Motion to override the Delegate's Veto of the Evidence Redaction Bill

falapatorius:
Silly String:
I think this is super important to point out, for anyone who missed it. The original author does not want the veto overturned.
Click to expand...
And? This isn't about what the author wants (presumably after being counseled by you), it's about the Delegate overriding the will of the RA.. again, probably after being counseled by you). Your words ring a bit hollow, since it's your actions that spurred this Bill.
Click to expand...
I fail to see any problem with the author of the bill, or the Delegate, reading my posts in the discussion thread and deciding they agree with them.

That's... kind of the whole point of a discussion thread.

I'll also point out, I did draft an improved phrasing of the suggested law - one I still don't see the need for, and one which is not immune from some of the concerns about this one, but which would be an improvement over the version that went to vote. I do not oppose this version purely to be contrary. I have genuine and serious concerns that have not been addressed.

Since you bring up my prior actions, I'd like to take - yet another - chance to point out that this bill would have resulted in the defense receiving none of the requested evidence.

Yes, I was the attorney general during that case, and yes, I stepped in to take over the prosecution mid-trial - and yet, I was also the only one who ensured that the evidence requested was made available to the defense within the evidence submission timetable.

Had this law been on the books, I would have been legally barred from doing so, regardless of whether that evidence was exculpatory or not.

How on earth is preventing the release of important evidence desirable in any way? :huh:
 
Yo let me give you a real-life example.

In 2010, one President Barack Obama vetoed a piece of legislation, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act.

It passed the House by a voice vote, with no noted dissent. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

But the President vetoed it. In doing so, he explained why he thinks it's a bad idea. The veto override failed.

When a piece of legislation gets to the Delegate's desk, one might even say he has an duty to act according to his view of it. That's why we entrusted him with the position, and why it has that power. You can disagree, and think this bill is the best thing ever (or at least since sliced bread).

Now, there have been suggestions here that the passage of the bill could bring to light some documents from recent events, and the veto is an attempt to side-step that. This seems to me a rather fanciful suggestion. This bill has nothing to do with the release of documents by elected officials. It has to do with who can redact evidence proposed to be tendered in a criminal trial.
 
Guy:
Yo let me give you a real-life example.

In 2010, one President Barack Obama vetoed a piece of legislation, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act.

It passed the House by a voice vote, with no noted dissent. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

But the President vetoed it. In doing so, he explained why he thinks it's a bad idea. The veto override failed.

When a piece of legislation gets to the Delegate's desk, one might even say he has an duty to act according to his view of it. That's why we entrusted him with the position, and why it has that power. You can disagree, and think this bill is the best thing ever (or at least since sliced bread).

Now, there have been suggestions here that the passage of the bill could bring to light some documents from recent events, and the veto is an attempt to side-step that. This seems to me a rather fanciful suggestion. This bill has nothing to do with the release of documents by elected officials. It has to do with who can redact evidence proposed to be tendered in a criminal trial.
Click to expand...
Before we go comparing this to any other examples let's have all the information. If the override does fail then we know Plemb has brought up points that resound with the RA. If it passes then we know the opinion of the RA and we have to respect that. I think a 47-10 majority is enough reason to put this to an override vote.
 
Guy:
Yo let me give you a real-life example.

In 2010, one President Barack Obama vetoed a piece of legislation, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act.

It passed the House by a voice vote, with no noted dissent. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

But the President vetoed it. In doing so, he explained why he thinks it's a bad idea. The veto override failed.

When a piece of legislation gets to the Delegate's desk, one might even say he has an duty to act according to his view of it. That's why we entrusted him with the position, and why it has that power. You can disagree, and think this bill is the best thing ever (or at least since sliced bread).

Now, there have been suggestions here that the passage of the bill could bring to light some documents from recent events, and the veto is an attempt to side-step that. This seems to me a rather fanciful suggestion. This bill has nothing to do with the release of documents by elected officials. It has to do with who can redact evidence proposed to be tendered in a criminal trial.
Click to expand...
yes, that is an example, from a similar legislative system, where the president used the veto (as the delegate here did) and the Congress did not override. You seem to be saying that because once, in 2010, the veto in the USA was not overridden then this veto should not be overridden.

That is a strange argument. Sometimes the RA will not override a veto, sometimes we will (just like Congress). that is because, like TNP the US is a democracy, not the private stomping ground of a dictator who keeps around a parliament for show, who always vote as they are told.

I think our point is more that we have respected the Delegate's Right to veto. Nobody has suggested that he acted illegally. But I have not seen respect come the other way. There have been suggestions that the RA is stupid, Ill-informed or gullible. That is not the case. Sometimes there is collective wisdom beyond the opinion of one individual.

the 47-10 majority in the RA ought to be respected, or at least some inkling that it gave the delegate pause for thought.
 
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

There have been repeated suggestions in the thread that the Delegate should not have vetoed the legislation, owing to the large majority with which it passed. You have somewhat repeated them again.

The point was that the Delegate should not be criticised for vetoing any legislation merely due to the majority with which it passed. Argue for override all you want, but do so on the merits.

Aragnatim is entirely on the money. I think that perhaps there should be more genuine debate prior to a vote, but otherwise I'm in agreement with the point that he conveys.
 
I fail to see how there's anything wrong with the Delegate using his constitutional authority to veto. If the RA wishes it can override. But since there is no urgency to passing this rule and there is a vocal faction opposed to it, let's debate it more fully first.
 
Damn - I actually was going to propose an alternative to this version that I think could work better.

Basically, I think it would be better to amend FOIA directly, and add a clause that states that in the event information requested under foia is related to an ongoing criminal trial, the court *must* review anything not declassified. We could also add a functionally equivalent version to the regional security law, to cover information held by the SC.

Cause really, not declassifying necessary information is the only case we're concerned about - as far as I can tell, nobody is (or should be) concerned about the release of extra information that isn't required or requested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top