, and as I pointed out, this only became a major issue when it became a political need to avoid putting it to vote.

You are the only person parroting the fact that the proposal could be illegal, I have not seen this concern and view it as a way to delay the vote until you could put a proposal you prefer up to vote first.

Lastly, if you want to insist that no proposal should be put to vote if there are open questions about them. I suggest you stop rushing every proposal you support to vote. Because the proposal you put to vote first has an open question that has not been answered.

That's where you're wrong SB, as I have mentioned this twice now, I pose the same question to you.

(12-04-2014, 07:00 PM)TAC Wrote: Since HEM's proposal gives TSP's legislative body judicial power over parolees, my question is, Would HEM's proposed amendment to The Code of Laws contradict The Charter?

This is a major issue that needs to be addressed.

in what way would it be a contradiction? Dont we have courts for this reason, to sort out constitutional conflicts? does every law we pass have to go thru a judicial review before it can be enacted?

(12-04-2014, 08:37 PM)TAC Wrote: That's where you're wrong SB, as I have mentioned this twice now, I pose the same question to you.

(12-04-2014, 07:00 PM)TAC Wrote: Since HEM's proposal gives TSP's legislative body judicial power over parolees, my question is, Would HEM's proposed amendment to The Code of Laws contradict The Charter?

This is a major issue that needs to be addressed.

Sorry I'll admit I missed this, but in my defense I was asked about 10 questions at once, most of which I addressed in the debates earlier.

Considering two members of the Parole Board are not members of the legislative body I would think:
1) This would also be legal
2) That this same question should have held up the original parole board debate from going to vote.

Again, as multiple people addressed, it's impossible to really answer this properly because I am not involved in the court.

The code can't contradict the Charter. If the Charter says the Assembly only has Legislative power, the code can't grant the Assembly judicial powers.