That appendix thing

H

Heft

TNPer
wizard:
This has received:

13 AYE votes
9 NAY votes


Clearly there is a 50% basic majority. This provision was not a legislative document or amendment -- it is a referendum of the RA members to approve the creation of an appendix for formatting purposes. As such, I believe this vote does not need a 60% majority to pass, which is the requirement as stated in the Constitution for bills of a legislative nature (which this clearly is not).

Therefore, on behalf of the RA and consistent with its wishes, I would like to ask that such an Appendix be created and further Constitutional changes be noted as such in the Appendix.
Click to expand...

Has the Appendix been created? I know the Editorial Notes are still lingering in the Constitution.
 
I think Gross was going to work on it when he got the chance to - he usually manages the Constitution; I'm personally afraid I'd mess something up.
 
I've been busy getting my life back on track after all the chaos I've had to deal with in RL since last October.

I've been able to be on line lately more than I had been the last few months, but I'm still in the process of getting things taken care of, which will include a long distance move within a few weeks. By then I should have easier net access, as I has before May, and at that point I can address the appendix.

It's going to involve more than cutting and pasting, I'm afraid, since there has to be some rewriting to preserve the context of the notes.
 
I have begun to work on this offline.

Please confirm for me that, as far as constitutional amendments are concerned, any approved ones in the past several months (since April) are included in the text of the thread.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I have begun to work on this offline.

Please confirm for me that, as far as constitutional amendments are concerned, any approved ones in the past several months (since April) are included in the text of the thread.
Click to expand...
Other than this, there's nothing I can think of since Hers did the Staggered Justice Terms. Sorry for the push, Uni is ruining my sense of patience. Hope you've felt better!!
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I have begun to work on this offline.

Please confirm for me that, as far as constitutional amendments are concerned, any approved ones in the past several months (since April) are included in the text of the thread.
Click to expand...
Whenever I went through, I simply scrolled down the Constitution and copied and pasted all the notes in a separate document, which makes up the text of the thread, so every amendment prior to that being posted (which I'm not sure when that was) should be included.
 
Heft:
Grosseschnauzer:
I have begun to work on this offline.

Please confirm for me that, as far as constitutional amendments are concerned, any approved ones in the past several months (since April) are included in the text of the thread.
Click to expand...
Whenever I went through, I simply scrolled down the Constitution and copied and pasted all the notes in a separate document, which makes up the text of the thread, so every amendment prior to that being posted (which I'm not sure when that was) should be included.
Click to expand...
He's talking about updating the Constitution with recently passed amendments since he is the sole executor of the Law. He's been swamped lately and had a bug, a little behind but nothing too serious.
 
I have been unable to verify that the Cabinet ever approved the constitutional amendment on the staggering of the terms of the Associate Justices, which the RA approved July 18-25, and declared adopted by the Speaker on 1 August 2006.

Hersfold, since you were Prime Minister at the time do you recall if the amendment was submitted to the Cabinet for approval after the amendment was approved by the Regional Assembly? If so, what was the date?

Except for this, the editorial work is completed.....but I cannot post until this question is settled.
 
Uh.... I can check the forums. Hold on.

As embarassing as this is, I can't find anything for it either. I can only assume that nobody remembered until now that amendments needed Cabinet approval, and so it just didn't get done. From a legal point of view, does this mean the amendment is void until we can get it passed properly? Or would a belated approval by the current Cabinet be enough to get it into action?

:duh:
 
Section 2. Amendment Procedures.

A - The Constitution shall only be amended if a proposal receives both:
1 - Appoval by the Regional Assembly. A proposal for a constitutional amendment is adopted and ratified as part of this Constitution if, at a referendum of the Regional Assembly in which a quorum of members of the Regional Assembly participate, the proposal garners approval by no less than two-thirds of the votes cast during the voting period. This is to be followed by:
2 - Approval by a majority of the Cabinet Ministers. Cabinet Ministers shall have 15 days after the proposed amendment is passed by the Regional Assembly for consideration to endorse approval of the proposal. All actions by Cabinet Ministers in this regard shall be promptly posted with the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...

I guess the Court is going to have to decide that question, as well as what the term of office is for the Associate Justices, under these circumstances.
 
Now that the issue concerning the staggering of terms of the Court Justices have been resolved by re-enactment, and the term limits amendment has been finalized, a updated text of the Constitution, with a separated Appendix has been posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top