Trial: Citizen Abdoa vs. Union

Plaintiff: Abdoa, Citizen
Defendant: Parliamentary Union of Sovereign Nations

Members of the Jury,

In our Constitution, Article II, Section C, Subsection 1, it is said that "All votes must be passed by a majority vote among the 9 Senators." Under the current interpretation of this injunctive, ordinary bills need 5 votes in favor in order to be passed.

This had however proved to be an inefficient interpretation. Because of the occasional or frequent absence of some Senators, the situation has frequently transpired that a bill has received unanimous approval of the voting Senators, but failed to pass, because less than half of the Senators actually voted.(1)

Considering this to be detrimental to the fair and efficient working of the legislative process, I ask the court to rule that Article II, Section C, Subsection 1 of our Constitution be interpreted henceforth as meaning that "all votes must be passed by a majority of votes explicitly cast (in favor, in opposition, or in abstention) during the allocated time period for the vote."

(1) It is to be noted that "not voting" is not the same as "abstaining"; the latter entails actually making known one's abstention on the floor of the Voting Chamber.

Submitted to the Court of the Union on October 30, 2016 at 1911 by Abdoa, Citizen

I do request the assistance of the Minister of Jurisprudence, so he may set the precedent for trial procedure.

1. The defendant does have the choice to be tried by jury, judge, or me. 2. the peron(s) deciding the outcome of the case must choose whether the case is on the forums or RMB. 3. The plaintiff may have first statement, followed by the defendant. Then, the plaintiff may have last statement. 4. The person deciding the outcome of the case has a maximum of 16 hours and a minimum of 30 minutes to decide the verdict. (I accept all feedback)

As much as I do agree and consent with the intention of this trial (and the outcome it may have), I have to confess that to me the Constitution is quite clear: a majority of the 9 Senators must be reached.

So technically speaking, I do not think that this petition should pass the Jury, but the intention of this petition could be considered the same as the intention of the Constitution...

Well, if the intention is the same, I think we should set things to rights, especially since pasing amendments seems to be currently impossible.

Abdoa wrote:Well, if the intention is the same, I think we should set things to rights, especially since pasing amendments seems to be currently impossible.

Then I would like to call the Minister of Jurisprudence, to hear whether he thinks it would be possible to give the words used in the Constitution such an explanation, that it could even contradict the literal meaning of the words of the Constitution.

Nassau-Windsor wrote:

Abdoa wrote:Well, if the intention is the same, I think we should set things to rights, especially since pasing amendments seems to be currently impossible.

Then I would like to call the Minister of Jurisprudence, to hear whether he thinks it would be possible to give the words used in the Constitution such an explanation, that it could even contradict the literal meaning of the words of the Constitution.

it is ok to use it as a explanation, but as long it does not contradict the meaning of the consitution.

I believe the intention of the Constitution was to have a majority of the entire legislative body. Since the Constitution didn't specify any time limits on voting or debate, this clause is necessary to prevent a group of two or three senators calling a 5-minute vote, preventing any opposition from voting.

Um, but because of the Procedure Rules, that's legally impossible. I guess they could be repealed, but setting them in the Constitution would just be as annoying as the reason we are here: activity in the Senate is extremely sporadic, and we seem to logistically be unable to pass Constitutional Amendments. I recognize that the simple majority solution isn't perhaps the most obvious interpretation, but the clause is vague enough for it to be reasonably allowed.

Yes, but the only way to change it would be a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution was not written with inactivity in mind. What we should focus on is recruitment. We don't have a full recruitment council. Recruitment is only at 50%. We should recruit more nations so we can pass an amendment to account for inactivity.

Recruitment, I think, is actually counterproductive, because as most of the nations we are recruiting are new ones that will most of the time only log on twice a week at most for a couple of weeks and then go inactive. Therefore, the threshold for passing amendments never ceases to get higher, but we don't actually get that many more active voters.

However, if the new Senators prove to be active enough for long enough, we might just be able to get an amendment to SO 2015-2 passed in Parliament, setting the threshold to those who voted over 5 days, as you suggested earlier. Then I would consider dropping the trial in favour of an amendment. If we cannot the SO 2015-2, I will continue to push for the interpretation change.

I agree with your argument that amending SO#2015-2 would better solve the problem. I will see if I can write up a bill this weekend. But if we cannot the SO 2015-2, I will continue to stand against the push for an interpretation change and your funny grammar

Very well.