SO 2016-17 Approval Act of SO 2016-12

Approval Act of SO 2016-12

CONSIDERING that a referendum was organized by Nassau-Windsor, Senator, on SO 2016-12 “The Region’s Administrative Branch 2016 [Constitutional Amendment]”;

NOTING that all Members of Our Region had 72 hours in total to vote on this matter;

CONSIDERING that none of the Members voted against SO 2016-12 in this referendum;

CONSIDERING that an absolute majority among the voting members (9/5) voted in favour on SO 2016-12 in this referendum;

CONSIDERING that during the initial voting in Parliament, none of the voters voted against the proposal either, and that a unanimous result was reached (6/0 in favour);

CONSIDERING that Our President initially even signed the Bill into Law;

NOTING that with the current information and statistics known to Us, it should be evident that the SO 2016-12 should have been passed into Law already;

FINDING it appalling, that this form of vital legislation might be blocked because of inactivity and a lack of Members of this Region, whether in office or not;

BE IT ENACTED by and with the advice and consent of Parliament, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

Article 1
Parliament and the Executive Branch shall hereby agree, accept and approve that SO 2016-12 shall be signed into Law as proposed by Nassau-Windsor, Senator, at the 6th of July 2016, even though a majority among all Members of Our Region was not reached.

Article 2
This Bill shall require the same majority as a Constitutional Amendment.

18th October 2016
Nassau-Windsor, Senator

Strongly against. Nowhere in SO #2015-2 ("Constitution Act") does it allow the Parliament to override the referendum of the citizens. It would effectively undermine the act, which strictly requires a majority referendum.

However, I would support an amendment to SO #2015-2 that would do the following things:
-Amend Section B, Clause 2: make it so the poll lasts for 5 days
-Amend Section B, Clause 3: make it so the 2/3 is 2/3 of whoever voted either yes or no in the poll

I agree with LibDem. I do think that instead of adding even more procedure here with bad precedent, we should amend SO 2015-2 as explained by the President.