| Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Register now! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| [DRAFT] Articles of Impeachment | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 25 2011, 04:28 PM (675 Views) | |
| unibot | May 27 2011, 01:28 AM Post #16 |
|
Chief Propagandist
|
However, then any time saved not having to vote on intervention is negated and effectively intervention is put to vote -- it is thus obvious in my interpretation that a sanction includes a public statement, because without a public statement it is simply an order, sanction implies some sort of publicity or public nature to the order. If the ability to 'permit' intervention is invested to the cabinet, the ability to justify itself publicly would naturally seem to also be invested, or is the letter of law suggesting that the cabinet is not capable of justifying itself, but fine to discern whether to intervene or not? Is it not worrying that these peoples who are incompetent at justification according to your interpretation of the law's letter are also the ones who are granted the power to decide whether to intervene or not? Obviously contradiction arises when we apply usual standard procedure to an emergency law -- it is an emergency law because it is dealing with issues that are constrained for time. Sedge, the date of when either bill was passed is irrelevant, because the text suggests that it overrides usual policy on public statements -- we cannot assume there is no contradiction simply because the Rogue Delegate Bill is a subsequent bill, unless we want to sprinkle magic over the letter of the law and make it so. One of the problems is that the usual policy would be fine if we only had the major update, but the emergency law allows us to respond to feeder attacks in twelve hours now that there are two updates. |
|
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro | |
![]() |
|
| Biyah | May 27 2011, 01:31 AM Post #17 |
|
High Priest of the Cult
|
I would ask the FRA Chancellor stop trying to derail this conversation. Back to the point: Impeachment. I'm happy with them as they are, and move they be posted. |
![]() |
|
| unibot | May 27 2011, 01:44 AM Post #18 |
|
Chief Propagandist
|
Right -- let's ignore any problems that might exist with the impeachment argument, because that's off-topic.. what is on-topic is anything that confirms that the impeachment argument is right. |
|
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro | |
![]() |
|
| Biyah | May 27 2011, 01:49 AM Post #19 |
|
High Priest of the Cult
|
This thread is to decide if we want to post it at all. You can argue any problems with impeachment on the FRA board until your heart is content, if you like. Here, we're trying to decide if we the TRR want to hold your ... fundament.. accountable in the first place. Cheers and all that. And of course, this is my opinion. I could be mistaken. ~B Edit: I suppose I should at least take a blind stab at being diplomatic. Edited by Biyah, May 27 2011, 01:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Biyah | May 27 2011, 02:06 AM Post #20 |
|
High Priest of the Cult
|
Aight, now that it's posted on FRA - I have no more objections to your bellyaching in this thread. Party on Garth. ~B |
![]() |
|
| Oliver Dion | May 27 2011, 02:07 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Dedicated
|
Party on Wayne!
|
![]() |
|
| Biyah | May 27 2011, 02:15 AM Post #22 |
|
High Priest of the Cult
|
|
![]() |
|
| Northern Chittowa | May 27 2011, 11:42 AM Post #23 |
|
Regular
|
But its not Uni. The statement policy states that you are to inform the RA that you are planning on releasing a statement at least 24 hours in advance of you doing so. Only if two reps of the RA raise concerns regarding the statement will it be taken to vote, and then it will only be voting on the statement, not whether the involvement should happen or not. |
![]() |
|
| Felasia | May 28 2011, 05:23 AM Post #24 |
![]()
Knight of Equility
|
Voting have already started. I'm assuming you want me to vote aye? |
![]() |
|
| Biyah | May 28 2011, 05:23 AM Post #25 |
|
High Priest of the Cult
|
Absolutely. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan Termopylae | May 28 2011, 06:38 AM Post #26 |
|
The Fool on the Hill
|
Indeed |
|
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die Liebe ist fur alle da | |
![]() |
|
| Felasia | May 31 2011, 05:16 AM Post #27 |
![]()
Knight of Equility
|
The impeachment was defeated as it doesn't reach 60% majority as needed, but Unibot choose to resign instead. Snap election is currently underway for the position of Arch Chancellor http://s7.zetaboards.com/FRA/topic/8520964/1 - Resignation http://s7.zetaboards.com/FRA/topic/8520978/1 - Snap Election |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Assembly Archives · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




12:32 AM Jul 11