Judicial COI Act

falapatorius:
Ok. Thank you for the clarification, Madame Speaker.
Click to expand...
Come to think of it, Tomb would be a good person to ask on this subject since he's the Delegate, and he would know the extent of his own veto powers. I will try to contact him and have him post his opinion.
 
Bootsie is completely wrong.

Article 2:
4. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.
Click to expand...
Article 3:
4. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
5. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
Click to expand...

Article 9:
1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters majority vote.
Click to expand...

The delegate may ONLY veto amendments to the legal code, as the language in the law SPECIFICALLY links the veto power to the RA's power to amend the LC in terminology. The delegate may not veto amendments to the constitution or BOR, or treaties, or RA rules, or anything else that is not an LC amendment.

As this bill did not contain the traditional all or none rider, the constitutional provision is unquestionably passed.
 
@Silly String: I think you're interpretation is wrong. Are you saying the Constitution is not a part of the 'Law'? It is listed in the Laws section under 'Supreme Law'. Your focus in the AG's Office is 'Constitutional Law'. :eyebrow: Anyway, your quote says the RA has the power to enact, amend, or repeal Laws. Does it limit that to the Legal Code? No.

As to:
Article 2:
4. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.
Click to expand...
That is the bare minimum for passage of legislation. Furthermore:
Article 9:
1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters majority vote.
Click to expand...
As you can see, the 'majority vote' language is maintained. It's just a higher threshold. Semantics aside, I see no provision that prevents the Delegate from vetoing any Law.
 
You are overlooking the fact that by passing by a two-thirds majority or greater to begin with, the Delegate's veto would be overrided anyway, a second vote would be useless if the veto had already been overrided.
 
RPI:
By passing by a two-thirds majority or greater to begin with, the Delegate's veto would be overrided anyway, a second vote would be useless if the veto had already been overrided.
Click to expand...
That ignores RA procedure. An override must be a vote (from a constitutional standpoint). The point is moot anyway, as the Speaker didn't give special permission to amend more than 1 document in this case. Back to square one.
 
He gave his permission by sending it to vote. Anyways, this argument over this subject should stop... Bootsie should edit the law when he has time.
 
They're his own standing procedures, he doesn't have to expressly say so if he doesn't want to. Anyway, we talked on irc about it a while ago and he agreed that sending it to vote substitutes the need for him to grant permission. He was aware of it the whole time. I will not argue my point further, and I would ask that you do the same.
 
Can't give permission after the fact. The Speaker is beholden to the RA. He/she does have to say so. We're getting perilously close to abuse of powers here (imo)..
 
falapatorius:
Can't give permission after the fact. The Speaker is beholden to the RA. He/she does have to say so. We're getting perilously close to abuse of powers here (imo)..
Click to expand...
The discussion on irc took place before the bill went to vote, Bootsie just never had time to expressly grant permission. And just who is abusing whose power? The Speaker is not legally required to follow his own Standing Procedure.
 
RPI:
The discussion on irc took place before the bill went to vote, Bootsie just never had time to expressly grant permission.
Click to expand...
Who cares what took place on IRC? Permission wasn't given here. Period.
RPI:
And just who is abusing whose power? The Speaker is not legally required to follow his own Standing Procedure.
Click to expand...
:rofl: Obviously.
 
falapatorius:
RPI:
The discussion on irc took place before the bill went to vote, Bootsie just never had time to expressly grant permission.
Click to expand...
Who cares what took place on IRC? Permission wasn't given here. Period.
RPI:
And just who is abusing whose power? The Speaker is not legally required to follow his own Standing Procedure.
Click to expand...
:rofl: Obviously.
Click to expand...
I must've been misinterpreted. I said that I never got time to post on the thread, not grant permission. For the record (not that it matters now), the permission would not have been granted for this act.
 
Bootsie:
I must've been misinterpreted. I said that I never got time to post on the thread, not grant permission. For the record (not that it matters now), the permission would not have been granted for this act.
Click to expand...
Once again, thanks for clarifying. My apologies for assuming that others speak for you. :blush: That's the problem with IRC discussions imo.
 
falapatorius:
@Silly String: I think you're interpretation is wrong. Are you saying the Constitution is not a part of the 'Law'? It is listed in the Laws section under 'Supreme Law'. Your focus in the AG's Office is 'Constitutional Law'. :eyebrow: Anyway, your quote says the RA has the power to enact, amend, or repeal Laws. Does it limit that to the Legal Code? No.
Click to expand...

Yes, it absolutely limits it to the Legal Code.

According to the actual text, amendments to the LC or the BOR are explicitly not actions that "enact, amend, or repeal laws". Those are strictly limited to things which pass by majority vote - which both of those do not - and also specifically exclude RA rules (as the power to establish its own rules is declared separeately) and other votes which are not of a legislative nature, like motions, treaties, SC admittances, Citizenship overrides, and so on.

The delegate is absolutely prohibited from vetoing constitutional and BOR amendments. There is no ambiguity in the text.
 
Silly String:
The delegate is absolutely prohibited from vetoing constitutional and BOR amendments. There is no ambiguity in the text.
Click to expand...
At this point, I'm just going to agree to disagree. Procedure was violated in this instance. The Speaker is on record as not having granted special permission (or would have granted) for this bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top