Users browsing this thread:

North Prarie · 08-13-2020, 11:50 PM

So, I get that part of the HC ruling is that what happened wasn’t legal because it wasn’t part of constitutional law.
Buuuut...it also said that it wasn’t legal because it determines that non-WA members aren’t members of the coalition, which was in direct violation of a previous HC ruling.
So yeah. Hard against.

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

Volaworand · 08-14-2020, 12:15 AM

(08-13-2020, 09:31 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: This isn’t a Charter amendment about the LC’s structure. So it’s not eligible for LC origination.

In other words, a law about how the LC is elected doesn’t change its constitutional structure as outlined in the Charter. The LC isn’t allowed to propose laws to the Assembly.

I do have a bill open to amend the Charter so that the LC can write its own local constitutional laws. That’s a more permanent solution that would avoid bringing this back under the Assembly’s jurisdiction.

But as Nat brought up that wouldn't work.

The Charter doesn't say that the LC is only able to originate Charter changes: it says "constitutional structure".

Elections, number of LCer's, voter and candidate requirements, seem clearly part of the definition of Constitutional structure... otherwise why is the Election Act designated as constitutional?

(08-13-2020, 11:50 PM)North Prarie Wrote: So, I get that part of the HC ruling is that what happened wasn’t legal because it wasn’t part of constitutional law.
Buuuut...it also said that it wasn’t legal because it determines that non-WA members aren’t members of the coalition, which was in direct violation of a previous HC ruling.
So yeah. Hard against.

This doesn't redefine member in any way shape or form. It requires the exact same voter restrictions used in Delegate elections and literally every single election poll ever held.

This isn't a proposal the Assembly can originate anyway: it would have to originate from the LC - So as far as the Assembly is concerned this is a mere discussion thread.

By all means, do feel free to suggest how you would like to conduct an onsite one member one vote election held without foreign influence?

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

(This post was last modified: 08-14-2020, 12:46 AM by Volaworand.)

Volaworand · 08-16-2020, 12:34 PM

I withdraw this proposal as I think some of the other proposals currently under discussion make this unnecessary.

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

***Tsunamy*** · 08-16-2020, 04:58 PM

(08-13-2020, 11:50 PM)North Prarie Wrote: So, I get that part of the HC ruling is that what happened wasn’t legal because it wasn’t part of constitutional law.
Buuuut...it also said that it wasn’t legal because it determines that non-WA members aren’t members of the coalition, which was in direct violation of a previous HC ruling.
So yeah. Hard against.

I want to point out that the court's ruling are not definitive in any way. If the Assembly wants to, we can reverse and alter court decisions. We don't have to adhere to them unsparingly.

I'm not pushing this amendment, but I feel the above point is important to note.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***Kris Kringle*** · 08-16-2020, 06:03 PM

More like the Assembly can change the law to make rulings inoperative. The Assembly can’t alter rulings themselves.

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: 08-16-2020, 06:04 PM by Kris Kringle.)

***Tsunamy*** · 08-16-2020, 06:17 PM

(08-16-2020, 06:03 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: More like the Assembly can change the law to make rulings inoperative. The Assembly can’t alter rulings themselves.

Yes — exactly. The rulings are finite as it comes to the current law, but we can rewrite laws as needed. That's the push-pull between the judiciary and legislature.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***Kris Kringle*** · 08-16-2020, 06:21 PM

Absolutely, and I think that’s the great thing about our system. The Court can uncover a flaw or gap in the law, but the Assembly has full power to figure out the best way to address that.

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: 08-16-2020, 06:24 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Jebediah · 08-17-2020, 07:53 AM

I think the biggest use of legal questions isn't actually clarifying the law but simply to figure out what someone has to do in a previous situation - since most of the time the law is changed after the question anyways,

[Image: st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u5.jpg]