Web
Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter
Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Europeia!
So what the heck is Europeia anyways?

Can I join?

So, I came here representing another region? I do not want to become a citizen. Where should I go?

What offices are there for people to be elected into?

What is there for me to do in Europeia?

That answers most of my immediate questions. What if I have any more?


Username:   Password:
Case Application Thread
Topic Started: Jul 17 2010, 05:47 AM (3,561 Views)
Subron
Member Avatar


I think that cleared it up for me, thanks Swak.

*adds another reason to the list that an updated law index needs to be done asap*
Coalition Against Lengthy Signatures

The Gentleman formerly known as Subron Sparks.
off  Quote
 
hyanygo


Subron
Jun 26 2011, 10:56 PM
I think that cleared it up for me, thanks Swak.

*adds another reason to the list that an updated law index needs to be done asap*

So what brings this change of heart?
off  Quote
 
Subron
Member Avatar


When I was looking around in it, I was using the copy of the Constitution in the Law Index. For whatever reason, the Third Amendment was not included. So section D and E were not included when I was looking at Article VI.

And, after having the third Amendment pointed out to me by Swak, I was able to read and realize that all of my concerns had been dealt with by that Amendment. I could see no loopholes, and my questions were assuaged, and so my questions were resolved.

I felt a little stupid for not double checking amendments, but I didn't think an Amendment that happened so long ago would not have actually amended the Constitution, word wise, yet. Usually when I've found these big contradictions, I ask someone on msn to double check for me, in case I missed something, or were they aware of some amendment somewhere I didn't see. I didn't in this case, and apologize for that. But seriously. That amendment was passed over a year ago. Why is the text of the Constitution not yet changed?
Coalition Against Lengthy Signatures

The Gentleman formerly known as Subron Sparks.
off  Quote
 
hyanygo


Subron
Jun 26 2011, 11:13 PM
When I was looking around in it, I was using the copy of the Constitution in the Law Index. For whatever reason, the Third Amendment was not included. So section D and E were not included when I was looking at Article VI.

And, after having the third Amendment pointed out to me by Swak, I was able to read and realize that all of my concerns had been dealt with by that Amendment. I could see no loopholes, and my questions were assuaged, and so my questions were resolved.

I felt a little stupid for not double checking amendments, but I didn't think an Amendment that happened so long ago would not have actually amended the Constitution, word wise, yet. Usually when I've found these big contradictions, I ask someone on msn to double check for me, in case I missed something, or were they aware of some amendment somewhere I didn't see. I didn't in this case, and apologize for that. But seriously. That amendment was passed over a year ago. Why is the text of the Constitution not yet changed?

Because it's a difficult job to do pro...OH WAIT. THERE'S AN UPDATED LAW INDEX IN MY OFFICE.

But it involves people taking drafting a little seriously, but I realised last term that everyone throws a hissy fit and complains when someone tries to fix it. Including you.

Hence me getting sick of Europeia.
off  Quote
 
Swakistek
Retired.

Subron
Jun 27 2011, 08:56 AM
I think that cleared it up for me, thanks Swak.

*adds another reason to the list that an updated law index needs to be done asap*

Duly noted.

Further, would you gentlemen mind not carrying out this conversation in this thread? Interesting though I'm sure it is, this is not the right place. Thank you.
Retired
Extended list of positions held
Extended list of awards and honours
off  Quote
 
Sopo
Member Avatar
Lord High Chancellor Emeritus

I would like to request the Court's advisory opinion on Executive Order 64, which is currently being repealed, and which would seem to necessitate the Senate re-passing a large amount of legislation. Could it be classified as a simple typo, and if so, would that allow the legislation passed since EO 64 to stay on the books?
Posted Image
The Right Honorable Sopo
Associate Administrator for Discord - High Priest of Nethel - Lord High Chancellor Emeritus
More Info
off  Quote
 
Skizzy Grey
Member Avatar
insert random title here


Sorry to intrude, but I thought this thread might be of use to the Court in ruling on Sopo's request.
off  Quote
 
Cordova I
Former Everything

Thank you very much. We shall deliberate and get back to you.
Cordova I (Cord) Anacreoni-Anumia

- Former Lieutenant in the Europeian Navy (honourably discharged), WA Delegate (6 months), Minister of Foreign Affairs (6 months), Associate Justice (8 months), Senator (16 terms), Deputy Speaker, Vice President (6 months), Speaker of the Senate (4 months), Chief Justice (7 months) and Acting President (1 week)

Posted Image X3 Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
off  Quote
 
hyanygo


I would like to request the Court's opinion on what suffices as citation method independent of the Act itself.
off  Quote
 
hyanygo


Hyanygo
Jul 7 2011, 03:56 PM
I would like to request the Court's opinion on what suffices as citation method independent of the Act itself.

Withdrawn.

Reason : Taken far too much time to accept/decline. For all talk about timeliness, I am disappointed.
off  Quote
 
Skizzy Grey
Member Avatar
insert random title here


Hy, I think there's some confusion about your question.

So long as the citation clearly describes the enactment, why would the Court care about the form used?
off  Quote
 
HEM
Member Avatar
former substitute senator to aexnidaral seymour

Skizzy Grey
Jul 13 2011, 02:30 PM
Hy, I think there's some confusion about your question.

So long as the citation clearly describes the enactment, why would the Court care about the form used?

Wouldn't this be a political question?
HEM
Board Owner | http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia
Discord Owner | Europeia's Server
off  Quote
 
boymekaniko
Member Avatar


I would like to ask the court's opinion on the legality of Constitution V and all attempts to amend the current Charter. Considering the following:
1. The Current Constitution,i.e. Constitution IV, does not provide for itself a procedure in how it is to be amended.
2. The implicit statement in Article III Section B of Constitution IV,
"..... amendments to the Constitution shall require a 3/4 absolute majority vote in order to obtain passage. ...." does not specifically empower the Senate to change the Charter.
3. The Constitution being the highest law of the land shall be above all laws, and shall over rule any amendments to itself due to its superiority.
4. I also found out that Constitution III has the same problems as the current Constitution. which also makes Constitution IV, invalid.
5. In my understanding it is illegal and unconstitutional to amend or change the constitution without its consent and/or authority.

Your opinion in this matter will affect everything that we are doing here. I remain.

The only thing that makes us different from other life forms is our capacity to imagine.
off  Quote
 
Cordova I
Former Everything

Thanks for your question. We are deliberating.
Cordova I (Cord) Anacreoni-Anumia

- Former Lieutenant in the Europeian Navy (honourably discharged), WA Delegate (6 months), Minister of Foreign Affairs (6 months), Associate Justice (8 months), Senator (16 terms), Deputy Speaker, Vice President (6 months), Speaker of the Senate (4 months), Chief Justice (7 months) and Acting President (1 week)

Posted Image X3 Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
off  Quote
 
hyanygo


I would like to request the Court's opinion on what is the authoritative version(s) of the Parliamentary Procedure Act.
off  Quote
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Judicial Archives · Next Topic »