Motion to Confirm Tresville

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
I, Eluvatar, hereby motion that the Assembly vote on the following resolution:

Motion:
The Assembly of the North Pacific, aware of Tresville's election as Delegate at http://z13.invisionfree.invalid/TNP/index.php?showtopic= 4703, aware that Tresville was constitutionally ineligible to run and was entered into the ballot in error, aware of Tresville's overwhelming popular support, and his previous tenures as an active North Pacific member outside the last 30 days,  resolves that Tresville shall be Delegate of the North Pacific.

If passed by a three-quarters vote following the appropriate procedures this resolution shall immediately hold constitutional force, but shall not be appended to the Constitution for the sake of brevity,
Click to expand...

Suggestions? Comments? Anger?
 
This would set the precedent that the RA has ultimate authority in all matters in the region, including constitutional law, and that the RA, can, in effect, override, or at least ignore, the constitution without ever passing any amendment or anything. Which isn't necessarily a bad precedent, depending on your viewpoint, especially if you don't trust the courts or something equally silly and outrageous, but as long as we're aware of that.
 
Oh. Okay, then, we're good to go. So, basically, the RA can by 3/4ths majority vote make anyone the legal delegate? Fascinating.
 
A 3/4 majority vote of the Assembly can do absolutely whatever it wants.

It could, for instance, declare the Constitution abolished and replace it with "Do what Polts says."
 
I don't believe this is a matter for the court - as this involves the validity of our recently elected Delegate, appointed by the people, not the judges.

I don't have any qualms about Tresville himself yet - but I'm just wary about the unorthodox way in which this occured. I don't have a definite answer yet...
 
Rhindon Blade:
I don't believe this is a matter for the court - as this involves the validity of our recently elected Delegate, appointed by the people, not the judges.

I don't have any qualms about Tresville himself yet - but I'm just wary about the unorthodox way in which this occured. I don't have a definite answer yet...
Click to expand...
Yes, but it also means that if Tresville is ok'd, so are you, and vice versa, so of course you have an interest in the outcome of this, beside a moral one, or out of respect of the constitution.

MDH
 
Rhindon Blade:
I don't believe this is a matter for the court - as this involves the validity of our recently elected Delegate, appointed by the people, not the judges.

I don't have any qualms about Tresville himself yet - but I'm just wary about the unorthodox way in which this occured. I don't have a definite answer yet...
Click to expand...
I heard that you were ineligible too, so you also hold your post via "unorthodox" means.
 
This is a matter for the court to settle. It involves the constitution, and eligibility requirements.
 
Actually I read this post before reviewing the preceding one on the issue - where I discovered that my post is indeed threatened as well. :o

Throws a whole new dynamic on it. :pinch: I posted about this here.
 
I'm not certain, but I believe they're referring to a motion that passed the RA confirming GBM as Delegate at the time of the Crimson Order Rouge period.
 
Haor Chall:
Grosseschnauzer:
I'm not certain, but I believe they're referring to a motion that passed the RA confirming GBM as Delegate at the time of the Crimson Order Rouge period.
Click to expand...

I know. But unless you're suggesting Tres intends to go rogue I don't think it is relevant.
Click to expand...
The precedent set, according to my understanding, is that the RA is capable of unorthodixically electing or confirming a delegate via 3/4 majority vote (and therefore, by logical extension, since that power isn't enumerated as far as I'm aware, able to do whatever it wants with a 3/4 majority vote).
 
Heft:
The precedent set, according to my understanding, is that the RA is capable of unorthodixically electing or confirming a delegate via 3/4 majority vote (and therefore, by logical extension, since that power isn't enumerated as far as I'm aware, able to do whatever it wants with a 3/4 majority vote).
Click to expand...

Well that is a strange one. But the thing is GBM was the legal VD and the legal Delegate had, IMO, effectively "resigned" (I'm not sure how else you can view it when the create a new forum and replace the existing constitution). The problem then wasn't so much that GBM was breaking the law but there didn't (and doesn't) exist any solid mechanisms for moving on/replacing the Delegate after the sitting one has declared themselves "rogue" (do we ever learn?). As I say, technically I would have thought it might as well be considered a resignation but the RA vote was a nice bit of democratic icing on top. I wouldn't like to consider that in extremis action as precedent for the current situation.
 
I have enough of your child discussion, we are in the moment in a critic situation and you are all arguing on this resolution. Did I am wrong?

For my grammar then sorry, I am French-Canadian.
 
Kanbei:
I have enough of your child discussion, we are in the moment in a critic situation and you are all arguing on this resolution. Did I am wrong?

For my grammar then sorry, I am French-Canadian.
Click to expand...
And so far Gatesville has done nothing, but toss words us at us. :)

THis conversations is necessary and needed. The court will be making a ruling and we shall go from there.
 
THis conversations is necessary and needed. The court will be making a ruling and we shall go from there.
Click to expand...

Ok then there another question for you, will you take the time who is not acting delegate. Is a time he will lose to make his job, I hope you will give him back the time he has lost if you said He can acting now the delegate? If I remember the election his at fixed date, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top