 |
|
MJW
|
|
MN,USA
Jul 2002 time: 23:24
|
|
I want to kill the veto for the following reason:
I will say that the whole purpose of the bill was to prevent us rushing into integrating foreign workers without a plan. So the bill did its job by forcing this issue. I must however point out that the 72hr limit was exceeded. If it had been a 3-2 vote with arnelos as the deciding vote I would have not worried since he had good reason for the delay. However, 3 other cabinet members were here and didn't act in the required 72hrs. So this veto is invalid. I will not challenge this in court because in my eyes the bill has done its job. But I do worry about the precedent that has been set.
Aggie
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ManicStarSeed
|
 |
of my banana plantation
Jun 2002 time: 21:24
|
|
Aggie, I agree with you regarding precedent. I just want to see the problem solved by the Senate, not the Court. You had the right idea don't push it, let the issue be resolved in time and let people get a plan together.
Skywalker, Spiffor as DM as the POWER to sponsor a senate bill which directly affects his duties as DM and that bill CAN repeal another law. As for the illegality of the veto, it is not illeagal, just ineffective as if it (the veto) never happened.
There is NO reason for a court case as NO law was violated, yet. If the DM or Prez assimilated foreign workers, then the law would be violated and there is a case. THERE IS NO CASE HERE. Just an argument of wheather the law will (note... will) stand up in court if it is violated. I can pretty much assure you that it will.
You are RIGHT, the veto is INVALID, TOO LATE and MEANINGLESS. The law stands as the VETO NEVER HAPPENED. Are you asking the Court for a ruling on it, go for it. There is NO real counter argument that can be made.
Again if the pres or DM want to push the issue, they will assimilate some foreign workers this next turn chat and BREAK THE LAW. Then there will be a case. Untill then we have an ambigous situation. There have been no laws or rules broken, just a missed deadline and some ensuing confusion.
The court can rule on the veto, but it seems simple...IT NEVER HAPPENED, deadline missed, the law stands. My suggestion is let the senate fix the standing law.
Nuff said
Mss
PS. It seams that I am shouting, but I am just empahsizing some points.
Have fun...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ManicStarSeed
|
 |
of my banana plantation
Jun 2002 time: 21:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by skywalker
I said Spiffor cannot UNILATERALLY repeal or change it. Of course he can support another bill that does so, but it's the SENATE that votes on the bill, and it's just like any other bill.
|
I just do not know where you got the unilateral idea from. I said that he could sponsor a bill.... I think you took the last part out of that context.
quote: Originally posted by skywalker
The veto WAS illegal because it happened after the time limit for a veto had expired.
|
No it was not..
the cabinet BROKE NO LAWS, nothing illegal was done, we did not disobey a court order, we did not overstep costitutional powers, no workers were assimilated- - NOTHING illegal happened. Our VETO just becam empty words upon the sand. The court will not uphold the VETO, that is it. We missed a deadline.
When you say illegal, what are you getting at, are you looking for impeachment? censure? That is where illegal goes. Are you saying that by missing the deadline We did something illegal? Are you crying for justice? For what wrong?
Nothing illegal has happened, yet.
Mss
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MJW
|
|
MN,USA
Jul 2002 time: 23:24
|
|
E_T it does not say RL issues in that part of the new con.
Last edited by MJW on 05-01-2003 at 04:12
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MJW
|
|
MN,USA
Jul 2002 time: 23:24
|
|
The court should do that ASAP...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:24
|
|
Some reactions after reading this thread :
1) I cannot represent the government on this case. I have too much work in real life these times, and I consider my DM duties are too heavy already. Also, I really have trouble with all the procedural aspect of a court case, it is really not my forte.
2) I don't understand all the legal language here. What exactly does it mean when MSS says that "(I) should sponsor another bill" ?
3) Judging is not applying the law blindly, regardless of the situation (at least IMO), and the sad reasons why Arnelos was absent for 2 days more that explains why the veto was 5 hours late.
4) Should this veto be considered null anyways (which would really prove how bureaucratic this Demogame is), I will sponsor anyone who proposes a bill cancelling Aggie's one. Since most people agree with the veto, I suppose such a cancelling will have a clear majority. It will only serve the purpose of cluttering the game.
5) When my worker implementation plan is ready, I may put it to vote (depending on whether people express their will to vote on the plan or not). In this case, I will add a clause that says the worker implementation can change without warning, should the circumstances dictate it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002 time: 21:24
|
|
As a representative of The Court, we all just need to know who the Plaintiff (complaining party) is, what the official complaint is, what law was allegedly violated, who the defendant(s) would be, and if you will be represented by any other party.
I think MJW is the plaintiff, but it seems that Aggie, MSS, and Skywalker all have spoken up, claiming that the Veto was illegally executed due to a violation of the 72 hour rule.
I can pretty much infer most of these things from the thread, but it's more proper to have them clearly stated so that there can be no debate. Would someone please, just for the sake of procedure, stand forward as the Plaintiff and take up this case by answering the questions above? We can then take your complaint, start an official case thread, notify the defense to submit their position, pick a cheif justice, and begin working on this case.
Also note, if there is sufficient interest, we will listen to a motion to enjoin this proceeding so that the Senate may redraft the bill in question ... however, those in favor/against should be prepared to argue it to us.
--Judge Togas
p.s. Maybe jdjdjd will be confirmed by the time this thing get's started ... IF it gets started. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sheik
|
|
skywalker, are you represented by another party?
what law do you think was broken?
who will be the defendant?
[I contend that the veto was illegal and so the original law should stand!]
Is that your official complaint?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ManicStarSeed
|
 |
of my banana plantation
Jun 2002 time: 21:24
|
|
Spiffor:
All I am saying is that I really does not matter if the veto stands or not. Assume it dosen't, it is still within your power (as DM) to sponsor (draft and present) a bill regarding this issue to the senate. That could include repealing the law, modifying it or scraping it and replace it with something different. Granted, it will be a bill to be voted upon by the senate, it is just one of the several solutions to this dilemma. I am NOT saying you really should do it, just you can.
Togas:
I do not think that the veto should be nullified. It was a few hours during extenuating circumstances. BUT as the letter of the law was not followed, there is a (not so, in my opinion) reasonable case to invalidate the veto.
Nothing illegal happened. The word Illegal should be struck from the record. INVALID/VALID should be the focus.
quote:
Also note, if there is sufficient interest, we will listen to a motion to enjoin this proceeding so that the Senate may redraft the bill in question ... however, those in favor/against should be prepared to argue it to us.
|
I think that I move for this as....
In short there are two options;
1- Let the Veto stand, the bill never became law, the senate needs to draft something doifferent or summon a 2/3s majority to override. Senate action is required.
2- Let the Veto fail, the bill becomes law, nothiong ilegal has been done yet. There are a few in the senat who are currently looking at a new bill replacing/revising the existing one in question. Senate action is required.
I am moving to suspend hearing untill the will of the senate is known. Realize that the senate did not bring this case up, only a few senetors, who can not speak for all the senate.
Let the senate take the veto as a sign of executive displeasure with the bill in question and let them fix it. I ask for 7 days to allow the senate to resolve this issue before starting a hearing regarding a veto for a bill that will not exist in two weeks.
I am trying to save court resources. Why hear a case when the situation has the potential of changeing halfway through the process? Give it a week, see what we have and then move on.
It seems simple... a deadline is a deadline. I am not certain that the court will allow a grace peroid that is not stated in the constitution. Let the senate move forward as if the veto is invalid. The next few actions of the senate will help the court decide on the proper course of action.
Mss
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MJW
|
|
MN,USA
Jul 2002 time: 23:24
|
|
It was challged for a different reason.... read the thread panag!
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|