Requesting clarification.
- Thread starter Felasia
- Start date
FALCONKATS
TNPer
i do not see any problems what this request
I also want the court to clarify whether
according to TNP law:
what time does the term of RA speaker officially end ? specifically when the election is not conducted on time like in this election cycle (sept 2011).
according to TNP law:
does this mean the list updated by the end of the month by the speaker is the official and legal list till the next months update and valid for RA voting and election eligibility ?
what time does the term of RA speaker officially end ? specifically when the election is not conducted on time like in this election cycle (sept 2011).
if Speaker can not add or remove the RA members before election cycle what happens if a RA member loses his eligibility to be a member of RA before he casts his vote for example before election he has been inactive on forum for 10 days and cast his vote on the 6th day of election after 15 days of inactivity is this vote valid or not?
Felasia
TNPer
The constitution state that the Speaker is allow to accept new RA member, but these new members will not be allow to vote so the Speaker won't try to influence the voter list. On the other hand, removing RA member during an election means I'm having an effect on voter list.
I'm still waiting for clarification.
I'm still waiting for clarification.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I would offer the following as an insight -- this is the first election where a 15 day rule has been applied to the RA. Prior to this a list being updated and posted by the end of each month was more than sufficient to determine who remained an RA member, and new members were deemed active because their membership had not yet been for a 30 day period.
This the most recent monthly list sufficed for elections and candidacies, and it was possible to determine who hadn't been in the RA for 30 days at the beginning of a nomination period.
(This is another reason why the change from 30 to 15 days has created more problems than it was worth, IMHO.)
This the most recent monthly list sufficed for elections and candidacies, and it was possible to determine who hadn't been in the RA for 30 days at the beginning of a nomination period.
(This is another reason why the change from 30 to 15 days has created more problems than it was worth, IMHO.)
FALCONKATS
TNPer
i hear by grant an injunction to the 15 day rule
FALCONKATS
TNPer
The Justification that adding a time limit on who can enter the RA to me is unconstitutional it seems that if we have people who want to vote in the election should be able to what harm is it that they may not be able to run in the election but they should be able to vote.
A mean old man
TNPer
This isn't even about people voting in the election. Felasia brought this issue to the Court because RA Members had been inactive for over 15 days (the amount of time specified in the legal code after which members who have not posted must be removed) and should be removed from the roster; however, he wasn't sure whether or not he should remove them during an election or leave it to the next Speaker of the RA to remove them afterwards. This wasn't a request for judicial review; it was a request for the Court's opinion on whether or not Felasia should remove inactive RA members during a vote.FALCONKATS:
You aren't even at liberty to make this decision on your own; you need the support of the other Court Justices in order to make this decree official. I'm assuming that the other Court Justices have enough sense to realize that the 15-day limit is necessary to prevent the Regional Assembly from getting piled up with dead weight. If they don't, and this ridiculous and rash proposition is by some miracle backed by the rest of the Court, then I will still consider it an illegitimate case and continue with my assigned duties as if no such decision was ever made: according to Article IV, Section 1, part three of TNP's Constitution, "No sitting justice shall fire a request for judicial review." Felasia didn't fire a request for judicial review.
Did you even look at the Constitution for ten seconds before you made the decree that you believe this law to be "unconstitutional?" I probably know the damn thing better than you do.
Abstain
TNPer
No time limit on who can join the RA was added though. The 15 days applies to removal from the RA. This was an amendment to Section Two, Article II of Law 28 in the Legal Code which changed the time without posting before a member was required to be removed by the Speaker from 30 days to 15 days.
This process is keeping with Section 1 of Article II of TNP Constitution which mandates that the RA create and maintain uniform rules for adding and removing members.
The issue at hand is whether or not the Speaker can alter the RA roster, and by extension the list of eligible voters, through the removal of members as the Legal Code states in the above mentioned section that members are to be automatically removed by the Speaker should they fail to post for 15 consecutive days.
This was a problem already in existence prior to this change, this change merely increases the frequency of it arising. As far as I can tell this law has been in effect for years but during that time there was never a question of it being unconstitutional and I see no basis for it to be declared so now.
As for your final point of what harm is there in letting them vote, there is plenty. It is not too much to ask for people to post once in a 2 week period and by letting them vote there is the potential for them to alter the outcome of an election when they no longer qualify to vote. Just because they qualify at the start of an election doesn't mean they should get a free pass to ignore the requirements to remain a member. Would you let someone still vote if they no longer had a nation in TNP?
This process is keeping with Section 1 of Article II of TNP Constitution which mandates that the RA create and maintain uniform rules for adding and removing members.
The issue at hand is whether or not the Speaker can alter the RA roster, and by extension the list of eligible voters, through the removal of members as the Legal Code states in the above mentioned section that members are to be automatically removed by the Speaker should they fail to post for 15 consecutive days.
This was a problem already in existence prior to this change, this change merely increases the frequency of it arising. As far as I can tell this law has been in effect for years but during that time there was never a question of it being unconstitutional and I see no basis for it to be declared so now.
As for your final point of what harm is there in letting them vote, there is plenty. It is not too much to ask for people to post once in a 2 week period and by letting them vote there is the potential for them to alter the outcome of an election when they no longer qualify to vote. Just because they qualify at the start of an election doesn't mean they should get a free pass to ignore the requirements to remain a member. Would you let someone still vote if they no longer had a nation in TNP?
Grimalkin
TNPer
You ask too much. The only reason he's chief justice (and the only reason why the other two douche canoes are justices) is because no one else wanted the job.A mean old man:
At least everyone else realized that they probably didn't know enough about the constitution and legal code to make effective justices*. Now you've got a group of people who wouldn't know the ass end of a baboon from its head, and certainly wouldn't know their way around the constitution even if you did add pictures.
*(Simply my opinion. If I've mis-characterized anyone's reasons, I do apologize.)
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Its a mystery we shall probably never learn the answer to.
A mean old man
TNPer
Maybe we should amend a law.
