Emergency Powers Authorization

I don't remember how we planned on using them at the time, but the interim rules look like an interpretation of the constitution by the then-MoJ (Schnauzer) of procedures which would fufill the Constitution. The word 'guideline' suggests that to deviate from the stated procedure would risk causing, but not necessarily cause a violation of the Constitution if brought up for review of the MoJ.

Presumably, though, the current MoJ could issue its own set of guidelines.

For formal discussion, the Speaker can pick up a formally submitted bill at any time <21 days but only has to make an announcement 24 hours before beginning the vote.
 
(notes that it is exceedingly late for him)

I imagine guidelines (some outdated) do not have to be strictly followed all the time.

And as neither I nor GM (who tends to be more adept at this thing anyway) could find a reference to Formal Discussions in the Constitution, I doubt foregoing such would be considered illegal.
 
Heft:
(notes that it is exceedingly late for him)

I imagine guidelines (some outdated) do not have to be strictly followed all the time.

And as neither I nor GM (who tends to be more adept at this thing anyway) could find a reference to Formal Discussions in the Constitution, I doubt foregoing such would be considered illegal.
Click to expand...
This is correct.

Overly verbous guidelines never supercede the document they reference.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Heft:
(notes that it is exceedingly late for him)

I imagine guidelines (some outdated) do not have to be strictly followed all the time.

And as neither I nor GM (who tends to be more adept at this thing anyway) could find a reference to Formal Discussions in the Constitution, I doubt foregoing such would be considered illegal.
Click to expand...
This is correct.

Overly verbous guidelines never supercede the document they reference.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I couldn't find myself getting through it either. But it doesn't mean that we should dismiss it altogether, please for the love of god find me a loophole!
 
mr_sniffles:
Gracius Maximus:
Heft:
(notes that it is exceedingly late for him)

I imagine guidelines (some outdated) do not have to be strictly followed all the time.

And as neither I nor GM (who tends to be more adept at this thing anyway) could find a reference to Formal Discussions in the Constitution, I doubt foregoing such would be considered illegal.
Click to expand...
This is correct.

Overly verbous guidelines never supercede the document they reference.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I couldn't find myself getting through it either. But it doesn't mean that we should dismiss it altogether, please for the love of god find me a loophole!
Click to expand...
There is no loophole to be found. The guidelines added hoops to jump through but they are themselves contrary in some respects to the Constitution.

The Constitution states that any citizen (i.e. Regional Assembly or "higher") can propose an amendment and that the Speaker will decide if said amendment will go to vote. Discussion begins immediately after the proposal and if the proposal does not reach a vote by the 21st day it is automatically considered failed.

So, I can propose an amendment and have discussion begin in the same thread, the Speaker can decide that it will move to vote and set a date on the vote to begin at any point prior to the 21 day limit. Theoretically an amendment can be submitted, addressed by the Speaker for voting and placed into queue for same within a single day according to the Constitution. The only time limit is on the discussion that takes place between the submission and the actual vote. There is no required discussion period minimum.
 
Revised Proposal:
1. As our region is the target of several mis-information campaigns by several factions.
2. As we have reason to believe that these factions are reciving support and direction from forces outside of our region.
3. As the primary goal of these factions is to depose the democratically elected delegate of our region, Former English Colony

The Regional Assembly of The North Pacific does hereby authorize the delegate, Former English Colony, to use such powers that are available, prudent, and upholding the traditions of The North Pacific to defend the security and stability of The North Pacifc.

The Regional Assembly does also hereby command that the delegate, Former English Colony, present evidence to the Regional Assembly at large for actions taken under the auspices of this aurhorization. Any action taken under the auspices of this authorization must be justified and documented to the appropriate members of the region or face Impeachment for failing to obey this authorization.

The Regional Assembly does hereby enact a sunset provision of the rest of the current Delegate's current term, at which time it must be renewed or a new authorization may be made in order for such powers to continue to be used by the delegate.
Click to expand...
Ahem Speaker (and peanut gallery)! This is the current state of the proposal... keep your discussion on topic or take it elsewhere.
 
The only extraneous discussion in this thread has been on the process by which this proposal can be addressed and voted on in the most efficient and timely manner. Hardly off-topic.
 
I agree.

I propose that the authorization be moved to a vote once a specific duration of the authorization is established.



R
 
This authorization would last for the remaining portion of Erastide's term. As the end of the authorization we can either re-authorize the next delegate, write up a new authorization, or let it lapse.
 
Gracius Maximus:
The only extraneous discussion in this thread has been on the process by which this proposal can be addressed and voted on in the most efficient and timely manner. Hardly off-topic.
Click to expand...
I agree.. I have seen nothing off-topic in this discussion.

I further agree with Roman regarding the specific duration issue. AlHoma makes the obvious point that it only lasts until FEC's term runs out, but it would be just as well to state that clearly, I think -- the actual expiration month or day.
 
To clarify the discussion process --

the "preliminary" discussion is informal -- it is not the constitutional mandated discussion period during which the Speaker may select a bill or a constitutional amendment for a vote. During the formal period, there is no mechanism for amending a proposal except by the approval of the sponsor, and the discussion deals with a finalized version of a proposal.

During the informal "preliminary" period, there can be several versions being considered, and until a sponsor of a proposal formally submits a proposal for "formal" constitutionally manated discussion, there is no time limit as to how long a proposal can be debated, revised, and changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top