by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .9596979899100101. . .103104»

Kaiser South Waterford
Chief Justice Zetox,
Viceroy United Osean Federation,
Secretary Cappedore,
Junta Members: United Sentinel States, Highlock, Elmito, La summa malitia, American Thanelaw, The British Imperial

As the 48 hour poll has completed its duration as mandated by the proposed constitution, and with the majority of Junta members voting, I present the results to the Parliament.

Aye: 5 votes
No: 0 votes
Abstain: 2 votes

Following the passing of the Constitution, with honor, I request the Imperial Assent of the Kaiser to sign the Constitution into law.

I'd also like to request the Kaiser appoint the 12 MPs to their seats in the Transitional Parliament and to appoint a Transitional Speaker of Parliament and a Transitional Prime Minister following the guidelines of the constitution.

Thank you,
- Leria

Cappedore, United Osean Federation, North americas1, New shizal, and 1 otherStaine

AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT!

The Court received the oath of office of the following official:
Prime Minister Leria
Foreign Secretary Highlock
Attorney General and Member of Parliament Elmito
Minister of Public Affairs and Member of Parliament American Thanelaw

With the oath presented to the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Attorney General and Minister of Public Affairs has complied with Decree Law #12.

/S/
The Great Gazoo of Zetox
Chief Justice

South Waterford, Leria, and Staine

AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT!

The Court received the oath of office of the following official:
Home Secretary & Minister of Recruitment and Member of Parliament New shizal

With the oath presented to the Supreme Court, the Home Secretary & Minister of Recruitment has complied with Decree Law #12.

/S/
The Great Gazoo of Zetox
Chief Justice

New shizal

Kaiser South Waterford
Chief Justice Zetox,
Viceroy United Osean Federation,
Speaker Cappedore,
Members of Parliament: Highlock, United Osean Federation, The British Imperial, American Thanelaw, Elmito, New shizal, La summa malitia, Chokoku, Staine, Greater fireland, United regions of israel.

Mr Speaker, Cappedore.

With honor, I would like to present the first bill to the Transitional Parliament, entitled: "U.A.1: Transitional Act".

The bill's mandate shall be to repeal former legislation that is either deemed un-needed or un-necessary.

The bill shall also provide a roadmap for future bills that shall replace or amend former bills, overhauling the region's unnecessarily complicated law system.

May I also request Members of Parliament to present future bills in the form of dispatches to reduce message board spam.

Thank you,
-Leria
Prime Minister of the UAS

Union Act 1: Transitional Act:

page=dispatch/id=1522247

Staine

Leria wrote:Kaiser South Waterford
Chief Justice Zetox,
Viceroy United Osean Federation,
Speaker Cappedore,
Members of Parliament: Highlock, United Osean Federation, The British Imperial, American Thanelaw, Elmito, New shizal, La summa malitia, Chokoku, Staine, Greater fireland, United regions of israel.

Mr Speaker, Cappedore.

With honor, I would like to present the first bill to the Transitional Parliament, entitled: "U.A.1: Transitional Act".

The bill's mandate shall be to repeal former legislation that is either deemed un-needed or un-necessary.

The bill shall also provide a roadmap for future bills that shall replace or amend former bills, overhauling the region's unnecessarily complicated law system.

May I also request Members of Parliament to present future bills in the form of dispatches to reduce message board spam.

Thank you,
-Leria
Prime Minister of the UAS

Union Act 1: Transitional Act:

page=dispatch/id=1522247

I am against this bill because the bill is repealing laws when the substitute law hasnt even been properly introduced. A bill must first introduced detailing the new law and in the last article of the bill establish the repeal of the law that this Parliament wants repeal.

Also, I am against of presenting bill in dispatches. All bill should posted in the Government RMB.

Staine

Elmito wrote:I am against this bill because the bill is repealing laws when the substitute law hasnt even been properly introduced. A bill must first introduced detailing the new law and in the last article of the bill establish the repeal of the law that this Parliament wants repeal.

Also, I am against of presenting bill in dispatches. All bill should posted in the Government RMB.

I agree, the other acts this act calls for should come with this act before its voted on.

I like the idea of using dispatches for legislations as you can do a lot more than a RMB message, but I do understand that if a dispatch was maliciously edited after passing or deleted by someone who is no longer in the union then that legislation would be ruined or gone, though it could always be rewritten and proposed again. I like the dispatches a bit more personally as I don't think anyone is looking to hurt the union right now.

Staine

AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT!

The Court received the oath of office of the following officials:
Prime Minister Leria
Attorney General and Member of Parliament American Thanelaw

With the oath presented to the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General has complied with Decree Law #12.

/S/
The Great Gazoo of Zetox
Chief Justice

South Waterford, Leria, and Staine

AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT!

The Court received the oath of office of the following officials:
Deputy Prime Minister and Member of Parliament Nimbys
Foreign Secretary and Member of Parliament Staine

With the oath presented to the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General has complied with Decree Law #12.

/S/
The Great Gazoo of Zetox
Chief Justice

South Waterford and Staine

Parliamentary Overview - 29/04/2021
It is currently 19:00 BST on the 29th April 2021, and thus far the following MPs have been duly appointed to Parliament:

Government:
Prime Minister: The Rt Hon Leria MP (C)
Deputy Prime Minister: The Rt Hon Nimbys MP (C)
Home Secretary: The Rt Hon New shizal MP (C)
Foreign Secretary: The Rt Hon Staine MP (IndC)
Attorney General: The Rt Hon American Thanelaw MP (IndC)
United regions of israel MP (C)
North americas1 MP (C)

Official Opposition:
Leader of the Opposition: The Rt Hon La summa malitia MP (V)
Highlock MP (V)
Elmito MP (V)
Merlita MP (V)

Other:
Speaker: The Rt Hon Cappedore MP (S)
1 Vacant Seat (RS)

Key:
C - Centre Party
V - Vanguard Party
IndC - Centre-aligned Independents
RS - Red Standard
S - Speaker

-------------------------

Parliamentary Vacancies
As per the method described in the bulletin sent on the 27th April, the Red Standard seat is now considered vacant. The Leader of the Red Standard continues to hold the right to appoint a member to that seat, but until such time as that happens Parliament will continue without them. For clarification, the Speaker does not hold the right to vote except in the case of a tie, and is there to maintain decorum and parliamentary procedure.

Temporary Styles of Members
Pending a bill establishing a Privy Council or other formal honours systems, Ministers in the Kaiser's government (with the addition of the Leader of the Opposition, Speaker and the Chief Justice) will be temporarily styled The Right Honourable (The Rt Hon) whilst in office. Under the planned law all holders will relinquish the style upon leaving office, with the exceptions of the Prime Minister and Chief Justice, who will retain it for life as a mark of respect for their service.

All Members of Parliament are entitled to use the post-nominals MP during their term of office. None of these styles are compulsory and usage is at the discretion of the member, however they are expected to be used in any official parliamentary documentation or parliamentary reports.

This report signed by my hand this day of 29th April 2021,

The Rt Hon Nimbys MP,
Deputy Prime Minister of the Union of Allied States

Transition Bill 2021

Author: The Rt Hon Leria MP, Prime Minister of the UAS
Presented By: The Rt Hon Nimbys MP, Deputy Prime Minister of the UAS

An Act to ensure a smooth transition from to the Parliamentary model of government, ensuring the laws of the Imperial Union of Allied States are in line with the new system.

Be it enacted by the Kaiser's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the consent of the Council of State and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows.

1. Repealed bills & resolutions

  1. This act shall hereby repeal S.B.04, due to the line of succession being deemed unnecessary due to the changes in the constitution.

  2. This act shall hereby repeal S.B.20, due to the revision of the naming of laws in the Constitution.

  3. This act shall hereby repeal S.B.22, due to the unnecessary nature of this law.

  4. This act shall hereby repeal S.B.28, due to the line of succession being deemed unnecessary due to the changes in the constitution.

  5. This act shall hereby repeal S.R.1, due to the lack of use in the office of integration.

  6. This act shall hereby repeal S.B.6, due to Article II of the Constitution

2. Streamlining of Regional Law

  1. The Parliament shall have the responsibility to enact a “Parliamentary Procedures Act” no later than May 15th, 2021. The act shall enact rules & procedures alike to S.B.1 & S.B.18. Further, it shall establish regulations for the formatting of Acts and set the date of the Speaker Election.

  2. The Parliament shall have the responsibility to enact a “Criminal Law Act” to ensure the region’s criminal law, punishments and proceedings are easily known through a singular act. That act shall combine provisions from S.B.5, S.B.8, S.B.15, S.B.24, S.B.30 & S.B.31, and shall repeal all 5 mentioned bills. The “Criminal Law Act” must have approval from the Chief Justice during the debating period.

  3. The Parliament shall have the responsibility to enact a “Civil & Foreign Defence Act” to combine provisions from S.B.3 and S.B.16, to establish a regional Secret Service & to establish a regional defence force.

  4. The Parliament shall call on it’s membership, at a later date, to repeal all remaining Senate Bills and replace them with satisfactory Union Acts. These are to be in line with the recent constitutional changes.

3. Extent, commencement and short title

  1. This Act applies to the entire jurisdiction of the Union of Allied States.

  2. All references to external laws, sources or the Constitution are exclusively relevant to the Union of Allied States and its texts as existent on the 1st May 2021.

  3. This Act comes into force immediately upon receiving Imperial Assent.

  4. This Act may be cited as the 'Transition Act 2021' upon receiving assent. It may further be cited as '2021 c. 1'

LeriaNimbysNew shizalStaineAmerican ThanelawUnited regions of israelNorth americas1La summa malitiaHighlockElmitoMerlitaCappedore

Honourable members,
Please find above the first draft of the proposed Transition Bill. I hereby notify Speaker Cappedore of its tabling. If any members wish to make a motion of amendment this should be made clear within 48 hours, then it shall be put to a vote requiring a simple majority.

With thanks,

The Rt Hon Nimbys MP,
Deputy Prime Minister of the Union of Allied States

Leria and Staine

Members of the Council of State,

Please find above the first draft of the proposed Transition Bill. Due to no Parliamentary Procedures Bill yet establishing a formal relationship between the elected 'Commons' element of Parliament and the Council of State (which has non-binding powers only to declare a bill unconstitutional, though no power to amend or halt that bill), I hereby request that you confirm this proposed bill is constitutional.

If no confirmation is received, it will be considered constitutional (though it is requested you confirm it in writing). If a Councillor considers it unconstitutional, they must explain their reasoning and suggest amendments immediately. If more than one Councillor considers it unconstitutional, the words relating to the council of state will be removed, unless the suggested amendments are acted upon.

To be clear, the Council can ONLY suggest amendments where a bill runs contrary to the Constitution. There are no other powers afforded to the Council at this time.

With thanks,

The Rt Hon Nimbys MP,
Deputy Prime Minister of the Union of Allied States

Leria and Staine

I would like to announce myself, Greater fireland, as the Member of Parliament while we are finding another member we could appoint to share the power. Thank you, and I apologize for my tardiness.

Leria and Staine

Nimbys wrote:

Members of the Council of State,

Please find above the first draft of the proposed Transition Bill. Due to no Parliamentary Procedures Bill yet establishing a formal relationship between the elected 'Commons' element of Parliament and the Council of State (which has non-binding powers only to declare a bill unconstitutional, though no power to amend or halt that bill), I hereby request that you confirm this proposed bill is constitutional.

If no confirmation is received, it will be considered constitutional (though it is requested you confirm it in writing). If a Councillor considers it unconstitutional, they must explain their reasoning and suggest amendments immediately. If more than one Councillor considers it unconstitutional, the words relating to the council of state will be removed, unless the suggested amendments are acted upon.

To be clear, the Council can ONLY suggest amendments where a bill runs contrary to the Constitution. There are no other powers afforded to the Council at this time.

With thanks,

The Rt Hon Nimbys MP,
Deputy Prime Minister of the Union of Allied States

Deputy Prime Minister Nimbys, Viceroy United Osean Federation and Speaker Cappedore;

The Supreme Court has the practice of not declaring "bills" constitutional or unconstitutional but only "laws" that the Legislative Branch pass and Executive Branch signs.

For that reason, The Great Gazoo of Zetox, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will respectfully decline to comment since it is not upon the Supreme Court docket for its review.

/S/
The Great Gazoo of Zetox
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

CC: Kaiser South Waterford

Staine

Zetox wrote:Deputy Prime Minister Nimbys, Viceroy United Osean Federation and Speaker Cappedore;

The Supreme Court has the practice of not declaring "bills" constitutional or unconstitutional but only "laws" that the Legislative Branch pass and Executive Branch signs.

For that reason, The Great Gazoo of Zetox, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will respectfully decline to comment since it is not upon the Supreme Court docket for its review.

/S/
The Great Gazoo of Zetox
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

CC: Kaiser South Waterford

Under Article III Section 10 of the Constitution, you are a member of the Council of State. The job of the Council is to "offer non-binding advice and information to the Parliament on the constitutionality of any proposed motion upon request by the PM or any MP."

That is precisely what I request you do, as is your constitutional duty. This is in your role as Chief Justice and member of the Council of State, and is entirely independent of the Supreme Court. Zetox, this is all clearly stated in the new constitution, as the chief law officer I seriously suggest you read it and understand it.

The Rt Hon Nimbys MP,
Deputy Prime Minister of the Union of Allied States

Staine

Elmito wrote:I am against this bill because the bill is repealing laws when the substitute law hasnt even been properly introduced. A bill must first introduced detailing the new law and in the last article of the bill establish the repeal of the law that this Parliament wants repeal.

American Thanelaw wrote:I agree, the other acts this act calls for should come with this act before its voted on.

I will stand by my previous statement.

Nimbys wrote:The Parliament shall have the responsibility to enact a “Criminal Law Act” to ensure the region’s criminal law, punishments and proceedings are easily known through a singular act. That act shall combine provisions from S.B.5, S.B.8, S.B.15, S.B.24, S.B.30 & S.B.31, and shall repeal all 5 mentioned bills. The “Criminal Law Act” must have approval from the Chief Justice during the debating period.

This says 5 bills but lists 6. I personally don't think S.B.8 belongs in the Criminal Law Act. S.B.8 is already covered in our constitution so in my opinion it is unnecessary.

Staine

Nimbys wrote:

Members of the Council of State,

Please find above the first draft of the proposed Transition Bill. Due to no Parliamentary Procedures Bill yet establishing a formal relationship between the elected 'Commons' element of Parliament and the Council of State (which has non-binding powers only to declare a bill unconstitutional, though no power to amend or halt that bill), I hereby request that you confirm this proposed bill is constitutional.

If no confirmation is received, it will be considered constitutional (though it is requested you confirm it in writing). If a Councillor considers it unconstitutional, they must explain their reasoning and suggest amendments immediately. If more than one Councillor considers it unconstitutional, the words relating to the council of state will be removed, unless the suggested amendments are acted upon.

To be clear, the Council can ONLY suggest amendments where a bill runs contrary to the Constitution. There are no other powers afforded to the Council at this time.

With thanks,

The Rt Hon Nimbys MP,
Deputy Prime Minister of the Union of Allied States

DPM Nimbys, Viceroy United Osean Federation and Chief Justice Zetox,

The be as informal as possible...

... it looks pretty damn constitutional to me.

/S/
Prime Minister Tony Blair, Cappedore
Speaker of Parliament

cc: Kaiser South Waterford

Nimbys and Staine

American Thanelaw wrote:I will stand by my previous statement.

This says 5 bills but lists 6. I personally don't think S.B.8 belongs in the Criminal Law Act. S.B.8 is already covered in our constitution so in my opinion it is unnecessary.

Yep, this appears a mistake and I don't think S.B.8 should be there either... Shall be removed.

On your earlier comments the act is only repealing laws that have already been made unnecessary by the new constitution. The others shall remain until their respective successors are granted assent. We are merely stating our intention and commitment as a government to make these actions.

If you have any queries do let me know!

The Rt Hon Nimbys MP,
Deputy Prime Minister of the Union of Allied States

Staine

Nimbys wrote:

Members of the Council of State,

Please find above the first draft of the proposed Transition Bill. Due to no Parliamentary Procedures Bill yet establishing a formal relationship between the elected 'Commons' element of Parliament and the Council of State (which has non-binding powers only to declare a bill unconstitutional, though no power to amend or halt that bill), I hereby request that you confirm this proposed bill is constitutional.

If no confirmation is received, it will be considered constitutional (though it is requested you confirm it in writing). If a Councillor considers it unconstitutional, they must explain their reasoning and suggest amendments immediately. If more than one Councillor considers it unconstitutional, the words relating to the council of state will be removed, unless the suggested amendments are acted upon.

To be clear, the Council can ONLY suggest amendments where a bill runs contrary to the Constitution. There are no other powers afforded to the Council at this time.

With thanks,

The Rt Hon Nimbys MP,
Deputy Prime Minister of the Union of Allied States

After looking over the constitution and the proposed bill, I deem it to be constitutional.

Viceroy United Osean Federation

Leria, Nimbys, and Staine

Nimbys wrote:Under Article III Section 10 of the Constitution, you are a member of the Council of State. The job of the Council is to "offer non-binding advice and information to the Parliament on the constitutionality of any proposed motion upon request by the PM or any MP."

That is precisely what I request you do, as is your constitutional duty. This is in your role as Chief Justice and member of the Council of State, and is entirely independent of the Supreme Court. Zetox, this is all clearly stated in the new constitution, as the chief law officer I seriously suggest you read it and understand it.

The Rt Hon Nimbys MP,
Deputy Prime Minister of the Union of Allied States

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister,

The Chief Justice, The Great Gazoo of Zetox, knows the roles and responsibilities of being a member of the Council of State. The Chief Justice has read the Constitution is multiple times to have a better understanding of the new rules that were approved. Although the Chief Justice will be available each time is called upon to testify, the Court will never declare a "bill" constitutional or unconstitutional because any nation can present a case to the Court asking to be declare unconstitional or illegal any bill using evidence or argument that confirms its unconstitutionality and illegality and this Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice The Great Gazoo of Zetox, is going to avoid any scenarios like this and the same time complying with the duties as member of Council of State.
Let Chief Justice remind you that the questions you asked the Council of State was "I hereby request that you confirm this proposed bill is constitutional."

Words matter and the question you asked was cleared enough so this Chief Justice as long it remains Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, will always respectfully decline to comment on the issue of constitutionality or legality of any bill. Said that. The Court will be available to present testimony on recommendations and viability upon request.

Thank you,

/S/
The Great Gazoo of Zetox
Chief Justice

CC: Kaiser South Waterford; Viceroy United Osean Federation; Speaker Cappedore; Prime Minister Leria; Attorney General American Thanelaw; Leader of Opposition La summa malitia; and Leader of Red Standard Party Greater fireland

Leria, Greater fireland, and Staine

Zetox wrote:Mr. Deputy Prime Minister,

The Chief Justice, The Great Gazoo of Zetox, knows the roles and responsibilities of being a member of the Council of State. The Chief Justice has read the Constitution is multiple times to have a better understanding of the new rules that were approved. Although the Chief Justice will be available each time is called upon to testify, the Court will never declare a "bill" constitutional or unconstitutional because any nation can present a case to the Court asking to be declare unconstitional or illegal any bill using evidence or argument that confirms its unconstitutionality and illegality and this Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice The Great Gazoo of Zetox, is going to avoid any scenarios like this and the same time complying with the duties as member of Council of State.
Let Chief Justice remind you that the questions you asked the Council of State was "I hereby request that you confirm this proposed bill is constitutional."

Words matter and the question you asked was cleared enough so this Chief Justice as long it remains Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, will always respectfully decline to comment on the issue of constitutionality or legality of any bill. Said that. The Court will be available to present testimony on recommendations and viability upon request.

Thank you,

/S/
The Great Gazoo of Zetox
Chief Justice

CC: Kaiser South Waterford; Viceroy United Osean Federation; Speaker Cappedore; Prime Minister Leria; Attorney General American Thanelaw; Leader of Opposition La summa malitia; and Leader of Red Standard Party Greater fireland

Chief Justice Zetox,

Whilst the other members of the Council deem the bill in its current state constitutional, I do respect your personal perspective not to comment. However as this is contrary to the constitutional role of the Chief Justice as a statutory member of the Council of State, I will be recommending that Leria consults with the Kaiser South Waterford on the roles attributed to the Chief Justice, and your current position.

The role of the Council is not to provide a legally binding final answer to constitutionality, but to protect against obvious unspotted irregularities by having senior long-serving nations (who may not be MPs) read the bills presented to them. They then provide suggested amendments if they think it is unconstitutional or close to being unconstitutional, which can then be implemented by MPs. Effectively, they are there to error check and prevent the circumstances we had before of several contradictory bills and even contradictions in the constitution.

I am not asking for a definite or final legal position, your role as a Councillor of State is merely to confirm you cannot see anything that infringes upon constitutional rights, or would otherwise stand contrary to the constitution. This is because it is far easier to amend if errors are spotted now, than when the bill is already statute law. If you confirm that this bill appears constitutional, that is not a final position (and a later court case could prove it unconstitutional anyway), but confirms you cannot see any major constitutional errors that will end up with useless and unneeded court cases as a result. That is now ex officio part of the job of the Chief Justice, and sadly in life we cannot pick and choose which parts of our jobs we like.

All the best and I look forward to discussing this with you further, before the Parliamentary Procedures Act (which will regulate this further and provide a permanent framework).

The Rt Hon Nimbys MP,
Deputy Prime Minister of the Union of Allied States
Secretary of State for Constitutional and Legislative Affairs

Leria and Greater fireland

American Thanelaw wrote:I will stand by my previous statement.

This says 5 bills but lists 6. I personally don't think S.B.8 belongs in the Criminal Law Act. S.B.8 is already covered in our constitution so in my opinion it is unnecessary.

First, I will like to thank Nimbys for presenting the bill in the RMB and not in as dispatch. I am happy he took America thanelaw and I advice for presenting in the RMB and not in the dispatch because of many things it can have occurred (from illegal editing and or removing the bill/law)

If this bill is presented up for a vote as it is currently written, I will be voting against this bill and I will encourage everyone to do so because how can you repeal a law with the intention of substituting with another one law without presenting the bill in which is going to be substituted. This bill becomes law, it will created in the executive and legislative branch and we will have to go to the Court to get it fix, something I am sure we don’t to go.

I encourage Centre Party as party in government alongside Centre-aligned Independents to present first the bill language of all the laws you want to substitute first. Please do this first! Let avoid going to court. If this bill goes as it is currently written, I will talk to the Vanguard party and will encourage our Leaders and members to vote against it as well to the member of the Red Standard Party

Let have pass the first bill under this new constitution with a tri partisan vote!

Zetox wrote:Mr. Deputy Prime Minister,

The Chief Justice, The Great Gazoo of Zetox, knows the roles and responsibilities of being a member of the Council of State. The Chief Justice has read the Constitution is multiple times to have a better understanding of the new rules that were approved. Although the Chief Justice will be available each time is called upon to testify, the Court will never declare a "bill" constitutional or unconstitutional because any nation can present a case to the Court asking to be declare unconstitional or illegal any bill using evidence or argument that confirms its unconstitutionality and illegality and this Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice The Great Gazoo of Zetox, is going to avoid any scenarios like this and the same time complying with the duties as member of Council of State.
Let Chief Justice remind you that the questions you asked the Council of State was "I hereby request that you confirm this proposed bill is constitutional."

Words matter and the question you asked was cleared enough so this Chief Justice as long it remains Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, will always respectfully decline to comment on the issue of constitutionality or legality of any bill. Said that. The Court will be available to present testimony on recommendations and viability upon request.

Thank you,

/S/
The Great Gazoo of Zetox
Chief Justice

CC: Kaiser South Waterford; Viceroy United Osean Federation; Speaker Cappedore; Prime Minister Leria; Attorney General American Thanelaw; Leader of Opposition La summa malitia; and Leader of Red Standard Party Greater fireland

Zetox, I agree with one hundred percent! As matter fact the constitution have two conflicted sections. Article III Section 10 and Article V, Section 2. I think this need to resolve in the Supreme Court!

Again, I am not big supporter of this Constitution, I believe it wasn’t needed and told everyone to stop messing with the constitution. And you know what the sad part is, it already happening constitution conflict that we didn’t have and now there isn’t a poll confirming that Constitution because somebody erased before the time concluded.

Elmito wrote:Zetox, I agree with one hundred percent! As matter fact the constitution have two conflicted sections. Article III Section 10 and Article V, Section 2. I think this need to resolve in the Supreme Court!

Again, I am not big supporter of this Constitution, I believe it wasn’t needed and told everyone to stop messing with the constitution. And you know what the sad part is, it already happening constitution conflict that we didn’t have and now there isn’t a poll confirming that Constitution because somebody erased before the time concluded.

To make it clear, there is no conflict, at all. The Council provides non-binding advice to the Parliament on whether a bill is clearly unconstitutional or not. Note the word non-binding, Parliament can still pass the bill, and the courts can then decide.

As explained earlier this is solely for the purposes of advising parliamentarians if edits need to be made before the bill is passed. Indeed the whole purpose of the Council is to avoid the previous circumstance of conflicting and contradictory law, where it is simple and obvious to see.

Put simply, the council are there to error-check, give their personal opinions, and effectively proof read it for constitutionality. They provide advice, and will never be blamed if the court later finds the bill unconstitutional.

As per Article V, only the Chief Justice retains the power to legally (bindingly) rule in court on its constitutionality, following established court conventions. The Council of State merely advise Parliament if they spot any clear constitutional violations, so they can be amended and thus avoid unnecessary contradictions or court cases.

Elmito wrote:First, I will like to thank Nimbys for presenting the bill in the RMB and not in as dispatch. I am happy he took America thanelaw and I advice for presenting in the RMB and not in the dispatch because of many things it can have occurred (from illegal editing and or removing the bill/law)

If this bill is presented up for a vote as it is currently written, I will be voting against this bill and I will encourage everyone to do so because how can you repeal a law with the intention of substituting with another one law without presenting the bill in which is going to be substituted. This bill becomes law, it will created in the executive and legislative branch and we will have to go to the Court to get it fix, something I am sure we don’t to go.

I encourage Centre Party as party in government alongside Centre-aligned Independents to present first the bill language of all the laws you want to substitute first. Please do this first! Let avoid going to court. If this bill goes as it is currently written, I will talk to the Vanguard party and will encourage our Leaders and members to vote against it as well to the member of the Red Standard Party

Let have pass the first bill under this new constitution with a tri partisan vote!

Thanks for your comments, these will be considered of course. It should be noted that the only bills actively being repealed (I.e. Section 1 of the bill) are now deemed unnecessary due to the circumstances and/or the new constitution. They no longer serve a purpose and solely clutter the lawbook.

The S.B.s mentioned in Section 2 are not yet being repealed, and this act only commits the parliament to work to do so, and to repeal all current SBs as part of our transition to the new system. No acts are actively being repealed under Section 2.. Also the Parliament is not forced to replace any bills, and can indeed repeal a bill with no substitute and then implement a substitute at a later date if it wishes.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the Senate Bills no longer hold any legal merit anyway, as they comply with a completely different constitution, and must now be seen to be unconstitutional. Therefore I implore you all to pass this Bill so we can begin to restructure the region, move past this transition and build a brighter future.

It is also worth noting that as far as I am aware there is no Red Standard MP, and the seat remains vacant.

I do encourage all MPs to raise their views. If you wish for the Centre Party to amend the bill before the voting period, please provide details of requested amendments immediately. These proposals will be seriously considered if given in due time. I too hope we can work between parties, though I do implore you all to vote for this bill

All the best,
The Rt Hon Nimbys MP,
Deputy Prime Minister of the Union of Allied States
Secretary of State for Constitutional and Legislative Affairs

Nimbys wrote:

Personally, I am of the opinion that the Senate Bills no longer hold any legal merit anyway, as they comply with a completely different constitution, and must now be seen to be unconstitutional. Therefore I implore you all to pass this Bill so we can begin to restructure the region, move past this transition and build a brighter future.

I've had this thought the entire time. I personally think all S.B's should be scratched from the lawbook, but of course used to create our new system, only reinstating in parliament acts what is absolutely necessary.

«12. . .9596979899100101. . .103104»

Advertisement