Motion to overrule the Speaker's ruling

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
As originally posted here,

I hereby move that the decision of the chair to include stated absentions on the most recent proposal to amend the Constitution be ovrruled, and that in the future, absentions shall not be included in determining any matter voted upon by the Regional Assembly other than to determine the participation of a quorum.
Click to expand...

As I stated in that thread, the background for this motion is as follows (link):

Sydia's quote from Wiki":
Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when members abstain, they are in effect only attending the meeting to aid in constituting a quorum, which in turn means that those who abstain still effect the general number of people in quorum.
Click to expand...

When a legislative system was originally established in the NPC era, and during my tenure as head of that system as Minister of Justice, absentions were treated that way. It was the original precedent for the Regional Assembly when it was first established.

As some point after my first tenure on the Court, the Court apparently issued a decision that absentions had to be counted in the RA and in elections. When I learned of it, I disagreed with it, but unless the Court recerses that precedent, or until the RA enacts a different rule, that precedent still applies.

The Wiki statement conforms with the practice according to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, and dates bavk to its original edition back in the 1880s. And that is based on the practice of the United States House of Representatives that is documented in a manual ofprocedure that was written by Thomas Jefferson...which takes us back two hundred years or so.
Click to expand...

My reasons for making this motion were stated in a later post in that thread (see link here):

As I also noted in my earliest post in this thread, we used to follow the rule as Sydia quoted fromWikipedia, and then it was changed. The link posted by Eluvatar is a vote taken when I was Prime Minister, and Mr. Sniffles had taken a leave of absence as Speaker in the middle of a vote.

I believe we need to return to the Wikipedia rule, and my motion to overrule the chair is a time-honored procedural device used to establish or change a precedent of procedure in a legislative system. The motion passes on a simple majority vote.

I believe that it could, and should, go to a vote now since it seek to overrule the Speaker's decision on the vote on the Security Council amendment, but it will serve as notice that I have asked the members of the Assembly to settle that issue, and apply that solution to the Security Council amendment ptoposal.
Click to expand...

I renew my request that this motion be put to an immediate vote of the Assembly.
 
I support this, I support this despite the terribly misleading title as it makes sound as if I made it a conscious choice when you readily admit that you followed the same Court ruling as Speaker. I support this despite the astounding hypocrisy of calling my last minute votes "self-serving" and "cavalier" while you are now calling for an immediate vote with an even less chance of making quorum. I will support this for the purposes of enacting a much needed Security Council and putting the region first, despite you single handedly sinking the previous two votes on the matter.

Take a note Grosse, it's called "rising above it."

Oh and before you go on about how I don't "vett" which proposals are worthy enough to become law. Check your spelling and I'll put it up.
 
I proofread the motion before posting it in this new thread and there are no typos in it.

As to my opinions, they are my opinions. In the rough and tumble of politics, it helps to have a thick skin.

As to any other typing errors, you can blame my one working eyeball. How well it works depends on the time of day and the weather.

As to asking the court for an advisory opinion, they do not have the power to issue advisory opinions under the current Constitution. And Byard's opinion was an advisory opinion that was permitted under the former Constitution.

I'd much rather let the RA vote on this motion, and allow it to settle the matter. Or is the Speaker afraid of letting the RA make any decisions for itself?
 
Any decision or opinion rendered by the Court that is not codified in the Constitution and/or Bill or Rights specifically can be reviewed by a subsequent Court since the decision is extra-constitutional in and of itself and therefore only pliable as law insofar as it is upheld by said Court.
 
I'm going to give the courts until the election to handle this, if anything comes up before I will act in consultation of my nominated successor. It should be his/her court and I'm not going to saddle them with a vote I started, the newest proposals should be their domain.
 
Any petition to have abstentions that were previously counted in official votes reviewed must be submitted separately to the Court.

The Court will review each issue independently unless they are grouped collectively. This ruling is not automatically retroactive however.
 
I thought I should be careful about how I applied this ruling. I wanted total confirmation. Having a Speaker recount a vote to issue a new result isn't a particularly welcome precedent.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I'm not quite sure why y'all are so afraid to let the RA settle the matter with a vote on this motion.
Click to expand...
The opponents of the Security Council are fiercely held in their beliefs, as well they should be- and it definitely would have been challenged in court. If the court would rule against it, especially for it to have it been done retroactively... it would've been an ugly fight and I've done enough court bashing for a lifetime.

You can consider it brash, arrogant, and self-righteous as usual but that's my reasoning.
 
I personally think that a revote should have been in order, as those who Abstained might have voted differently if they knew their vote wouldn't count for much.

But that's just me.
 
If they wanted their vote to count then they wouldn't have abstained. That's sort of the point of abstaining.
 
I haven't withdrawn this motion, and it is not moot. The Court's opinion is an opinion, and not a law, and the restored practice on absentions would have more binding force through this motion as it would effectively create a internal rule of the Assembly.
I again ask that it come to a vote in the Assembly.
 
The only aspect of this motion that is still relevant for a RA vote is the need to have the RA affirmative adopt the principle that absentions do not count in voting except for the purposes of meeting the quorum requirement. Therefore, I'm going to restate the motion only to that issue:

I hereby move that in the future, absentions shall not be included in determining any matter voted upon by the Regional Assembly other than to determine the participation of a quorum.
Click to expand...

I will bring the motion to a vote in this form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top