(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.