MASSIVE Hole in the Constitution
Day 1,191, 02:56
•
Published in Australia 
•
by
•
by Goose Step
Good Evening eAustralia,
Before I talk about the MASSIVE Hole I found in the constitution (and Ranger Bob throws something at the computer for me ranting again), can I take you through the key point of my beef.
I have asked over and over again why Xavier Griffith as speaker added certain sections to the act to make it LOOK LIKE it went to a referendum.
http://community.auserepublik.com/index.php?topic=14054.msg179842#new
As you'll see above, the act placed in the policies section by Xavier Griffith features Public Vote -which shows links to the notifications and voting.
HOWEVER, if this is to show that it went to a referendum, then that is misleading.
According to the referendum act it had to be publicised in an OFFICIAL government newspaper, plus voting could not commence until 24 hours after that article was posted.
Furthermore, DA's newspaper is not an official newspaper and he's 'vote' was describe just as a public opinion poll.
NOW FOR THE TROLLS - PLEASE READ THOSE LAST FEW SENTENCES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL IT GETS INTO YOUR HEAD.
So now when I point out the following hole in the constitution, please understand, I'm not a current senator - I'm an average citizen who was waiting for the constitution to go to a referendum for me to make my points and vote on it (like everyone else).
The so called public consultation was done under the guise of policy being 'drafted' by the DIYPA - I'm not a member of their party so I had no interest in what they had at the 'Draft stage'.
Now for the MASSIVE hole in the constitution.
When it comes to up-holding the political rules, each word in an act is important. None more so than what you need to pass a piece of legislation or revoke or impeach.
The constitution defines what a majority is, BUT what it does not do in the Government procedure section is state that a majority is needed.
In fact it simply says it needs to be taken to a vote!
So in theory, I can take it to a vote, be the only one to vote for it, but legally it passes because the constitution doesn't say I need a majority to pass it - it only 'defines' what a majority is.
In all the legislation that can be put forward it also includes 'Presidential Impeachment', which is lumped in with everything else (where in game a 2 thirds majority is needed to impeach).
In fact the only sections that speak of majority are that in voting in or revoking a speaker, or the public vote for amendment.
Funny, there's even a line on amendments saying after 'accepted by a government vote' - but does not define what was needed for the government vote to be accepted!
So senators who want radical changes - make your proposals now, because the Government Procedure DOES NOT STATE YOU REQUIRE A MAJORITY, simple that it must be voted on!
I'm CrowdedHouse
More hated than Larni... that's something she'll agree with
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
No senator needs a majority - CONSTITUTION FAIL!
Nice story
i'm so bored with this, you can do better
hah interesting angle! but the Speaker calls the shots, and we know which way that is.
I love the way that CH and the ANP Troll Patrol actually attribute the implementation of the constitution to me alone. Anybody would think that I voted it in by myself. Damn me I didnt realise I had that much power in this country.
Mind you, unlike those that are senators and are just butthurt, at least I've done something.
Even Majester, who I'll add also doesn't like the constitution stepped up to the plate and proposed an amendment to the constitution, which I might again add actually passed a senate vote with quite a large majority vote. Whether it passes the public vote or not is yet to be seen however, but he at least did something constructive about it instead of trying the political grandstanding crap.
As for CH, you keep spewing forth your so called political and legal hyperbol and yet filed a complaint with the IG and have been unprepared to wait and see what he has to say. It's just more of the personal attack BS. All talk and cry but no real action and a hypocrite to boot.
XG every time you call the people opposing the constitution "ANP trolls" you are actually proving us right.
You call whoever disagrees with you an "ANP troll" even if they aren't in the ANP. Exactly like Larni. It's a typical elite thing to do.
You still can't get it in your thick head that this has nothing to do with political parties. Actually, i think you do understand, but you would rather blame it on politically parties then to actually admit it's about your constitution.
@D😨 "You call whoever disagrees with you an "ANP troll" even if they aren't in the ANP. Exactly like Larni. It's a typical elite thing to do."
No Child, its you that i'm referring to when i use the term ANP Troll Patrol.
/me Joins in rant about elites just for shits and gigs