Court Case: Executive Veto On Slave Bill Is Illegal

Kuciwalker · January 3, 2003, 12:57

I contend that the recent executive veto of the slave integration bill is ILLEGAL.

If you remove the abstain votes and add in my manual vote, the bill passed by 73%. An executive veto may only be issued if a bill passes by less than 2/3, or 66%.

I ask that the Court rule the recent executive veto null and void, and that the bill stands.

GodKing · January 3, 2003, 13:03

I will look into this over the weekend. I can either do this as a sit alone judge, or as a court case. Let me know skywalker.

Kuciwalker · January 3, 2003, 13:05

I would like whichever will proceed fastest.

Is there any way I can get an injunction on the veto or the turnchat? I ask because otherwise "irreperable harm" could be done if a turnchat is played before the veto is overturned (if it is overturned). If it is not overturned, no such "irreperable harm" will come with an injunction of the chat or the veto.

Spiffor · January 3, 2003, 13:13

Skywalker : there have been 18 YES and 17 NO in this vote. While it is obvious to anyone with common sense such a close competition didn't end up in a landslide 73% victory, here is the mathematic rationale

YES votes / (YES votes + NO votes) = YES proportion

18 / (18+17) = 18 / 35 = 0,514 ; 51,4%

Skywalker : you shouldn't forget there are 17 NO votes, not 7. If you have so much trouble adding 18 and 17, you should go to the start menu, click "run", and type "calc". It will run the windows calculator

GodKing · January 3, 2003, 13:13

Injunction - no. No significant harm will be done this weekend in playing of 3-5 turns (war time, each turn takes 2-3 hours.) There are no plans to assimilate any significant (I don't think any) number of workers within this time frame. Therefore no injunction is necessary.

Fastest is to just have myself or another judge look into the facts, and not have this as an OFFICIAL court case. As it isn't Official, I cannot force them to act one way or another. However, knowing the people involved, I would say they will do whatever is correct. Also, it can always be made official at a later date if necessary.

This way, just acting solo, I can do a bit of research this weekend, verify what you are saying, and make a determination. It will be resolved quickly.

Spiffor · January 3, 2003, 13:17

Godking : to quote the constitution :

Quote:

(c) By agreement of 3 of the following: President, Vice President, Supreme Military Commander, Foreign Affairs Minister, and/or Domestic Minister; any law or decision by the Senate that does not receive a 2/3rd majority vote (as prescribed in Art. II Sec. 2e) for passage may be vetoed within 72 hours of being passed by the Senate. A vetoed law or decision is no longer valid. It may be proposed again, however, it will only become valid if it is passed by a 2/3rd majority vote.

The only unconstitutional thing about this veto is that it was publicized about 77 hours after the end of the poll. But Arnelos had to be absent from the Demogame for 2 days for reasons we sadly know

, so I don't think it applies on this case.

Kuciwalker · January 3, 2003, 13:17

Spiffor: there are NINETEEN yes. I place one of my manual votes.

You know, the *sigh* thing?

GodKing: Ok, I would like you to first look at it yourself.

Spiffor · January 3, 2003, 13:21

Ah yes, 19 YES. It brings us to the whopping 52,8 % majority. Try harder.

Kuciwalker · January 3, 2003, 13:26

Wait a second. Never mind.

Sorry all of you.

I did the math in my head, and forgot a ten (ducks head in shame

)

I drop the case.

GodKing · January 3, 2003, 13:54

Good. Case dropped.

Aggie · January 3, 2003, 14:47

Spiffor, yes arnelos wasn't here, but 3 memebers who did veto the bill were present, thus I claim that the veto is invalid and never took place since it can only take place within 72 hours. I will not press this case but if somebody wants to I won't object, not specifically for this issue but to set precedent.
Aggie

aleion · January 3, 2003, 15:22

Aggie is right. The Veto should not be vaildated if it really wasn't. I belive a Re-Vote is in order.

Togas · January 3, 2003, 15:43

If someone decides to resubmit this case, please post a formal request or PM The Court so that a court thread can be made.

--Judge Togas

DAVOUT · January 3, 2003, 18:05

Does this require to be irresponsible ? If not, I cant help.

Togas · January 3, 2003, 19:19

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Does this require to be irresponsible ? If not, I cant help.

--Togas

Kuciwalker · January 3, 2003, 19:49

Aggie does have a point. I'll press the case on that charge, not my original one.

Kloreep · January 3, 2003, 20:09

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Wait a second. Never mind.

Sorry all of you.

I did the math in my head, and forgot a ten (ducks head in shame

)

And I even pointed it out to you, too.

Well, this case should be interesting. Yet more precedent to be set by the court.

E_T · January 3, 2003, 22:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
Spiffor, yes arnelos wasn't here, but 3 memebers who did veto the bill were present, thus I claim that the veto is invalid and never took place since it can only take place within 72 hours. I will not press this case but if somebody wants to I won't object, not specifically for this issue but to set precedent.
Aggie

5 hours because the President was away for 48 hours (there about) is no big thing to deal with. IF on the other hand, he had been present and available, then I would have a problem with it.

As I was the only NO vote in the Veto, I have no problem with this time difference. This should not be Illegal because of this.

E_T

Kuciwalker · January 4, 2003, 10:38

It should, because whether or not Arnelos was there would not have affected the outcome, the vote COULD HAVE BEEN taken earlier without a different result.

The reason there is a 72-hour limit is because otherwise the Cabinet would veto bills RIGHT BEFORE a turnchat, negating the Senate's ability to override the veto with a 2/3 majority, as the bill could not pass in time.