View Topic

Title
1. This act shall be titled "The Skrifa Action Appeals Act"

Provisions
2.  The following shall be added to the Underhusen Procedural Rules and numbered accordingly.

If a Skrifa feels another Skrifa (including the Speaker) has made some violation of law or procedural rules, the Skrifa can appeal the action(s) by making an objection.  The objection must state the alleged violation of the law or Underhusen Procedural Rules.  The accused Skrifa is entitled to present their interpretation of the law before Section (a) comes into effect.
    a.  If the objection receives a second, each Skrifa shall declare themselves in support of or opposed to the accused Skrifa's action in question.  The accused Skrifa does not get a vote.  If the number of Skrifa declaring opposed exceeds the number declaring in favor, the Skrifa's action will be reversed and the Underhusen will be prohibited from using a similar interpretation of the relevant portion(s) of law for the remainder of the term.  If the vote is tied or fails, the action stands. 

According to Wintermoot's statement at the end of the trial, this exists regardless of whether it's vocally in our rules or not.

Further, we find that in spite of the Underhusen removing the Speaker's explicit authority to interpret procedure, the Speaker still has an implicit authority to do so by generally accepted parliamentary procedure, in both the Speaker's role as chair of that particular assembly and by their responsibility to enforce the procedural rules of the assembly, a responsibility that would be impossible to carry out without such an authority. Having determined that both the Petitioner's and the Respondent's interpretations are legally valid, and recognizing the implicit authority of the Speaker in his role of enforcing Underhusen Procedure, this judicial panel finds in favour of the Respondent.

Just want to point out that it was the panel's statement...I just posted it.

True.  But regardless, my point still stands: it's a power that by the panel's decision exists whether or not the passage is there or not in writing, and it was already decided as well that Skrifa that aren't game with the Speaker's decision can appeal directly to the Underhusen to get that decision overturned. 

True.  But regardless, my point still stands: it's a power that by the panel's decision exists whether or not the passage is there or not in writing, and it was already decided as well that Skrifa that aren't game with the Speaker's decision can appeal directly to the Underhusen to get that decision overturned. 

It was?

True.  But regardless, my point still stands: it's a power that by the panel's decision exists whether or not the passage is there or not in writing, and it was already decided as well that Skrifa that aren't game with the Speaker's decision can appeal directly to the Underhusen to get that decision overturned. 

It was?

Let me see if I can find where it was stated, but yes.  It was decided that Skrifa can appeal directly to the Underhusen for really anything that they have disagreements about regarding the Speaker (such as Chanku's disagreement with my interpretation).  It's so that we don't have to resort to court cases over every little thing regarding our own internal workings.

Ah, my mistake.  It's not, it was something that was highly suggested:

This judicial panel further recommends that the Underhusen either create or adopt a process for determining parliamentary points of order, including the ability to appeal the ruling of the Speaker to the full Underhusen. The Underhusen could take guidance from Robert's Rules of Order, a widely used and respected parliamentary authority, in doing so.

Which mimics what your bill is essentially.  They'd appeal directly to the Underhusen, the Underhusen would vote on the appeal, and they'd go from there.

Though, I'm a little worried if it's a full Underhusen vote minus the Speaker.  That'd be a 4 person vote with a chance that it'll end up being a tie.  What's the result if a tie happens?

Or would we be adopting it the same way we did with the court case to where both the Speaker AND appealing member wouldn't be able to vote?

The appealing member gets a vote, but not the Speaker. In the event of a tie, the vote fails.

I think Pengu was remembering our private discussion on the matter during the court case. I don't know if we're allowed to post anything that was said in the discussion in public, but:

Yes, perhaps we should recommend that they add some sort of mechanism to sort out their own shit. Calling a trial for everything that is unprecedented or vague in the Storting could appeal to some, but it doesn't appeal much to me.

When laws are as vague as this, there really doesn't exist an alternative to interpreting it in our own ways, whether that right is legally given or not. I think that, in such cases, the Speaker should be given the power to interpret it as they wish, but the decision MUST be appealed directly to the Underhusen. This would not be dissimilar to what is already being proposed in the Underhusen, so...

Wintermoot and Pengu said similar things, but since I'm not clear on whether or not I may actually post anything that was said in there, I'll restrict myself to posting only my own posts from the trial.

Also the final verdict contains the following words:

This judicial panel further recommends that the Underhusen either create or adopt a process for determining parliamentary points of order,

So the process DOESN'T exist, it's merely a recommendation.

I think Pengu was remembering our private discussion on the matter during the court case. I don't know if we're allowed to post anything that was said in the discussion in public, but:

Yes, perhaps we should recommend that they add some sort of mechanism to sort out their own shit. Calling a trial for everything that is unprecedented or vague in the Storting could appeal to some, but it doesn't appeal much to me.

When laws are as vague as this, there really doesn't exist an alternative to interpreting it in our own ways, whether that right is legally given or not. I think that, in such cases, the Speaker should be given the power to interpret it as they wish, but the decision MUST be appealed directly to the Underhusen. This would not be dissimilar to what is already being proposed in the Underhusen, so...

Wintermoot and Pengu said similar things, but since I'm not clear on whether or not I may actually post anything that was said in there, I'll restrict myself to posting only my own posts from the trial.

I was referring more to what I thought the final verdict said.    I refrained from pulling from our private discussion because I wasn't sure if it was considered "classified" or not.  I didn't really say anything worth quoting as far as relevant things to this topic go, anyways.  My discussions were mainly about making the time limit for Speaker PT selection much more absolute.

But that was essentially the gist of the conversation.  Trials are a good thing to have, but they should be for more drastic affairs that concern the outer areas...whereas they should only be invoked internally (IE UH or OH) if proper appeal to their entire assembly (in our case, the full Underhusen) fails for some reason (their request for appeal was ignored/denied, for example).

But this is something that should appeal to ANY decision, whether it be Speaker related or not.  If it's felt a Skrifa is doing something illegal, it's encouraged that the concerned Skrifa speak/appeal to the rest of the UH and get it fixed.

On that note, I think this bill should include something to that affair and be called something like "Underhusen Action Appeal Act" to include that.  If we're going to have a bill that someone can call out the Speaker for doing something potentially illegal...it should be extended to where someone can call out a Skrifa as well.

It's not entirely common, granted.  But there will be instances to where a Skrifa may introduce something, or do something concerning enough to where another Skrifa may need to make an appeal to the rest of the Underhusen.  Bills, for example.  If, for example, a Skrifa introduced an illegal bill and it made its way to voting (IE, being expedited without discussion), the concerned Skrifa could appeal to the Underhusen and point out what makes the bill illegal.

That way even if bills get brushed by without discussion, anyone with concerns can still do something about it.

Motion to extend debate for 5 days.

A motion to extend debate for 5 days has been made.  Do we have a second?

Losing patience. I second the motion, but if this is an indication of how it's going to be for the rest of the term, I say we three should just muscle our way to the end.

Agreed, all of this debate extending is getting a little tiring, especially since we're getting near the end of the term.

Anyways, debate is extended until the 16th at 7:24PM Pacific Time.