|
Post by Fortwhile on Nov 25, 2017 18:06:20 GMT
I think it would be best for the judiciary to review this matter, but the question is should an abstention be included when counting votes. Is it 2/3 of the entire membership or just those who vote? Hm, I would think that it would be 2/3rds of those who voted, otherwise an "Abstain" would be effectively the same as a "Nay". But as Chair, it's your ruling that is final here. So maybe post the question in the court forums? I would also be curious as to why two members voted to Abstain? I'm not sure why we'd necessarily want to keep an inactive officeholder in his position.
|
|
|
Post by Bymaria on Nov 25, 2017 18:10:21 GMT
I'm going to consider this particular motion passed, though I'll ask the judiciary so that we have a clear picture of what they think for the future.
|
|
|
Post by United Barbaros on Nov 25, 2017 18:39:29 GMT
I would say that the motion has not passed yet. There is simply no majority, and a Yea vote cannot be viewed as having more influence than an Abstain vote.
As Fortwhile said, it is up to the PM to decide.
|
|
|
Post by southernaurgediam on Nov 25, 2017 20:39:13 GMT
I concur with United Barbaros. The two-thirds majority mentioned in Article III, Section II, [§4.] of the constitution should be taken as a 2/3 majority of all members, not a 2/3 majority of all members present and voting. However, the ruling of the judiciary on this case is irrelevant, as under the provisions of Article II, Section II, [§9.], the Prime Minister serves as the presiding officer of the legislature. The role of the presiding officer is not defined for this legislative body, however, for the purposes of this ruling Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised will be used as a 'yardstick' due to its ubiquity. Under Robert's Rules, it is the role of the presiding officer to, "decide all questions of order subject to appeal." (Article XV, §47). Under this rule, the Judiciary remains completely separate from the legislative body, serving only to review laws after they are passed. Of course, if a member takes issue with this ruling, they may appeal it and the entire body will vote to determine if the ruling stands.
However, in this case the chair's ruling stands, and the motion passes.
|
|
|
Post by United Barbaros on Nov 25, 2017 21:04:17 GMT
"The two-thirds majority mentioned in Article III, Section II, [§4.] of the constitution should be taken as a 2/3 majority of all members, not a 2/3 majority of all members present and voting." I disagree, mainly because I feel like this is an assumption. The way it reads, it is unclear and up for interpretation, and should be treated as such until it is sorted out.
|
|
|
Post by southernaurgediam on Nov 25, 2017 21:35:56 GMT
Hmm, true. We'll have to set a judicial precedent to clear it up, since I don't really feel like amending the constitution.
|
|