MP Oelesa
Former Members
I'm in retirement but I'll continue to cast my vote.
Posts: 29
|
Post by MP Oelesa on Jul 2, 2017 19:00:15 GMT -5
Approved by the COFN House of Parliament of the Confederacy of Free Nations, that the following motion proposed by Oelesa, under the jurisdiction of the Confederacy of Free Nations, is hereby declared the official officer powers. As defined in ARTICLE VII SECTION 1 of the Constitution, the House of Parliament must approve regional officer powers for all government officials, as such I propose the following regional powers be approved.
The WA delegate, as defined in ARTICLE VII SECTION 2, shall have no executive regional powers besides World Assembly. The Chancellor shall have all regional powers Appearance, Border Control, Communications, Embassies, and Polls. The Vice Chancellor shall be the only other officer to have all regional powers. The Speaker of the House of Parliament shall have Appearance, Communications, and Polls. The Minister of Interregional Affairs shall have Communications, Embassies, and Polls. The Minister of Interior Affairs shall have Appearance, Communications, and Polls. The Minister of Justice shall have Border Control, Communications and Polls. The Supreme Justice shall have Communications and Polls Any constables, or other police forces approved or appointed to regional officer shall have Border Control and Communications.
Note that this is not defined as a bill or a law, it is a motion to be approved by the House and can be replaced or edited by the house anytime
|
|
Perland
Former Members
New flag be lit son
Posts: 63
|
Post by Perland on Jul 2, 2017 19:11:43 GMT -5
Aye
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Jul 2, 2017 19:28:34 GMT -5
AYE
|
|
|
Post by Jaslandia on Jul 2, 2017 22:35:06 GMT -5
I vote Aye, but I do have a question: Why is this in the form of a motion? Why not set these powers in stone with a bill/law?
|
|
MP Oelesa
Former Members
I'm in retirement but I'll continue to cast my vote.
Posts: 29
|
Post by MP Oelesa on Jul 3, 2017 8:49:14 GMT -5
I vote Aye, but I do have a question: Why is this in the form of a motion? Why not set these powers in stone with a bill/law? Well the constitution didn't define it as having to be law, and rather than make it a law and go through amendment process of a law, if we want to edit this motion it'll be easier. I think, but someone else can make it law if they wish.
|
|
|
Post by Andromitus on Jul 3, 2017 9:21:43 GMT -5
Aye
|
|
|
Post by Peng on Jul 3, 2017 15:21:35 GMT -5
AYE
|
|
|
Post by lefried on Jul 4, 2017 11:59:38 GMT -5
Approved by the COFN House of Parliament of the Confederacy of Free Nations, that the following motion proposed by Oelesa, under the jurisdiction of the Confederacy of Free Nations, is hereby declared the official officer powers. As defined in ARTICLE VII SECTION 1 of the Constitution, the House of Parliament must approve regional officer powers for all government officials, as such I propose the following regional powers be approved.
The WA delegate, as defined in ARTICLE VII SECTION 2, shall have no executive regional powers besides World Assembly. The Chancellor shall have all regional powers Appearance, Border Control, Communications, Embassies, and Polls. The Vice Chancellor shall be the only other officer to have all regional powers. The Speaker of the House of Parliament shall have Appearance, Communications, and Polls. The Minister of Interregional Affairs shall have Communications, Embassies, and Polls. The Minister of Interior Affairs shall have Appearance, Communications, and Polls. The Minister of Justice shall have Border Control, Communications and Polls. The Supreme Justice shall have Communications and Polls Any constables, or other police forces approved or appointed to regional officer shall have Border Control and Communications.
Note that this is not defined as a bill or a law, it is a motion to be approved by the House and can be replaced or edited by the house anytime NAY
|
|
|
Post by Magnatronia on Jul 4, 2017 12:17:54 GMT -5
Yes
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Jul 4, 2017 13:49:58 GMT -5
I vote NAY for the simple fact that, as Speakers are charged with deciding the validity of motions within the House, a Speaker cannot himself introduce a motion. I know of no jurisdiction that allows this.
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Jul 4, 2017 14:06:16 GMT -5
I vote NAY for the simple fact that, as Speakers are charged with deciding the validity of motions within the House, a Speaker cannot himself introduce a motion. I know of no jurisdiction that allows this. There isn't a law or Article barring the Speaker from bringing forth a motion; he is simply not allowed to vote on anything except to break a tie. That being said, if the Speaker did intend to vote on this motion, he needs to rescind this vote, and, if truly necessary, I will sponsor this bill to take it out of the Speaker's hand.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Jul 4, 2017 14:18:46 GMT -5
I vote NAY for the simple fact that, as Speakers are charged with deciding the validity of motions within the House, a Speaker cannot himself introduce a motion. I know of no jurisdiction that allows this. There isn't a law or Article barring the Speaker from bringing forth a motion; he is simply not allowed to vote on anything except to break a tie. That being said, if the Speaker did intend to vote on this motion, he needs to rescind this vote, and, if truly necessary, I will sponsor this bill to take it out of the Speaker's hand. I vote NAY for the simple fact that, as Speakers are charged with deciding the validity of motions within the House, a Speaker cannot himself introduce a motion. I know of no jurisdiction that allows this. There isn't a law or Article barring the Speaker from bringing forth a motion; he is simply not allowed to vote on anything except to break a tie. That being said, if the Speaker did intend to vote on this motion, he needs to rescind this vote, and, if truly necessary, I will sponsor this bill to take it out of the Speaker's hand. There doesn't need to be a law against it, because this goes against all parliamentary understanding of what a motion is. This is a matter of simple parliamentary procedure, not the constitution. Think of how this would look if it were acted out in person. The Speaket would up and say, "Mr Speaker, I motion that XYZ." And then he would sit down, stand back up, and say "The House will now consider the motion from the Honourable John Smith." If it would be comical to watch in real life, it's probably nonsensical. It's like a Judge acting as prosexutor, standing up from the Bench and moving to the prosecution table as he switches between roles.
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Jul 4, 2017 14:23:51 GMT -5
There isn't a law or Article barring the Speaker from bringing forth a motion; he is simply not allowed to vote on anything except to break a tie. That being said, if the Speaker did intend to vote on this motion, he needs to rescind this vote, and, if truly necessary, I will sponsor this bill to take it out of the Speaker's hand. There isn't a law or Article barring the Speaker from bringing forth a motion; he is simply not allowed to vote on anything except to break a tie. That being said, if the Speaker did intend to vote on this motion, he needs to rescind this vote, and, if truly necessary, I will sponsor this bill to take it out of the Speaker's hand. There doesn't need to be a law against it, because this goes against all parliamentary understanding of what a motion is. This is a matter of simple parliamentary procedure, not the constitution. Think of how this would look if it were acted out in person. The Speaket would up and say, "Mr Speaker, I motion that XYZ." And then he would sit down, stand back up, and say "The House will now consider the motion from the Honourable John Smith." If it would be comical to watch in real life, it's probably nonsensical. It's like a Judge acting as prosexutor, standing up from the Bench and moving to the prosecution table as he switches between roles. But all of this is perhaps besides the point; until tomorrow, Oelesa is the Chief Justice, not Speaker. He is within his rights to propose this motion today and before. I call him Speaker because he's the elect.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Jul 4, 2017 16:53:23 GMT -5
As mentioned on the RMB, then the motion has been entered into a House that is not presided over by a Speaker. As motions are brought before the Speaker, with its contents and parameters subject to the Speaker's approval and discretion, this motion cannot be said to end on July 4th.
In fact, it cannot even be said to have been officially recognized or called to vote, given the absence of a Speaker.
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Jul 4, 2017 22:35:54 GMT -5
After discussion with the Chief Justice, this motion is hereby removed from the floor of the House.
|
|