|
|
Post by lashrash on Apr 15, 2008 20:47:55 GMT -5
This matter is now ready to be discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by lashrash on Apr 15, 2008 20:50:11 GMT -5
Here is my earlier comment. It is still the opinion about this legislation that I stand by.
I support Mr. Blake in this matter.
Mr. Kilikopela, I do not have the authority to stifle anything that is brought to parliament, nor would I. I am required, to be an administrator, and to make the parliament work. Once motions have been made, I can only delay them a week at the most, only if the matter is serious, and even then I can be overruled. I believe the king would be with me in saying that I can handle my position, even if I am not benefiting from it.
Mr. Blake is also right in saying that there are no measures set up in the event that I do not agree. While I do not encourage the continual and overabundant use of this legislation. The citizens of our nation chose me for a reason, they chose me to lead, and to do what is best for them, not for me. In the Lovely situation, I am merely looking out for them.
I agree that the vote should be unanimous. If we are to openly discredit and ignore the choices of our chosen elected officials, then we should all be in agreement. I do not want a nation, or government that is divided. We all need to be on one side of the fence, staying on it will do no one any good.
|
|
|
|
Post by lashrash on Apr 15, 2008 20:51:03 GMT -5
I would also like to add that we need to insert a piece that states.
"Should the King and the Minister of State both refuse to sign, then no power may overturn the decision."[/i]
|
|
|
|
Post by Kilikopela on Apr 15, 2008 23:34:57 GMT -5
I don't completely agree with the amendment.
|
|
|
|
Post by lashrash on Apr 16, 2008 0:53:50 GMT -5
Perhaps you could go a little further? Telling us you don't agree with it, but not being specific is no help at all.
What exactly is wrong with it? What don't you agree with?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kilikopela on Apr 16, 2008 16:31:47 GMT -5
I don't agree with the Parliament having to be unanimous. It is not a good idea. We still have a seat up in the air and if that were the case in a vote like that then it would never have the chance of passing. Plus it is difficult to get a unanimous vote for anything.
Thank You and Humbly,
|
|
|
|
Post by lashrash on Apr 16, 2008 23:04:08 GMT -5
The reason for the unanimity is that you will be overruling one of the top two people in the government.
They are where they are because the nation chose them to run things. If they had to worry about everything being overturned by a vote in the parliament, then what is their use?
If you are willing to ignore their judgment, then whey are they there? I supported this matter because there are cases where a person can be diffucult and choose to ignore the best course of action for the betterment of society, while I am not saying I will do that, I also do not know if I will be the MOS forever either. I am thinking ahead and I think that this is for the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kilikopela on Apr 18, 2008 22:10:16 GMT -5
I do not think that the vote should be unamimous. I motion that this legislation be tabled.
Thank You and Humbly,
|
|
|
|
Post by Elikapeka on Apr 18, 2008 22:26:29 GMT -5
I like this admendment, including the piece about both the King and MoS refusing to sign. The MoS is an elected position. Should the people elect him, then they are trusting he will make good decisions concerning this country, some of the most important decisions having to do with foreign affairs.
|
|
|
|
Post by lashrash on Apr 18, 2008 23:29:46 GMT -5
I do not think that the vote should be unamimous. I motion that this legislation be tabled. Thank You and Humbly, Why does this matter need to be tabled? It is fine as written. Is has the full support of the upper echelons of the government, even the ones that it will overrule. On top of that your peer supports it. There are too many supporters. We are here to act in the best interest of the people. Motion to table is denied. |
|
|
|
Post by Kilikopela on Apr 19, 2008 4:23:10 GMT -5
You can't deny my motion simply because you don't like it. That doesn't make you an elected leader it makes you a dictator. By your crazy rules, you are to give a motion 48 hours before you can rule on an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elikapeka on Apr 19, 2008 9:18:00 GMT -5
He gave you reasons. The fact that he didn't want to table it does not appear.
And I would not second your motion to table the legislation.
The vote should be unanimous. In an international issue when our leaders differ on what to do and Parlimentary action is required, it should be unanimous. When there is an issue, the nation as a whole must address it. The people in each province elected us to represent them directly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kilikopela on Apr 19, 2008 13:04:50 GMT -5
It can't be unanimous because we can't even fill all of our Parliamentary seats. Have the time most of them don't even vote or put discussion in on any piece of legislation. In order for the unanimous vote to work we would have to have a completely active legislative body.
Thank You and Humbly,
|
|
|
|
Post by lashrash on Apr 19, 2008 18:31:32 GMT -5
It can be unanimous. I know that we are not filling all the seats so a unanimous would be three, when the fourth is taken care of it would be four.
The fact that the parliament delegates are not active is an issue I am getting ready to swiftly and effectively act on.
I also want to address the dictator comment. This is one of the "crazy" rules.Opinions may not be demeaning, rude, or discourteous, we all have a position of respect, and should be treated as such I have been more than nice, and I will not tolerate this. I will however extend into further detail as to why I denied your motion.
First, a motion to table is not a motion that we use. We motion to discuss and to vote. "Tabling" is a stall tactic that politician uses to stall legislation. If you want the legislation rewritten, rewrite it and then sugest it as a change. If your peers agree the legislation will be changed. This is how we have always done it, that is how I plan to continue to do it, unless you can provide definitive reason why we should not. Limiting the types of motions, means we are more effective.
Second, I never said I did not want to table it. This is very well written.
Lastly, my rules do not state that I have to wait 48 hours, the 48 hour rule applies when a topic moves from a discussion to a vote. Here is the proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kilikopela on Apr 22, 2008 23:27:28 GMT -5
You cannot punish Parliamentary delegates for what they say in a chamber that they have been elected to. While you may lead it you cannot enforce that kind of rule without passing some sort of legislation.
|
|
|
|
Post by lashrash on Apr 23, 2008 23:36:48 GMT -5
You cannot punish Parliamentary delegates for what they say in a chamber that they have been elected to. While you may lead it you cannot enforce that kind of rule without passing some sort of legislation. Only the Parliament may overrule it. I will enforce it if you continue to be belligerent in that manner. Be head strong, but do not be disrespectful and call names, it will not be tolerated. |
|
|
|
Post by Kilikopela on Apr 24, 2008 22:13:59 GMT -5
I motion for a vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by lashrash on Apr 25, 2008 1:29:03 GMT -5
After a second is made, this will be taken to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kilikopela on Apr 26, 2008 18:11:29 GMT -5
Why do we have to have a second now? If you like the legislation then it isn't necessary but if your against it then it is. How is that fair?
|
|
|
|
Post by lashrash on May 13, 2008 10:28:28 GMT -5
Its not a matter if I like it. I am human and made a mistake. It was brought to my attention and now I am fixing it. That's all.
|
|
