 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002 time: 21:23
|
|
Unortho made this comment in another thread, but I wanted to address it here:
quote:
Section VII.11 seems a bit redundant to me. Don't know if I just missed it in the first one or something, but if there is no candidate for President, how can the Senate elect one? The candidates would come out of the Senate to begin with, so obviously no one wants to do it? How can they force someone? |
The section he's referring to reads, "In the event that there is no candidate for President, the Senate must immediately elect a President."
This line was put in to close a potential nightmare. In the event that NO ONE publicly stated that they wanted to be President before the election deadline, the entire government would be screwed as there was no other means to get President and we didn't want to force the Dom Minister to do the job (see Chain of Command).
This seemingly redundant bit of law allows the people (the Senate) to use whatever method necessary to give us a President, deadlines be damned, ... most likely they'd just informally extend the deadline, bully someone to say he'll do it, then run a poll.
Anyhow, we didn't want to get caught without a President so we added this little bit in just in case the situation ever came up.
--Togas
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ruby_maser
|
 |
Fear sunshine!
Sep 2002 time: 23:23
|
|
all in all, a very comprehensive document and, especially so, considering it was no-doubt a monumental undertaking to construct.
One question I have regards Article 2: Section 3...
quote: 3 Senators may also propose motions, resolutions, orders, and decisions of the Senate. These are proposed in the same way as laws and follow the same rules. These carry the same authority as a law. |
Could one of the ConCon members please elaborate on the intention of this section. From my understanding, these options are just another way to say law... or were they intended to suggest the same level of authority but having the possibility of non-binding status?
Also, I might have liked to see impeachment more loosely defined on the basis of incompetence, gross negligence or misconduct rather than just breaking the law of the Constitution (as described in Article 5: Section 3a). But lets hope it never comes to that
Overall, great job though
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002 time: 21:23
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ruby_maser
One question I have regards Article 2: Section 3...
From my understanding, these options are just another way to say law... or were they intended to suggest the same level of authority but having the possibility of non-binding status?
Also, I might have liked to see impeachment more loosely defined on the basis of incompetence, gross negligence or misconduct rather than just breaking the law of the Constitution (as described in Article 5: Section 3a). But lets hope it never comes to that
|
"motions, resolutions, orders, and decisions" are all equal to laws. Same rules, same power. We just didn't want to limit the Senate to only being able to pass "laws", so we allowed for other options like "Senate Resolutions" and "Senate Orders" etc to cover things that don't really feel like "laws" but should be within the realm of the Senate.
Long story short, you can call your bill a new Law, or a Resolution, or a Order, or whatever and it will all be the same thing legally.
As for impeachment, we pretty much just kept the old system in place. One important note is that an official can be impeached for breaking the law or Constitution. The Senate creates the law. Therefore, the Senate can control the terms and standards of impeachment.
--Togas
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|