Motion to Overturn a Previous RA Rejection

Treize_Dreizehn

Treize_Dreizehn

TNPer
We're baaaack. Last time around I think I was a little hasty(and even I voted against the overturn in the hopes the courts would come up with a solution). But now I think is the appropriate time for this. So. Let's do this again.

Section 2.8 of the legal code says this:
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
Click to expand...

I hereby propose to overturn the previous rejection of Treize Dreizehn for membership in the Regional Assembly by the Vice Delegate Sanctaria.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Probably poor timing. You could wait for a while and just make sure your membership does not lapse.
Click to expand...
That's still alright. I can propose these as many times as I want. Though obviously I'd wait a while(as I don't wanna be a nuisance) if I saw this one fail by a large margin. Maintaining membership is a fairly simple matter.
 
You are already being a nuisance. People are upset about the ruling that maintained your RA membership at the moment, doing this now will probably guarantee its failure. That being said, best of luck. :P
 
I will vote for this, but will you resign from the RA if it fails? :P

This will be the 3rd vote on your rejection.

No sometimes really does mean no.
 
I believe the court ruling means that unless this is symbolic it would be illegal for the RA to vote on a process that has already been ruled upon by the court without introducing legislation.

Follow my logic - The court ruled that your membership would not be revoked. Thus, regardless of the RA votes to keep you out, you will not be put out. Thus, overturning something through the RA that the Court already invalidated by allowing you to keep your membership is moot.

If someone would like to argue why the RA would need to vote on this to "free TD" as it were, be my guest but I think it's unnecessary given the court ruling.
 
It's not to 'free TD' per se, it's to give TD the proper rights and privileges that you and I enjoy. At this present moment in time, you or I or anyone else in the RA have their membership lapse, and re-apply and be readmitted with little to no fuss at all.

Douria, were his RA membership to lapse, even for something like pressing RL reasons, would not have that.
 
punk d:
I believe the court ruling means that unless this is symbolic it would be illegal for the RA to vote on a process that has already been ruled upon by the court without introducing legislation.

Follow my logic - The court ruled that your membership would not be revoked. Thus, regardless of the RA votes to keep you out, you will not be put out. Thus, overturning something through the RA that the Court already invalidated by allowing you to keep your membership is moot.

If someone would like to argue why the RA would need to vote on this to "free TD" as it were, be my guest but I think it's unnecessary given the court ruling.
Click to expand...
It's cool when people show they didn't read stuff.
 
Nierr:
It's not to 'free TD' per se, it's to give TD the proper rights and privileges that you and I enjoy. At this present moment in time, you or I or anyone else in the RA have their membership lapse, and re-apply and be readmitted with little to no fuss at all.

Douria, were his RA membership to lapse, even for something like pressing RL reasons, would not have that.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with you if the court hadn't ruled on the matter.

But they did, the RA votes mean nothing at this point. TD is under no duress. He is a member of the RA and can't be kicked out. If his membership does lapse then just like everyone else, he could be rejected by a future VD I suppose but so could we all if our membership lapsed.
 
Haven't we already voted on this? I motion the speaker to deny the vote, on the basis the appellant is taking the piss.

I can propose these as many times as I want.
Click to expand...

I look forward to being reminded by the court of douria's outstanding contribution to the region. :ill:
 
punk d:
Nierr:
It's not to 'free TD' per se, it's to give TD the proper rights and privileges that you and I enjoy. At this present moment in time, you or I or anyone else in the RA have their membership lapse, and re-apply and be readmitted with little to no fuss at all.

Douria, were his RA membership to lapse, even for something like pressing RL reasons, would not have that.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with you if the court hadn't ruled on the matter.

But they did, the RA votes mean nothing at this point. TD is under no duress. He is a member of the RA and can't be kicked out. If his membership does lapse then just like everyone else, he could be rejected by a future VD I suppose but so could we all if our membership lapsed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's not as though the ruling specifically states he would have to undergo an RA vote to override Sanctaria's original rejection were his membership to lapse.
 
You are correct DD that it does say that.

...this ruling is not that good, in my opinion, putting it as kindly as possible.
 
Please could the Regional Assembly members come forward and express their opinion on this?

Do you want Douria allowed in the RA or not?
 
I would like Douria in the RA. I incorrectly thought this was not necessary, but it actually is. If Douria's nation lapses he will not be allowed back into the RA unless this is overturned.
 
Chasmanthe:
Please could the Regional Assembly members come forward and express their opinion on this?

Do you want Douria allowed in the RA or not?
Click to expand...
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7190827/1/

40 nations voted. 11 marked an abstention and 8 (including myself) voted in favor.

21 voted against. That is a huge majority among those that voted Aye/Nay and still a clear majority for the overall number.

The fact that 40 nations took part on some level, considering the overriding apathy that this thread and others get within these halls, implies that the Regional Assembly has spoken definitively on this issue and stated that it did not want Douria within the RA.

I believe the issue at this point is that the Court has decided to override the will of the Regional Assembly on political instead of legal grounds. Now the Regional Assembly must reverse its clearly stated will in order to conform with the Court's decision.

I was in support of the motion to overturn and would likely not change my vote at present but I do not believe that having it railroaded through the Regional Assembly on the backs of a politically motivated Court decision is helpful.
 
Most of you will not remember, but once upon a time we went through a spate of threats that the same motion would be introduced over and over and over again until it got passed. that pissed of the RA then, and should do so now.

The RA has made it's opinion felt, as GM has reminded us. That was not in the distant past: it was less than a month ago. I trust the Speaker will not allow this to come to a vote again.

the time for the RA to express its opinion is if Douria's membership to the RA lapses and he reapplies. This is the ruling of the bunch of inadequates we have been silly enough to elect to the bench. Until then, I am not voting on this again.
 
I think the previous vote failed for a number of reasons. I voted against because I think Douria is a security risk. However, others voted against simply because they didn't like the then-symbolic nature of the proposal, or were unsure of the outcome if it passed. The vote was held when the meaning of the motion was very much in question, and we were all waiting on a court ruling. Now some of those reasons to vote nay are no longer there, and the vote is more likely to actually represent whether we want douria in the RA or not.

I still don't think it will pass, but to think that it will go exactly the same way as before is a mistake.
 
Ah, thank the gods we have Crushing Our Enemies, to tell us how the vote will play out! Maybe it is time to update the procedures to reflect his position as Augur of the RA, tasked with letting us know whether a bill should even be considered or not. :P
 
If Flemingovianism had been accepted by the people, I would have made him haruspex-in-chief. Even now he could be up to his elbows in entrails.

See what you are missing?
 
I believe three members of the R.A. can object to this motion coming to a vote; and because I believe the Court ruled erroneously on this subject, I object to this motion coming to a vote, and if the objection is deemed premature, then I give notice that I will so object.
 
Hmmm, I'll bite. I will be a second. :evil:

God:
If Flemingovianism had been accepted by the people, I would have made him haruspex-in-chief. Even now he could be up to his elbows in entrails.

See what you are missing?
Click to expand...
Why must you taunt me?
 
If this is moved to a vote, will the Speaker allow a vote?

(if it is moved to vote, and the speaker allows it, I will third Grosse's objection)
 
I shall not be scheduling a vote. Members who would wish for a vote shall have to make use of a motion for an immediate vote, such a motion would require the support of seven members.
 
Mr Speaker, what is the number of RA members who would theoretically need to second an override to the objection to schedule the vote, once a motion to vote has been made and you have scheduled a vote and the schedule objected to by Grosse-DD-Flemingovia ?
 
Chasmanthe:
Mr Speaker, what is the number of RA members who would theoretically need to second an override to the objection to schedule the vote, once a motion to vote has been made and you have scheduled a vote and the schedule objected to by Grosse-DD-Flemingovia ?
Click to expand...

Zyvetskistaahn:
I shall not be scheduling a vote. Members who would wish for a vote shall have to make use of a motion for an immediate vote, such a motion would require the support of seven members.
Click to expand...

:P
 
Gracius Maximus:
So, just so I am clear, if seven members approve of the vote, the three objectors are overruled?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I second the motion to vote, and would ask for five more members to back this motion please.
 
I wonder how long they have to get the number required? Will this issue remain open until seven have been found? Or is there a time limit?
 
Chasmanthe:
Thank you Silly.

And who will those seven members be?

How many does that leave to get?
Click to expand...

Those seven members shall be any seven members, provided that one of them is Treize Dreizehn, as he is the member that introduced the proposal. Four more at this time.

Gracius Maximus:
So, just so I am clear, if seven members approve of the vote, the three objectors are overruled?
Click to expand...

If seven members move for an immediate vote then my decision to not schedule a vote shall be overruled, the three objections have not had effect as they would have required me to have had scheduled a vote in the first place.

flemingovia:
I wonder how long they have to get the number required? Will this issue remain open until seven have been found? Or is there a time limit?
Click to expand...

There is no time limit established by either the Standing Orders or the RA Rules.
 
Well, I object to the motion to vote.

Also - I will ask the court to rule whether or not if we continue to uphold the rejection does that mean, since we are past the prior ruling the RA's will, will be done and assuming the votes remain similar to what they were before, TD would be removed from the RA?

That will probably take about 100+ days to answer, but it seems relevant to ask.
 
punk d:
That will probably take about 100+ days to answer, but it seems relevant to ask.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. I sense the court would like to see everyone shut up about this and forget the decision they made. So I expect this will be fast-tracked if you take it to the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top