court case: killing the veto

[ManicStarSeed]

Point of this whole thing is not legal or illegal, it is about valid or invalid.

I agree it is invalid and the veto is empty.

No laws have been broken. No one oversteped their position. The will of the senate has been followed (so far).

Stop crying for blood as the word Illegal implys.

Mss

[E_T]

As the only dissenting Vote in the Veto, I do NOT beleave that the Veto should be declared Illegal. Because the President was not present for 2 days BECAUSE OF REAL LIFE ISSUES and was only 5 hours late, should not become an issue.

IF the case had been where he had been present AND/OR had waited one more day to get the Veto votes, then yes, I would have to say that this would have to be ruled as Null & Void. But as this isn't the case here, then I say that we accept the Veto and go on from there.

E_T

[Thud]

I would like to note that the veto does indeed stand until some time where the court decides to rule against it. Thus, any slaves may be incorporated into cities until the point where the veto is declared void. I expect that for the next 2 or so turnchats the domestic minister can do whatever he wants with slaves without being restricted by this (outrageous) law.

Anyway, I would suggest that in the future a PM should be sent to the President each time a bill is passed, and when he reads it the clock starts ticking. Does anyone else think this is a good idea?

[MJW]

E_T it does not say RL issues in that part of the new con.

[MJW]

The court should do that ASAP...

[Spiffor]

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]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

I will be the plaintiff, unless someone else really wants to

I argue against delaying the case to allow the Senate to make a new bill. It can already make a new bill. Until it does so, however, I contend that the veto was illegal and so the original law should stand!

[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?

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, that is.

I'm not represented by someone else.

I think that the law (in the constitution) requiring that all cabinet vetoes happen withing 72 hours of the timeout of the law they're vetoing.

The defendent is the veto itself, represented by a member of the cabinet (or whomever they choose to represent it), as I am requesting that the veto be declared null and void (basically, it doesn't do anything).

[Sheik]

Thank you.

[Panag]

hi ,

there should be law so that no stupid proposals concerning courtcases can be brought forward , ..........






have a nice day in court

[Panag]

Re: court case: killing the veto

Originally posted by MJW
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

hi ,

why is there a second thread about the subject being made , ..... at 03/01/03 17.57 skywalker put up a thread , only one thread about the subject , so this thread should be closed , ....

have a nice day

[ManicStarSeed]

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.

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]

It was challged for a different reason.... read the thread panag!