Northeast Assembly Thread

[Rowan]

How about an amendment to make me CJO for life?

[cinyc]

By a vote of 5-0, the motion to simultaneously consider the Seats Number Amendment passes and is placed on the floor:

Seats number Amendment to the Northeast Constitution

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:

2. Six Representatives shall be elected, unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law.

Sponsor: Rep. Silent Spade

I don't want to hold votes in the middle of the debate on the other amendment on the floor - it's too confusing.  Therefore, debate on both proposed amendments will continue until 11:15PM on Friday, April 9, 2010, unless a motion to extend or shorten the debate period is made and accepted by the chair in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Silent Spade, has the floor.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

As a small government advocate I'm certainly in favor of reducing the size of government so I'm in favor of Silent Spade's proposal.

Also, IIRC the Northeast has fewer and fewer to represent........no census data to back me up. 

[segwaystyle2012]

How about an amendment to make me CJO for life?

I wouldn't mind.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Ooh, sorry I didn't see this already. Anyway, my proposed CJO Term Amendment will make the CJO more accountable to the legislature, and the people.

Is it supposed to apply retroactively to the current CJO, who has a number of months left on his term?

I admit that the amendment is vague, so I will accept a friendly amendment to mine that grandfathers the current CJO from this proposed legislation.

[Free Palestine]

As said before, pretty much anybody who runs would get elected to the Assembly.  Reducing the size of the legislature would certainly fix this problem.

[cinyc]

Proposed Amendment:

1. Article VI of the Northeast Consitution is amended to read:
 
i) The judicial branch of the Government of the Northeast Region shall be vested in the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be appointed by the Governor with the confirmation of the Legislative Assembly. He or she shall have a term of four months, with the option of renewal. Whenever the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant, then he or she must be replaced within one month.

iii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the convicted. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.

iv) No persons shall hold the positions of Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time, and whereas no persons shall hold the positions of Lieutenant Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time. No persons shall serve as Chief Judicial Officer and Northeast Representative at the same time.

2.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 1, the current Chief Judicial Officer shall remain in office for the remainder of his term.

[The Age Wave]

I oppose the amendment.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Who proposed this and why?

[cinyc]

Who proposed this and why?

I did.  Because laws and constitutional amendments shouldn't apply retroactively.  The CJO's term is the CJO's term.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Who proposed this and why?

I did.  Because laws and constitutional amendments shouldn't apply retroactively.  The CJO's term is the CJO's term.

Whoa now......as someone who re-writes bylaws for organizations all the time, changes in the officer's terms are always effective immediately (which is not retroactively),  unless a proviso is adopted otherwise.  But it's quite normal for one not to be adopted.......so I don't see your strong objection from my vantage point.

[cinyc]

Who proposed this and why?

I did.  Because laws and constitutional amendments shouldn't apply retroactively.  The CJO's term is the CJO's term.

Whoa now......as someone who re-writes bylaws for organizations all the time, changes in the officer's terms are always effective immediately (which is not retroactively),  unless a proviso is adopted otherwise.  But it's quite normal for one not to be adopted.......so I don't see your strong objection from my vantage point.

It's certainly possible to do so, but I don't like laws that apply retroactively.  It's fundamentally unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Who proposed this and why?

I did.  Because laws and constitutional amendments shouldn't apply retroactively.  The CJO's term is the CJO's term.

Whoa now......as someone who re-writes bylaws for organizations all the time, changes in the officer's terms are always effective immediately (which is not retroactively),  unless a proviso is adopted otherwise.  But it's quite normal for one not to be adopted.......so I don't see your strong objection from my vantage point.

It's certainly possible to do so, but I don't like laws that apply retroactively.  It's fundamentally unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Well I disagree with you perception of this.....and will be voting, no.

[cinyc]

Who proposed this and why?

I did.  Because laws and constitutional amendments shouldn't apply retroactively.  The CJO's term is the CJO's term.

Whoa now......as someone who re-writes bylaws for organizations all the time, changes in the officer's terms are always effective immediately (which is not retroactively),  unless a proviso is adopted otherwise.  But it's quite normal for one not to be adopted.......so I don't see your strong objection from my vantage point.

It's certainly possible to do so, but I don't like laws that apply retroactively.  It's fundamentally unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Well I disagree with you perception of this.....and will be voting, no.

Well, that depends on whether the sponsor deems my amendment friendly.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

I deem the amendment friendly.

[The Age Wave]

Well, this is easy to get around. I offer an amendment to remove cinyc's amendment.

[cinyc]

Sorry for the delay.  I've been busy.

We will now vote on Rep. Silent Spade's amendment to the CJO Amendment, as amended:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This vote shall remain open until 2:00PM on Monday, April 12, 2010, unless all Representatives shall have voted sooner.  It shall be followed by a vote on final passage of the CJO and Seats Number Amendments.

[cinyc]

Nay

[redcommander]

Nay

[The Age Wave]

Aye

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Nay

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Nay

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Aye

[AndrewTX]

Aye

[President Mitt]

Aye