FORMAL PROPOSAL: Removal of Transitional Clauses act

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
This is a rough draft, but it is an attempt to stop attempts to appeal to practices under the old constitution to trump the content of the new constitution. A minor point, but as we have seen recently, it is probably after 5 years time to draw a line under the old constitution:

The Removal of transitional clauses act.

NOTING THAT when the current constitution was introduced, the following provision was made to allow for a smooth transition to the new constitution:

All other entities of the former constitution remain in place until elections, or until a law is passed prior to elections that implements a part of the new Constitution. If a question of procedure arises, it is my opinion as Speaker, that the procedure previously followed provides guidance as to the procedure to be followed until specific new procedures are enacted.
Click to expand...

Noting that the current constitution has now been in place since December 2007

Yet noting that in April 2012 an attempt was made to use this transitional clause to appeal to practices under the old constitution to justify present conduct

THE REGIONAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY DECLARES AND ENSHRINES IN LAW that practices under and provisions made by the old constitution may not now be used as justification for procedures to be followed or legal precedent.

Dated xx APRIL 2012.
Click to expand...
 
If folks can help to tidy up the wording, that would be welcome. It is a loophole that obviously needs to be closed.
 
Whilst I appreciate the thought behind this, I don't see it is required. Attempts were made to use this defence recently, but it wasn't applicable and the Court rightly shot it down. Really, I don't think there is anything leftover which it would apply to, half of what you quoted was just Grosses opinion which has no constitutional standing over the laws we have.

In short, I really don't see that it is a necessary law to enact, it doesn't really do anything but invalidate something which is already invalid. And those that were using it will just find a different gambit next time anyway.
 
You are right that the court did not accept the argument this time. I think most of us agree it was a pretty tenuous argument - but court opinion changes, and once an argument is used once it can be used again.

I would rather see a loophole closed legislatively than rely on court rulings.
 
First, I did not file anything with the Court, and as far as I know no one did.

Second, my intent was to show that the practice wasn't arbitrary but something that had become accepted practice. My issue has been, and continue to be the assumption that has recently emerged during this tenure of this Court elected a couple of months ago, of an ultra-literal reading of things to the extent that common sense and reasonableness is being shunted aside.

If you are going to pursue this we need to also pursue adopting something along the lines of the following since the R.A. has restored the ability of R.A. members to abstain, and to formalized the accepted practice into the law of the region:
"For all votes in the Regional Assembly other than elections, including determining the presence of a quorum, the Speaker is treated as having cast an abstention unless he or she casts a vote for or against any matter.")
Click to expand...
 
Why can't a speaker just cast abstain like everyone else?

We could draft something giving the speaker a casting vote in the event of a tie.
 
flemingovia:
Why can't a speaker just cast abstain like everyone else?

We could draft something giving the speaker a casting vote in the event of a tie.
Click to expand...
Because we should want to maintain the illusion of being non-partisan; and just covering ties wouldn't really cover what would be needed; it would also have to have the Speaker have the right to vote to make or prevent a required majority that's larger than a plurality or simple majority.
My suggested sentence does all of that without having to detail it all.
 
I don't see why it's necessary to give the Speaker tie-breaking powers. If a vote ties then it falls barely short of a majority, and therefore doesn't pass. It's the simplest, most impartial option.
 
Practice or not. Govindia's actions were against the law. Thats why something was lodged with the court, he simply chose to resign before the court would force him to. Its pretty simple for a speaker to cast an abstain vote, it is not that difficult. How is abstaining from voting partisan? It is not. The independence of the speaker is still protected.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Practice or not. Govindia's actions were against the law. Thats why something was lodged with the court, he simply chose to resign before the court would force him to. Its pretty simple for a speaker to cast an abstain vote, it is not that difficult. How is abstaining from voting partisan? It is not. The independence of the speaker is still protected.
Click to expand...
Before April 12th, the Speaker could not abstain.
 
Although debate about speakers, abstentions, etc etc are all probably necessary, I would be grateful if discussion in this thread could be kept on topic, discussing the closing of the loophole outlined in the opening post.
 
Gulliver:
I'd say it in less words, but I'm board with the actual substance o the proposal.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying because of a typo. It is either:

I am on board with the actual substance of the proposal

ot

I am bored with the actual substance of the proposal.
 
I do not really care if it becomes law 34 or a binding resolution passed by teh RA, so long as it stops people appealing to transitional clauses to draw precedent from the old constitution.
 
As I am unable to post in the voting floor, and I won't be able to before the vote closes - can I please ask the Speaker to accept my vote here (and/or move it into the voting thread if possible).


Haor Chall votes AYE on this measure.


VMT

HC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top