| Passed: Balder |
(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. So, just so everyone knows we're not being lazy, or just ignoring y'all, the cabinet wish to discuss the issue with the incoming cabinet before taking any action, as the process will stretch into their term. It's likely that they'll agree, but this seems the right way to handle it, nevertheless. Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond! Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi. Salma 145:8
(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. Didn't the Cabinet try to void this treaty and people in the Assembly beat the back?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
(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. They did (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. 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. 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)
(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. 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?
-tsunamy
[forum admin] (02-15-2017, 10:32 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:(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. Theoretically, maybe? It was something like seven or eight months ago, and I'm not sure it was what was intended, but so long as nobody challenges it in court... maybe? For the sake of a few days though, we might as well wait for the cabinet to either make that determination again or alternatively not do so. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
We could ask the Court if it would be okay for us to vote on it right now.
Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
We could, but do we need to? Surely this can wait a couple of days.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
I'll make things a lot more straightforward. The cabinet has decided that a vote should be held on the dissolution of the treaty.
That makes it easy, then. I'll second Seraph's motion for a vote, in that case.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
translate
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |