1BC Civ Forums / Civilization IV Discussion / 1BC CivIV BTS Multi Team Battle / Senate Floor / Dgame Archive / G's Law / Latest Posts

RE: G's Law

Comedy Dave — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:40:29 GMT

Given this is not a thread set up by the Princep to vote on a specific issue, I am still wondering what all this "vote" business is about.

I cannot possibly have abstained since this is not a vote thread.

As I said in the other thread, display the proposed changed in a straightforward, clear manner, and give justification as to why these changes are needed.

Until then I cannot see how we can possibly vote in an informed manner on this.

RE: G's Law

Bismarck2990 — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:25:07 GMT

This is in regards to what proposal?

If it's in regards to the 5th amendment proposal that was just posted today in the Town Square... I will not vote in any thread unless the proposal in question is actually located in it and posted by the Princep as indicated by the Constitution. Any vote up until now is premature. Not to mention, I severely doubt psweet would agree with the current version, as it contains material that was never revealed to us until today (only until today has there been any actual proposal).

The original thinking was that this would simply merge the Vice-Presidency and Princep into one position... however, all of a sudden, I'm reading extra legislature thrown in that would remove the legislative powers of the Princep and Senate... which, makes this a completely different proposal with only some similiarities to what was discussed.

This whole thing has just become a blind side with that 'inclusion' and any rush to push the Senate into a vote immedietly is unwarranted. However, I did read your comment's in the 5th amendment thread G... and yes, if the proposal is edited to still include the Princep's legislative powers as you've agreed it should, then I have no quarrels with it (as it would actually pertain to what has been discussed in this thread).

RE: G's Law

Mr. G — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:52:15 GMT

Recount of Votes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

House of Olaf - Abstaining
Senator: ComedyDave
Deputy: Jerm

House of Scorpius - Yea
Senator: psweetman1590
Deputy: Locus Coeruleus

House of Warmax - Abstaining
Senator: Bismarck2290
Deputy: HistoryDude

RE: G's Law

Mr. G — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:57:48 GMT

[quote][b]Comedy Dave (7/1/2007)[/b][hr][quote]Jesus, I move for a recount of votes.[/quote]

Recount of what votes?[/quote]

I don't know, that's the point... :P

RE: G's Law

Comedy Dave — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 05:11:20 GMT

[quote]Jesus, I move for a recount of votes.[/quote]

Recount of what votes?

RE: G's Law

Mr. G — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:01:33 GMT

Jesus, I move for a recount of votes.

RE: G's Law

psweetman1590 — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:26:52 GMT

I'll go with a handshake instead...

RE: G's Law

jerm — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:32:22 GMT

Okay now let's see a hug... :Wow:

RE: G's Law

TORARADICAL — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:05:42 GMT

[quote][b]psweetman1590 (6/28/2007)[/b][hr]

Okay, now that that's behind us, when can the Senate expect to see exactly what you have up your sleeves?[/quote]

I'm waiting to hear back from Mr. G.

RE: G's Law

psweetman1590 — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:36:41 GMT

[quote]

A) You know fully well that I mean the Articles of The Constitution

TORA, I don't think he did cause neither did I. Psweet, he meant constitution okay? This is the kind of thing which makes a Dgame not fun. Good Lord![/quote]

Well, Jeez, that's the distinction I was trying to point out to him the whole time! :w00t:

Okay, now that that's behind us, when can the Senate expect to see exactly what you have up your sleeves?

RE: G's Law

jerm — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:24:34 GMT

I know I'm not supposed to be in here but, just so we're clear, here's what the constitution says about the SC:

ARTICLE IV: THE SUPREME COURT

1. The Supreme Court shall bear responsibility for the proper adherence to the Articles of Constitution and the Articles of Law by the Presidency, the Senate, and the People.

2. The Supreme Court shall consist of two Supreme Justices, to be elected by the People.

3. Each Supreme Justice shall serve on personal title, for life, or until he resigns, or until he becomes absent, or until he is dismissed by the Senate, whichever may come first.

4. The Supreme Court shall organize and oversee the elections of the Presidency, the Senate, and the Princeps, and execute the outcomes thereof.

4a. In case of irregular elections due to dismissal or disbandment, the Supreme Court shall determine the length of the term of the office in question, in order that the sequence of elections as intended by these Articles of Constitution shall be restored as soon as possible.

5. The Supreme Court shall make such alterations to the Articles of Constitution as approved by the People.

6. The Supreme Court may, by vote of simple majority:

- Nullify a decision of the Senate.

- Nullify an Article of Law.

- Inflict upon individual member of the People such punishments as are necessary and proper for proven infractions against the Articles of Constitution or the Articles of Law, up to and including withdrawal of privileges granted by these Articles of Constitution.

- Present to the People proposals for alteration of the Articles of Constitution.

6. seems to give the SC a lot of power actually. That power is, however, countered by the ability for the senate to disband the court. (This is another subject but can the SC also nullify that?) Anyway, it appears the court can in fact present proposals for alteration of the Articles of Constitution but not the Articles of Law. Based on Mr. G's origional proposal, the court would first have to put up a vote to change the constitution to redefine the Princeps role and then they would have the power to disband the current Princeps and VP and put up a vote for a new one. It all hinges on what the vote of the people will be though.

I actually don't see the issue here guys. Why all this bickering for heavens sake? Pretty much over just a simple misunderstanding:

[quote]A) You know fully well that I mean the Articles of The Constitution[/quote]

TORA, I don't think he did cause neither did I. Psweet, he meant constitution okay? This is the kind of thing which makes a Dgame not fun. Good Lord!:ermm:

RE: G's Law

TORARADICAL — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:43:08 GMT

[quote][b]Comedy Dave (6/28/2007)[/b][hr][quote]We've said all along that this is a proposal which we hope to soon put to a vote.
We have never said or suggested doing it withoot a vote.[/quote]

Apologies for my quick response earlier, I did not mean to imply you were going to make changes without holding votes, sorry if you took it that way. I was just trying to state where various responsibilities lie, and had literally 2 mins to try and think of and write a response.

To avoid this degenerating into picking over points, Ithink the best route forward is for the Justices to get together a draft of their proposals, so that the senate and citizenry can take a look and discuss with you as appropriate. In the meantime, let's get on with the game, there is nothing I can see holding us up there.[/quote]
I said this once before, but I'm sure twas lost in the clutter. Mr. G and I are working on finalizing the official proposal. Once we are happy with it, it will appear for voting.

RE: G's Law

Comedy Dave — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:37:08 GMT

[quote]We've said all along that this is a proposal which we hope to soon put to a vote.
We have never said or suggested doing it withoot a vote.[/quote]

Apologies for my quick response earlier, I did not mean to imply you were going to make changes without holding votes, sorry if you took it that way. I was just trying to state where various responsibilities lie, and had literally 2 mins to try and think of and write a response.

To avoid this degenerating into picking over points, I think the best route forward is for the Justices to get together a draft of their proposals, so that the senate and citizenry can take a look and discuss with you as appropriate. In the meantime, let's get on with the game, there is nothing I can see holding us up there.

RE: G's Law

TORARADICAL — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:00:58 GMT

[quote][b]Comedy Dave (6/28/2007)[/b][hr]Darn, I don't have the time at this exact moment to quote and respond to points.

I'd have to agree with PSweet - the role of the Supreme Court is not to make laws, or alter the constitution without popular vote. The Senate approved articles of law which work in conjunction with the Constitution, although the constitution is the higher level of authority.

Show me your proposals, and then we can have a discussion.

I'll be back later to write a better response.[/quote]

We've said all along that this is a proposal which we hope to soon put to a vote.
We have never said or suggested doing it withoot a vote.

RE: G's Law

Comedy Dave — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:39:07 GMT

Darn, I don't have the time at this exact moment to quote and respond to points.

I'd have to agree with PSweet - the role of the Supreme Court is not to make laws, or alter the constitution without popular vote. The Senate approved articles of law which work in conjunction with the Constitution, although the constitution is the higher level of authority.

Show me your proposals, and then we can have a discussion.

I'll be back later to write a better response.

RE: G's Law

TORARADICAL — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:41:10 GMT

[quote][b]psweetman1590 (6/27/2007)[/b][hr][quote]How has The Court done so?[/quote]

It has not. Yet. By trying to write Laws (which is the domain of the Senate) and attempting to tie the Princeps to the Supreme Court, you would be, should these things come to pass.[/quote]A) You know fully well that I mean the Articles of The Constitution as it is really the only law, and as it says[quote]ARTICLE V: LEGISLATURE

1. These Articles of Constitution shall be the supreme [b]law[/b] of the Community; no other body of legislature shall supercede it.[/quote]
B) We've been over the Princeps before, and how you misread that. I explained it at which time you commented[quote]Sounds fine to me then. Change my vote to Aye.[/quote]

[quote][quote]You've yet to show in any way that anything we The Court have done is against the spirit or letter of any law.
[/quote]

I have. Altering the Articles of Law is the job of the Senate, not the Court.[/quote]C) Please see above point A.

[quote][quote]You have only threatened to remove The Court for being proactive.
[/quote]

Correction:I have threatened to remove the Court for infringing on the duties of the Senate. Which the Senate has every right - nay, duty - to do. That's why the clause about our being able to dismiss a Justice is there.[/quote]D) You make threats which have no cause, as The Court has not come near infringing on any other bodies duties.

[quote][quote]Once again I ask you to look at the last point of IV 6 in the Constitution.[/quote]

You mean this one?

[quote] Present to the People proposals for alteration of the Articles of Constitution.
[/quote]

Note it says that you may present proposals for the constitution. It says nothing about you making them. [/quote]E) How does one present a proposal, if said proposal is not made?

[quote]Furthermore, the Articles of Law are seperate from the Constitution, and so you still can't do a thing about those, except strike them down if they are unconstitutional.[/quote]F) Please see points C and A again.

[quote]Have I answered all of your points satisfactorily?[/quote]G) No, please see points A-F

[quote]I'm trying very hard to remain civil, but it does seem to me that you're trying to twist my words to make it sound like I'm either not reading the Constitution properly (I'm quite sure its you who's not reading it properly) or that I'm against the Court acting with presence (I'm not. I'm in favor of people who want to make a difference through their job.).[/quote]H) Hardly, I have not at all, except for in your mind apparently. And if you are in favour of it, then support it don't do everything you can come up with to try and derail it.

RE: G's Law

psweetman1590 — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:26:41 GMT

[quote]How has The Court done so?[/quote]

It has not. Yet. By trying to write Laws (which is the domain of the Senate) and attempting to tie the Princeps to the Supreme Court, you would be, should these things come to pass.

[quote]You've yet to show in any way that anything we The Court have done is against the spirit or letter of any law.
[/quote]

I have. Altering the Articles of Law is the job of the Senate, not the Court.

[quote]You have only threatened to remove The Court for being proactive.
[/quote]

Correction: I have threatened to remove the Court for infringing on the duties of the Senate. Which the Senate has every right - nay, duty - to do. That's why the clause about our being able to dismiss a Justice is there.

[quote]Once again I ask you to look at the last point of IV 6 in the Constitution.[/quote]

You mean this one?

[quote] Present to the People proposals for alteration of the Articles of Constitution.
[/quote]

Note it says that you may present proposals for the constitution. It says nothing about you making them. Furthermore, the Articles of Law are seperate from the Constitution, and so you still can't do a thing about those, except strike them down if they are unconstitutional.

Have I answered all of your points satisfactorily? I'm trying very hard to remain civil, but it does seem to me that you're trying to twist my words to make it sound like I'm either not reading the Constitution properly (I'm quite sure its you who's not reading it properly) or that I'm against the Court acting with presence (I'm not. I'm in favor of people who want to make a difference through their job.).

RE: G's Law

TORARADICAL — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:12:43 GMT

[quote][b]psweetman1590 (6/27/2007)[/b][hr]I am afraid of the Court attempting to usurp the rightful duties of the Senate. As, I must confess, it does appear that you might be trying to do.

I'm simply trying to set you straight about who can and can't write laws, as you seem adamant about doing so.[/quote]
How has The Court done so?
You've yet to show in any way that anything we The Court have done is against the spirit or letter of any law.
You have only threatened to remove The Court for being proactive.

Once again I ask you to look at the last point of IV 6 in the Constitution.

RE: G's Law

psweetman1590 — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:38:35 GMT

I am afraid of the Court attempting to usurp the rightful duties of the Senate. As, I must confess, it does appear that you might be trying to do.

I'm simply trying to set you straight about who can and can't write laws, as you seem adamant about doing so.

RE: G's Law

TORARADICAL — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:12:19 GMT

[quote][b]psweetman1590 (6/27/2007)[/b][hr]You can propose and approve ammendments which must be voted upon by the people, certainly. Writing (which is a form of alteration, I'll have you know, as it adds more to what already existed) laws is reserved for the Senate. Try to write a law yourself, it won't have any force. Try to force it on us anyhow, and we'll vote you out of office. Now, can we kindly stick to the Constitution, please?[/quote]
Who said anything aboot forcing other than you?
Why is it that you keep threatening me with removal? Are you that afraid of a proactive Court?

RE: G's Law

psweetman1590 — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:54:40 GMT

You can propose and approve ammendments which must be voted upon by the people, certainly. Writing (which is a form of alteration, I'll have you know, as it adds more to what already existed) laws is reserved for the Senate. Try to write a law yourself, it won't have any force. Try to force it on us anyhow, and we'll vote you out of office. Now, can we kindly stick to the Constitution, please?

RE: G's Law

TORARADICAL — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:49:29 GMT

[quote][b]psweetman1590 (6/27/2007)[/b][hr]Find me where it says I can't overrule the president on my own. It doesn't, does it.... :P

The Senate is responsible for passing laws. That IS in the Constitution.

[quote]5. The Senate may, by quorum vote:

- Disband the office of the Presidency.

- Disband the Senate.

- Dismiss a Supreme Justiuce.

- Alter the Articles of Law.
[/quote]

Kindly note that it also says we can dismiss you, so I'd be on my best behavior, were I you. ;) Let's not have any more "misinterpretations" of the Constitution please. Don't give yourself powers that aren't yours de jure.[/quote]
Alter not write.;)
By the letter of the law, no one has the right to write the laws. Yet we've already had 4 ammendments.
The Court of this term has taken a very active role and is therefore writing new laws for approval by the people.

RE: G's Law

psweetman1590 — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:38:55 GMT

Find me where it says I can't overrule the president on my own. It doesn't, does it.... :P

The Senate is responsible for passing laws. That IS in the Constitution.

[quote]5. The Senate may, by quorum vote:

- Disband the office of the Presidency.

- Disband the Senate.

- Dismiss a Supreme Justiuce.

- Alter the Articles of Law.
[/quote]

Kindly note that it also says we can dismiss you, so I'd be on my best behavior, were I you. ;) Let's not have any more "misinterpretations" of the Constitution please. Don't give yourself powers that aren't yours de jure.

RE: G's Law

TORARADICAL — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:32:43 GMT

[quote][b]psweetman1590 (6/27/2007)[/b][hr][quote]As the Court writes the laws, and the has them approved by the people, they sort of can[/quote]

On the contrary, the Court does not write laws. That's up to us. You can issue rulings, but aside from rulings on the nature of the Constitution that currently exists, you have no real power. We do not need to follow your rulings. Sorry be blunt, but that's how it is.[/quote]
Find me where it says that The Supreme Court does not write the laws.

RE: G's Law

psweetman1590 — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:23:28 GMT

[quote]As the Court writes the laws, and the has them approved by the people, they sort of can[/quote]

On the contrary, the Court does not write laws. That's up to us. You can issue rulings, but aside from rulings on the nature of the Constitution that currently exists, you have no real power. We do not need to follow your rulings. Sorry be blunt, but that's how it is.

RE: G's Law

TORARADICAL — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:03:10 GMT

[quote][b]Comedy Dave (6/27/2007)[/b][hr]I'm still not convinced... :unsure:

For a start, the Supreme Court should not and cannot dictate the duties of the Princep. They can make recommendations, but without a constitutional amendment, these do not need to be followed.

Anyway, before we can even talk of votes we need the Supreme Court to outline FULLY what they propose to do with the positions - this needs to include reasons WHY and what the benefits of this change will be, compared to the current system.[/quote]
As the Court writes the laws, and the has them approved by the people, they sort of can;)
And yes I agree on the 2nd part, but we wanted to see how much support the main idea itself would have before we went that far.
We're supposed to have a meeting later today to determine it to the letter, so expect a post from one of us concerning that tonight.

RE: G's Law

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:14:33 GMT

As a former Senator and concerned undead citizen, I agree with Comedy Dave.

RE: G's Law

Comedy Dave — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:57:17 GMT

I'm still not convinced... :unsure:

For a start, the Supreme Court should not and cannot dictate the duties of the Princep. They can make recommendations, but without a constitutional amendment, these do not need to be followed.

Anyway, before we can even talk of votes we need the Supreme Court to outline FULLY what they propose to do with the positions - this needs to include reasons WHY and what the benefits of this change will be, compared to the current system.

RE: G's Law

Mr. G — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:41:27 GMT

Earmarked well, SC Justice :D

RE: G's Law

psweetman1590 — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:47:58 GMT

Sounds fine to me then. Change my vote to Aye.

RE: G's Law

TORARADICAL — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:41:31 GMT

[quote][b]psweetman1590 (6/25/2007)[/b][hr]Greetings, your honors! Nice to see some action.

[quote]1. Dissolve and disband the position of Vice Presidency[/quote]

I'd like to know why before voting on this. Does this mean that you intend to get rid of the position entirely, or that you're just kicking Zig out? If the former...[/quote]Because we are merging the 2 positions.

[quote][quote]6. The President must appoint for himself a Vice President, who shall take upon himself all duties of the Presidency, should the President become absent.
[/quote]

I'm afraid that requires an ammendment. ;)[/quote]Yes, as does the whole idea.

[quote][quote]

2. Force current Senate Princep psweetman1590to vacate the position and assume a regular Senate position[/quote]

Indeed, I'm willing to step down. I approve this part. I'd like a reason why on this point as well, however. Is it just because I don't own Warlords, or have I done something wrong (or failed to do something)? It seems that you justices are starting to take a strong arm approach to things. Not that I disapprove, butI want to know why before I surrender this big luxurious chair that I bought with my exorbitant salary...[/quote]As the position is being merged with the Vice President.

[quote][quote]. Hold elections immediately to determine the new Senate Princep[/quote]

I'm sure CD would win handily. He'd have my vote. :)[/quote]Well then vote for him when the time comes;)

[quote][quote]

4. Delegate responsibility of determining the Princep's new duties to the Supreme Court[/quote]

Not to be annoyingly semantic on purpose, but the way this is worded means that you're going to select someone to determine the princep's new duties to the Supreme Court. Did you want it to mean that?

In any case, I'm very suspicious of this one. Binding the Princeps to the Supreme Court by making the the former have duties to the latter? Sounds like a breach of the principles ofseparation of power. Perhaps if you could give me an idea of what these new responsibilities might be, I'd come around? ;)

And, of course, adding duties to the Princeps would either neccesitate a law passed by the Senate itself, or a constitutional ammendment. So, the new duties you have in mind are bound to come up eventually.[/quote]Simple misreading. Tis meant as give the Courts the decision of what the duties are. Which I can tell you will mostly just be a combination of the Pricep's and VP's duties.

[quote]Final verdict: Nay. I'm too suspicious of the last one, and you have given no reason for any of these points (although number 3 is obvious). Why are Zig and I being ousted? Why does the Princeps need to have duties to the Supreme Court? I want these answered before I vote in favor of this law.

In the mean time, I shall resign from the position of Princeps on my own, and nominate CD as my successor. That alone will force you to change the text of this law, and I hope the opportunity will lead you to consider my request for more info.

[quote]If he doesn't like the proposal I suppose he could vote Nay, but I assure you it's nothing sinister. Just procedural stuff. Probably. [/quote]

I'll have you reminded that I am a fully trained and liscensed assasin. You half-threaten me at your own risk...:cool:

Good day to you, your honors.

Psweet
Ex-Princeps[/quote]
Your resigning has made the whole thing easier really, and I think I pretty well if shortly explained everything you asked.

(edited to fix the quotes)

RE: G's Law

Comedy Dave — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:06:49 GMT

Excellent points there Psweet... :)

[quote]Will you presume to tell the Courts what is lawfully necessary for a passage of a law? [/quote]

Of course... just doing my job... ;)

[quote]There will be a Supreme Court ruling on the new Princeps duties shortly, even if this Bill does not pass. A change to the Constitution is not necessary, I spent some time yesterday with TORA figuring it all out.[/quote]

As PSweet mentioned, you'd still need the Senate to ratify that into an Article of Law, if you really wanted to make it official. Changing the Princeps position too much would require a constitutional change, as would removing the VP, so the people need to get involved too.

RE: G's Law

Mr. G — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:33:54 GMT

That is a very well-worded and well-recieved Nay. I appreciate it psweet. :D

That just means no Senator spot for me next Senate Session as I think I'll sit on the Bench a while longer with TORA. Nothing sinister.

Maybe.

RE: G's Law

psweetman1590 — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:01:17 GMT

Greetings, your honors! Nice to see some action.

[quote]1. Dissolve and disband the position of Vice Presidency[/quote]

I'd like to know why before voting on this. Does this mean that you intend to get rid of the position entirely, or that you're just kicking Zig out? If the former...

[quote]6. The President must appoint for himself a Vice President, who shall take upon himself all duties of the Presidency, should the President become absent.
[/quote]

I'm afraid that requires an ammendment. ;)

[quote]

2. Force current Senate Princep psweetman1590 to vacate the position and assume a regular Senate position[/quote]

Indeed, I'm willing to step down. I approve this part. I'd like a reason why on this point as well, however. Is it just because I don't own Warlords, or have I done something wrong (or failed to do something)? It seems that you justices are starting to take a strong arm approach to things. Not that I disapprove, but I want to know why before I surrender this big luxurious chair that I bought with my exorbitant salary...

[quote]. Hold elections immediately to determine the new Senate Princep[/quote]

I'm sure CD would win handily. He'd have my vote. :)

[quote]

4. Delegate responsibility of determining the Princep's new duties to the Supreme Court[/quote]

Not to be annoyingly semantic on purpose, but the way this is worded means that you're going to select someone to determine the princep's new duties to the Supreme Court. Did you want it to mean that?

In any case, I'm very suspicious of this one. Binding the Princeps to the Supreme Court by making the the former have duties to the latter? Sounds like a breach of the principles of separation of power. Perhaps if you could give me an idea of what these new responsibilities might be, I'd come around? ;)

And, of course, adding duties to the Princeps would either neccesitate a law passed by the Senate itself, or a constitutional ammendment. So, the new duties you have in mind are bound to come up eventually.

Final verdict: Nay. I'm too suspicious of the last one, and you have given no reason for any of these points (although number 3 is obvious). Why are Zig and I being ousted? Why does the Princeps need to have duties to the Supreme Court? I want these answered before I vote in favor of this law.

In the mean time, I shall resign from the position of Princeps on my own, and nominate CD as my successor. That alone will force you to change the text of this law, and I hope the opportunity will lead you to consider my request for more info.

[quote]If he doesn't like the proposal I suppose he could vote Nay, but I assure you it's nothing sinister. Just procedural stuff. Probably. [/quote]

I'll have you reminded that I am a fully trained and liscensed assasin. You half-threaten me at your own risk...:cool:

Good day to you, your honors.

Psweet
Ex-Princeps

RE: G's Law

Mr. G — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:58:45 GMT

[quote][b]Comedy Dave (6/25/2007)[/b][hr]Greetings Justices :)

Ahh... something to get my teeth into... ;)

1.) Poor Zig, what's he done to deserve this?... :P I'm assuming this is part of the propose re-work of the Princep position?

2.) I think Psweet was willing to stand down. There's only 15 (?) turns til the next senate election, so that might be moot, depending on how quickly Mongoose plays the turns.

3.) Yep that's do-able, if Psweet stands down.

4.) Err... think that would need a bi-partisan discussion between the Senate and SC, then put to the people to vote, given this would be a change to the constitution.

Cheers :)[/quote]

1. You got it.

2. That's his--well now the Senate's decision. If he doesn't like the proposal I suppose he could vote Nay, but I assure you it's nothing sinister. Just procedural stuff. Probably. :P:w00t:

3. kk, whatever's easier

4. Will you presume to tell the Courts what is lawfully necessary for a passage of a law? ;) There will be a Supreme Court ruling on the new Princeps duties shortly, even if this Bill does not pass. A change to the Constitution is not necessary, I spent some time yesterday with TORA figuring it all out.

RE: G's Law

Zigeuner — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:18:59 GMT

Ah, me and my big mouth, punished into oblivion, cast back into hell...

*stalks off to Barren Keep, murder on his mind* :P

RE: G's Law

Comedy Dave — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:35:27 GMT

Greetings Justices :)

Ahh... something to get my teeth into... ;)

[quote]1. Dissolve and disband the position of Vice Presidency

2. Force current Senate Princep psweetman1590 to vacate the position and assume a regular Senate position

3. Hold elections immediately to determine the new Senate Princep

4. Delegate responsibility of determining the Princep's new duties to the Supreme Court[/quote]

1.) Poor Zig, what's he done to deserve this?... :P I'm assuming this is part of the propose re-work of the Princep position?

2.) I think Psweet was willing to stand down. There's only 15 (?) turns til the next senate election, so that might be moot, depending on how quickly Mongoose plays the turns.

3.) Yep that's do-able, if Psweet stands down.

4.) Err... think that would need a bi-partisan discussion between the Senate and SC, then put to the people to vote, given this would be a change to the constitution.

Cheers :)

RE: G's Law

TORARADICAL — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:51:32 GMT

We, The MAELRI have given this our full support

G's Law

Mr. G — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:27:57 GMT

I, Justice G, do hereby request that the Senate take the following actions after an quorum vote in the affirmative:

1. Dissolve and disband the position of Vice Presidency

2. Force current Senate Princep psweetman1590 to vacate the position and assume a regular Senate position

3. Hold elections immediately to determine the new Senate Princep

4. Delegate responsibility of determining the Princep's new duties to the Supreme Court

The proposal is as-is and a vote on all sections of it would be appreciated; however, any suggestions would be lovely. Thank you.