Issue arising from the election of Tresville

Haor Chall:
mr_sniffles:
Oh and those screaming for blood can thank the "new" "streamlined" version of the Constitution for such open endedness.
Click to expand...

Open endedness? I think it's pretty clear cut. Unlike before where you could worm you way out of anything because of how verbose the constitution was.
Click to expand...
Yea, it was amazing. "Shit we can't do that." "Sure we can, let's just take this, throw some of this in, and maybe this too, and we're good." "Oh okay." Good times. Did wonders for my "critical reading" abilities, if nothing else.

In order to avoid the appearance of blatantly returning to that style of "interpretation" (which I suspect most people here would agree is a good goal), applying this retro-actively or whatever is not the way to go. RA resolution or Court decision (not sure why the CLO would deal with this, but whatever), but something.
 
A resolution, in order to pass quickly, would potentially use the CLO to become Emergency legislation, I suppose that's why Grosseschnauzer may have mentioned the CLO?
 
Bill of Rights:
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.
Click to expand...

This should be done by the courts or not at all.
 
Precedent has clearly established that the CLO has the ability to ability to initiate legislative action for an immediate vote. Mr. Sniffles would have to take the questions to the CLO.

And what is Gracis Maximus even posting here? THe RA voted some time back to prohibit non-TNP citiszens or RA members from posting in this subforum

Finally, let's be clear about retroactivity. While Law 28 doesn't use the word, the enacting legislation for Law 28 included provisions to implement the current RA application oath. Those provisions made clear that RA members who did not post the oath were suspended from all offices and poositions in the government until they posted the most recent oath as provided in Law 28, at which time they were automatically reinstated.

Law 28 does not state if the reinstatement was as of the time of suspension or when the revised oath is posted. It can be read either way, and one view is just as valid as the other, as far as the language is concerned.

Because of this either the CLO or the Court could be used to settle that intrepretation questions.
 
mr_sniffles:
Bill of Rights:
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.
Click to expand...

This should be done by the courts or not at all.
Click to expand...
Except that the RA can amend the Constitution.

Logically it can also pass resolutions with Constitutional force.
 
Ah, so instead of addressing my points I am just going to be removed from access. Bravo. It is good to see the seeds of my labors finally taking root.
 
Eluvatar:
mr_sniffles:
Bill of Rights:
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.
Click to expand...

This should be done by the courts or not at all.
Click to expand...
Except that the RA can amend the Constitution.

Logically it can also pass resolutions with Constitutional force.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what a resolution in the Parliamentary tradition is, do you?
 
Gracius Maximus:
Ah, so instead of addressing my points I am just going to be removed from access. Bravo. It is good to see the seeds of my labors finally taking root.
Click to expand...
Actually I believe the Assembly resolved not to permit the posting of non-Assembly members in Preliminary Discussions, not the Public board. <_< I may be wrong of course.

In any case, I direct attention to this formal motion.
 
And this is for Khark. Gracius Maximus is also Ivan Moldavi.

I will weigh in when I have had breakfast, and taken care of my damned allergies. :P
 
Gracius Maximus:
Good for you.

Ignoring the rule of law as written by the offsite pretenders is something typically reserved for Tyrants. I would know.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why I take issue with this. I bet this made you laugh, as it will any serious player who understands law.

It is nice to see that my points were ignored and obscured. This is pretty clear cut, and I would urge anyone who feels ill at this situation to ignore those who are deliberately trying to bog you down in technicalities.


Also to Outer Kharkistania, please maintain a civil demeanor in these halls.
 
Well, this is an unfortunate turn of events. I believe this is properly a matter for the courts to sort out... and quickly, I hope!
 
Well as I a putting in my two cents into this I think that if the CLO is asked to get into this I believe the court should look into this situation.
 
Frankly, I think this is a non-issue as the spirit of the requirement of RA membership was to prevent Invaders from packing the government with members of their own organizations, not to prevent someone who was apparently not-properly masked and fell into the cracks.

However, I am all for getting this thing out of the way ASAP while maintaining the legitimacy of this government, so I am all for Court and or CLO involvement, so long as its done quickly and doesn't turn into a vehicle for those who oppose Cisco for personal or historical reasons to carry on their grudge.
 
The problem appears to be here a conflict between Principles and practicality. I am the first to admit that a solidly defined and inviolate Constitution is the highest good of the region - but to retroactively strike Tresville from the ballot when he is elected by the majority is, for practical purposes, harmful to this region. It is a disenfranchisement of a majority of voters who, in good faith, elected Tresville as delegate.

The Principle, in this case, is shorn to the very bone. Not only was Tresville a suspended member, he was also a member for about 24 of the required 30 days. This is the essence of a technicality.

However, there is hardly a possibility of passing a resolution that specifically legitimizes Tresville as candidate, but expressly rules out a precedent to be used by other candidates later on. That is by definition not how laws work. An even worse idea is to ignore the technicality entirely, since that sets its own, unwritten precedent.

There might be a solution, though I do not know how acceptable it is either to the Constitution or the People:

Perhaps the election can simply be declared invalid, based on the fact that the candidates were improperly investigated for eligibility. The election must then be re-run with new nominations and new votes. This is the only way to avoid disenfranchising nations who voted for Tresville in good faith.

(Note that since Tresville renewed his oath on August 5, he would presumably be eligible for a new election.)
 
The way this would be fixed in future is by having the Election Comissioners validate nominations-- I forgot to instruct them to do that this time around.
 
If we re-run the election, I'd recommend only redoing the Delegate election.

Maybe do it in half the time or something, I don't know. That's up to the people in charge to decide.

But we don't need to redo the CLO, Speaker, and Vice Delegate elections.
 
Outer Kharkistania:
If we re-run the election, I'd recommend only redoing the Delegate election.

Maybe do it in half the time or something, I don't know. That's up to the people in charge to decide.

But we don't need to redo the CLO, Speaker, and Vice Delegate elections.
Click to expand...
Obviously, coz you mightn't get re-elected. We wouldn't want that to happen now?

Anyway, on topic, I personally think that the constitution is law and it appears that said constitution has been broken her, so I think we need a new delegate. If the RA is allowed to make a decision, well then there's nothing I can do to change this, but if he's allowed in, in my opinion it's just bypassing a law because you don't like it.

MDH
 
My mistake. Bollocks. Anyway, all the other elections were entirely legal, so it would be pointless, unfair, and time-wasting to repeat them.

MDH
 
Outer Kharkistania:
If we re-run the election, I'd recommend only redoing the Delegate election.

Maybe do it in half the time or something, I don't know. That's up to the people in charge to decide.

But we don't need to redo the CLO, Speaker, and Vice Delegate elections.
Click to expand...
Rhindon Blade would also be disqualified on the same criteria as Tresville. And there would be a need to also redo the CLO election.

The problem appears to be here a conflict between Principles and practicality. I am the first to admit that a solidly defined and inviolate Constitution is the highest good of the region - but to retroactively strike Tresville from the ballot when he is elected by the majority is, for practical purposes, harmful to this region. It is a disenfranchisement of a majority of voters who, in good faith, elected Tresville as delegate.
Click to expand...

You are weighing the value of upholding the constitution to the will of the voters. Which is a logical assessment. And the voters are indeed the lifeblood of any democracy, but what is a democracy without a constitution that is upheld?
 
The problem appears to be here a conflict between Principles and practicality. I am the first to admit that a solidly defined and inviolate Constitution is the highest good of the region - but to retroactively strike Tresville from the ballot when he is elected by the majority is, for practical purposes, harmful to this region. It is a disenfranchisement of a majority of voters who, in good faith, elected Tresville as delegate.
Click to expand...

What you are forgetting is that those majority of voters were deceived.

MDH
 
Haven't read most of the thread, so I'm just gonna wade right in here...

Tresville is on the eligible voters list and since he's been here forever didn't twig my 'background check' reflex when he was first nominated.

I was unaware of the 30 day rule in the constitution (as, apparently was everyone else, let's be honest), plus have had a major unexpected technical issue which knocked me out for most of the election season (my graphics card died a painful death).

So I hold my hands up if it was my responsibility.

What to do now? Since new amendments to the constitution would be an RA issue; this might as well be too - an RA vote on whether or not to re-run the delegate election would seem fair to me.
 
I'm just throwing this out because I think the 30-day rule is stupid. This is only a half-serious proposal, and its probably best if its never even considered, but here goes.

We change the requirement to only 15 days or something and make it retroactive to this election, thereby making both Cisco and Rhindon Blade eligible.
 
Outer Kharkistania:
I'm just throwing this out because I think the 30-day rule is stupid. This is only a half-serious proposal, and its probably best if its never even considered, but here goes.

We change the requirement to only 15 days or something and make it retroactive to this election, thereby making both Cisco and Rhindon Blade eligible.
Click to expand...
If we simply hold another round of voting, then they both are eligible anyways and no need to propose that to the RA.
 
Ah so my head is on the chopping block too? Good to know - especially after just being elected in.

I'd like to point out that I had direct permission from the Speaker via PM to run as a CLO candidate - so this obviously backs the problem up one more step.

I agree that a RA resolution is in order. It is perfectly constitutional and is a neat, tidy, and legal way to determine the issue.

I also commend Tresville for his honesty - lets remember that the overlooking of this clause was the fault of many members here (including myself), not just him.
 
Rhindon Blade:
Ah so my head is on the chopping block too? Good to know - especially after being elected in.

I'd like to point out that I had direct permission from the Speaker via PM to run as a CLO candidate - so this obviously backs the problem up one more step.

I agree that a RA resolution is in order. It is perfectly constitutional and is a neat, tidy, and legal way to determine the issue.

I also commend Tresville for his honesty - lets remember that the overlooking of this clause was the fault of many members here, not just him.
Click to expand...
You asked me how to run for office not whether you were eligible. Jeez, doesn`t anyone take the responsibility to READ the laws anymore...
 
Rhindon Blade:
Ah so my head is on the chopping block too? Good to know - especially after being elected in.

I'd like to point out that I had direct permission from the Speaker via PM to run as a CLO candidate - so this obviously backs the problem up one more step.

I agree that a RA resolution is in order. It is perfectly constitutional and is a neat, tidy, and legal way to determine the issue.

I also commend Tresville for his honesty - lets remember that the overlooking of this clause was the fault of many members here, not just him.
Click to expand...
I am glad Tresville was honest, that is very commendable. Though, it does fix the quandary that we find ourselves in.

No one is putting your head on the block. Permission from the Speaker does not nullify the issue we are facing. The constitution states you must be in the RA for 30 days to run for an elected position. Tresville and you did not meet this requirement at the time.

I agree that a RA resolution is in order. It is perfectly constitutional and is a neat, tidy, and legal way to determine the issue.
Click to expand...

You also have a vested interest in not losing your newly elected position. And please do not take that personally, it is just an observation.

I do not believe that we need a new amendment to resolve this issue. Doing so would only drag this debacle out longer then it need be. Why not pursue other remedies that may work just as well and not violate any of the legal documents of TNP?

1) The results for the Delegate and CLO election be declared null and void. Hold a new round of voting for both, and this would allow Tresville and Rhindon Blade to run. As Ermarian suggested.

2) If folks really want we can bring the proposed plan to the court have them make a ruling on its constitutionality, and if the court okays it then we can move forward with a new round of voting.
 
mr_sniffles:
You asked me how to run for office not whether you were eligible. Jeez, doesn`t anyone take the responsibility to READ the laws anymore...
Click to expand...
And you directed me to submit a candidacy - also oblivious to that clause that everyone had overlooked. I'm not trying to shift blame - I'm simply pointing out that the Speaker and the Election Comissioner were just as unaware as the candidates were.
 
Rhindon Blade:
mr_sniffles:
You asked me how to run for office not whether you were eligible. Jeez, doesn`t anyone take the responsibility to READ the laws anymore...
Click to expand...
And you directed me to submit a candidacy - also oblivious to that clause that everyone had overlooked. I'm not trying to shift blame - I'm simply pointing out that the Speaker and the Election Comissioner were just as unaware as the candidates were.
Click to expand...

Citizens and candidates are also responsible for reading and knowing the laws.

Please read my post before this one. The quicker we remedy this the better off TNP will be.
 
Joshua:
You also have a vested interest in not losing your newly elected position. And please do not take that personally, it is just an observation.
Click to expand...

I never said that Tresville and I should unconstitutionally retain our offices. I stated that we leave it up to the RA to decide (yes or no) via Eluvatar's suggested motion - rather than stage a whole new set of elections.
 
Rhindon Blade:
Joshua:
You also have a vested interest in not losing your newly elected position. And please do not take that personally, it is just an observation.
Click to expand...

I never said that Tresville and I should unconstitutionally retain our offices. I stated that we leave it up to the RA to decide (yes or no) via Eluvatar's suggested motion - rather than stage a whole new set of elections.
Click to expand...
And I never made that statement. If it were me I would want to pursue the solution that would most likely let me keep my position. And a new round of voting could be a lot riskier. That is what I was saying. :)

1) Have the court rule on whether we can hold a new round of elections for WA Delegate and CLO, and if we can truncate the voting period ( 2 - 3 days of voting).
2) If they say yes, then send a bulk message out to all voters, and tell them what the situation.
3) This will allow both of you to run, and would be a lot quicker then trying to pass an RA amendment.

With the RA amendment, we need to propose it, discuss it, possibly rewrite and fine tune it, and then finally hold a vote. This has the potential to drag this situation out much longer then is necessary.
 
Haha this thread's moving faster than those at NS General.

Joshua, you do have a valid point - that is certainly one way to go about it. Both an RA motion and a whole new voting period are constitutional ways of rectifying this mess - which I too played no small part in contributing to, by overlooking the clause.

However...

Joshua:
1) Have the court rule on whether we can hold a new round of elections for WA Delegate and CLO, and if we can truncate the voting period ( 2 - 3 days of voting).
2) If they say yes, then send a bulk message out to all voters, and tell them what the situation.
3) This will allow both of you to run, and would be a lot quicker then trying to pass an RA amendment.
Click to expand...

That seems like a lot more hassle than a simple RA motion, which Eluvatar has already drawn up and put forth to discussion. I do indeed believe that this process will be much more efficient - whether or not they decide our candidacies should be deemed valid.

The issue at hand is not whether Fearless Leader should be Delegate over Tresville, or whether Khark should be CLO over me. This is what a re-election may very well determine.

The question at hand is more accurately - should our positions be deemed valid, despite the constitutional difficulty? This is what an RA motion will decide.
 
As far as I can tell, two of the three CLO seats do not need to be re-run.Since there are no voter eligibility issues, it should be reasonable to assume that the outcome of the other two seats on the CLO would have been the same.

Only the Delegate election and the one CLO seat werre affected by the errors, and those should be the only one for which a solution is necessary.

And the CLO could probably bring any motion it deems appropriate to an immediate vote in the RA for whatever amount of time it deems appropriate in the circumstances. It would likely be faster than the Court since I would have to be able to alert both Romanoffia and Byardkuria on the Court case, and the Court would have to provifr opportunities for submissions from interested citizens before it could announce a decision.

As I've noted earlier the CLO would be the mechanism to bring about the fastest resolution.
 
The question at hand is more accurately - should our positions be deemed valid, despite the constitutional difficulty? This is what an RA motion will decide.
Click to expand...

They are invalid obviously based on the what the constitution says. Neither of you were RA members for 30 days at that point in time.

Proposing motions to confirm you and Tresville is merely a band-aid to cover up the oversight. I would fully back a motion to hold a new round of voting for WA Delegate and the spot on the CLO that Rhindon Blade was elected to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top