| Changes to Parole |
(12-04-2014, 08:47 PM)Apad Wrote: 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? Yes, we do. We just generally don't push something to vote if we could draft it first to clearly be legal. Open questions of legality during a drafting session are usually a sign that the vetting needs to reconsider things. I regret that we've put it vote despite the open constitutional questions it may pose, but I think at this point, my hands are tied as Chair. Thanks for your question, Apad. Yours, Unibot.
Exactly, The Charter carries supremacy over The Code of Laws. HEM's proposal is a blatant violation of The Charter.
Than by that very nature isn't the parole board illegal??
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
No, the PB was created solely for parole. It is not a legislative, executive or judicial body. As such, it has judicial power over parole only. The Charter does not mention the PB. It is not in breach of The Charter.
Then I would feel that the assembly is just overseeing the parole suggestion of the parole board and therefore it is legal.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
No, because it gives The Assembly the power to veto there decision and by extension, the right to judge parolees.
Is it just me, or does having both proposals up for vote at once seem to be a stupid idea? Think this whole situation could have been handled better, but with so many posts here, guess it's a bit hard to keep track of it all.
There is no law on contradictory legislation and there is no discretionary powers for the Chair anymore - this was an issue three weeks ago when I brought it up and it is still an issue.
There seems to be three potential scenarios to me: 1. The second one to pass undoes the first. 2. The first one to passes invalidates the second one (because it's amending a section which basically no longer exists in that form). 3. Both amendments have to be amalgamated into one amendment weirdly. If it had been my sole choice, we won't have moved HEM's proposal to vote until Tsu's compromise bill passed/failed and we had time to address HEM's proposal's outstanding constitutional issues and any contradictions which have arise between it and Tsu's compromise bill. The vetting was going *nowhere*, the proponents of HEM's proposal did not want to make any rewrites apparently - so it will go to vote in this form whether we like it or not. This serves as a stern reminder that we need to resolve the confusion with regards to contradictory legislation and discretionary powers.
HEM's proposal should have been at vote a week ago, and would have had you any integrity as a public magistrate whatsoever, so your entire argument there is nonsense of your own concoction.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
But Uni you just used your discretionary powers by choosing to bring Tsu proposal to vote before Hem. You made it seem like you didnt intend to bring Hems proposal to vote until your questions were answered, thus making it seem that you have discretionary powers. These complaints, such as Bels and SB, stem from this decision and thus of your own doing. I agree with you that the assembly needs to address the issue of competing proposals. A new thread is in order it seems.
Apad
King of Haldilwe |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |