| Great council? |
So, at one time, I thought the Charter had a procedure for calling a great council. I think that's what it was called at least -- some sort of grand convention where the entire charter could be updated.
Am I making that up? And, if not, do we know what happened to that provision? Edit: Found it! Under Article 9, Section 2. Following Bels' temper tantrum, I'm suggesting we hold one. Thoughts?
I think first we should consider (a) whether the Charter and the Code of Laws are in need of extensive revisions and (b) if those revisions are too much to do through the normal legislative process. You can of course propose a Great Council, and since no seconds are required, we would have to follow through with it, but a GC is a pretty big decision that we shouldn't take lightly.
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
For me, it depends if Belschaft keeps going with this line of attack. I feel he's being a hypocrite, here, because he's known for a long time that I edited typos and formatting errors. He mentioned it when I edited a minor typo in the Sunshine Law while it was at vote. He didn't bring it up then, but now he's trying to nullify the entire Charter because of my actions. I can't help but feel this is motivated by personal animosity, though I'm not going to push that line because it won't help anything.
I would personally like a Great Council, just because it's an opportunity to change things (like getting rid of the criminal organizations article). But it is a huge endeavor that will take up a lot of our time. So if we want to do it, we should be ready with a replacement Charter to propose. I don't think any of us want to spend the rest of our terms negotiating a Great Council in this climate.
(05-10-2014, 01:27 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: So if we want to do it, we should be ready with a replacement Charter to propose. I don't think any of us want to spend the rest of our terms negotiating a Great Council in this climate. I would also like to point out that much of the legislation passed during the last three terms have been changes that were left pending from the 2013 Great Council, so there is no guarantee that it will actually solve most of our legislative issues. That said, it would help to have an honest discussion on what things need amending. I think it's a decision that we must analyse carefully. 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
Two things:
First, I think this entire situation is coming from animosity from Bels and is, in fact, personally motivated. He all but stated how he would rule before the question was even asked which I personally find in breach of judicial ethics and should warrant a recall. Second, I think the Great Council would be a "Great Council" in name only. There are no outlines for how a Great Council is suppose to be run. My idea is to have it run a minimal amount of time (week, maybe two max) starting from the version of the Charter as we have it. Have the set amount of debate, we would vote the new Charter up or down. Again, the idea would be to force a way to retroactively accept GR's alterations without giving in to Bels' crap. Although, if we put the entire Charter up for a voe as it is now, there should be no issues, either. Correct?
A GC would also put the Code of Laws up to vote. I don't think we NEED to have one either. I could include in my amendment a retroactivity clause, or the Assembly could pass a bill reaffirming the Charter as it stands. Or we can vote in a "new" Charter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My one concern of voting in a new charter is ... what happens if the vote fails? We would be a 75% majority. It could/should pass ... but if it doesn't ... then what?
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |