(02-15-2017, 08:50 PM)Belschaft Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 08:38 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 05:42 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I'm fairly sure that - legally speaking - this is meant to come from the cabinet. There's historic precedence for the Assembly "asserting" a power by... well, doing it, and the legal authority for such an action being implicit in the assembly then passing the motion/action/whatever by sufficient a margin that it would, in the form of a charter amendment, grant the assembly said power.

I'm not sure how well that would stand up in court these days though.

Didn't the Cabinet try to void this treaty and people in the Assembly beat the back?

My objection wasn't to this treaty being voided, but it being voided without Assembly consent. The legal procedure - as established by the Assembly in the Treaties Act - is for the Cabinet to notify the Assembly that it wishes to dissolve the treaty, at which point there is a mandated five days of debate and a vote.

There's an alternative procedure where the Cabinet feels that the terms of the treaty have been breached, which doesn't require the Assembly vote - but requires a clear demonstration of such breach of terms.

My point simply is that, since the Cabinet has already attempted to do it, can't we just vote to validated what happened previously? Do we need the Cabinet to do anything more?