snip

Will you quit rules lawyering and let the chair do their damn job?

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

Article 2, Section 5 is not applicable because the vote has already started.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

Under Article 1 Section 7 of the Legislative Procedure Act, I motion to cancel voting on this treaty. I believe that there was not enough debate time given, since the posts put into the discussion were very large and that Glen was unable to write a substantial post in the short 18 hours that was given between Minister HumanSanity's last post and their subsequential motion to vote.

Under Article 1 Section 7 of the Legislative Procedure Act, I motion to cancel voting on this treaty. I believe that there was not enough debate time given, since the posts put into the discussion were very large and that Glen was unable to write a substantial post in the short 18 hours that was given between Minister HumanSanity's last post and their subsequential motion to vote.

Pursuant to Article 1 Section 7, I object to the motion to cancel voting on the treaty.

The full text was placed up for debate for five full days, during four of which there was no commentary. The concept of a non-aggression pact was placed up for a vote for a full 11 days before the text was posted. There was ample time to begin debate before the treaty was posted (it is worth noting that none of the objections have to do with the text of the treaty itself, so there is no reason they could not have been raised earlier). I have posted on this subject already here.

The Chair's threshold for invalidating a vote in progress should be incredibly high. It should be clear there was either no opportunity for debate or that an error is likely to result from continuation of the vote. In this case, the threshold has not been met, and it would be intervening in a political question (some Legislator's dislike of the treaty) for the Chair to intervene to close the vote.

And you are supposed to object his cancel.
Waffle should've (and still can) called upon Rule 2, section (5) The Chair may delay votes for a reasonable time frame if done for the purposes of vote scheduling or to avoid preemption of active debate by a vote.
However, this is followed by what you two are actually talking about
(7) The Chair may waive the mandatory debate period remaining on a particular piece of legislation should a legislator motion for them to do so, provided that there is a reason deemed sufficient by the Chair and no objection is raised within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded.



Both of you are being political while (failing) to attempt at using the Legislative Procedure Act in such a way that would benefit you. However, I'm not saying this is either of yours fault. Using whatever the Assembly provides for political means is not a moral concern either.
The issue is that the Legislative Procedure Act (among many others) is very outdated. Let me point out in my own example; The Chair may waive this legislation should a legislator motion them to do so but then the Chair should also provide a reason as to why a piece of legislation is being prolonged but this can all be circumvented by an objection?

And yes I will use this opportunity to promote my own political opinions about The Chair which are completely unrelated to what is put to vote now.

Will you quit rules lawyering and let the chair do their damn job?

I'm educating a legislator and a member of the executive on constitutional laws*
And why should legislators not understanding constitutional laws be the Chair's "job", exactly? They've already put this to vote - meaning they don't see any of these provisions needing to be activated.
(This means the Chair has already done their job).

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990

Reply

I'm educating a legislator and a member of the executive on constitutional laws*
And why should legislators not understanding constitutional laws be the Chair's "job", exactly? They've already put this to vote - meaning they don't see any of these provisions needing to be activated.
(This means the Chair has already done their job).

The chair will rule on the motion on their own accord, as is their job. Last time I checked, you are not the chair. You bitching and hollering and complaining about the Legislative Procedure Act and rules lawyering people on this thread is cluttering it up and obscuring the motion.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 08-18-2022, 01:14 AM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

The chair will rule on the motion on their own accord, as is their job. Last time I checked, you are not the chair. You bitching and hollering and complaining about the Legislative Procedure Act and rules lawyering people on this thread is cluttering it up and obscuring the motion.

Sadly for the region, I'm not because I would not tolerate such behavior or language from two elected "officials" in the executive towards members of the Assembly.
Extraordinarily, I would now motion to recall the Cabinet but I am limited in doing this during the Great Council.

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990

Reply

That’s enough. This is a voting thread, not a debate thread, please treat it as accordingly.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 08-18-2022, 09:06 AM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

[2232.FA] (A2208.02) Legislators, Please be advised that the motion to cancel voting on A2208.02 has been denied. The motion made by Doge was objected to by HumanSanity roughly 5 hours later, nor was the motion seconded. (Article I § 7 of the Legislative Procedure Act) — Chair of the Assembly

Reply

I just wanna note that the subheading refers to "the Coalition of South Pacific" when it should be "the Coalition of the South Pacific".

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 08-21-2022, 10:04 PM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

Final Result Pact of Orohena
Ayes: 23 50.0% | 71.9% (discounting abstentions)	Nays: 9 19.6% | 28.1% (discounting abstentions)
There were 14 Abstentions (30.4%); 20 legislators were absent. Thus, attendance for this vote was 69.7%.
In light of these results, the proposal passes, having achieved the required majority (>50%).

Signed
BlockBuster2K43

Find out more about me here!

Reply