VOTE: Article 23: Supremacy of the Charter

[Todd McCloud]

Motion to change Articles 23 of the charter from this:

<strong class='bbc'><em class='bbc'>Article 23 - Supremacy of the Charter</em></strong>



1. The law is defined as the Code of Laws of the South Pacific along with any regulations made by organizations of the South Pacific.



2. This Charter shall carry supremacy over any other law of the South Pacific.



3. If a law or agreement of the South Pacific shall be found to be completely or partially in conflict with the Charter, the Ministry of Justice shall have the duty of declaring such a law or agreement void, removing it from the record, and publicly disclosing such action along with the reasons thereof.

To this:

<strong class='bbc'>Article 20 - Supremacy of the Charter</strong>[*:2j9w31xm] This Charter shall carry supremacy over any other law of the South Pacific.





[*:2j9w31xm] If a law or agreement of the South Pacific shall be found to be completely or partially in conflict with the Charter, the Ministry of Justice shall have the duty of declaring such a law or agreement void, removing it from the record, and publicly disclosing such action along with the reasons thereof.





[*:2j9w31xm] Judicial Review may be initiated by any citizen nation, in which the Minister of Justice is charged with determining the need for review, with Charter backing, and providing a solution for the Assembly to discuss.





[*:2j9w31xm] After a one-week period of discussion, voting will commence. Voting will last one week, and must pass by a 60% majority.

Please simply vote 'yea' for yes, 'nay' for no, or 'remove' to vote for removing this article from the Charter. Voting for this article will end on <strong class='bbc'>Friday, November 19th at 5pm EST</strong>. Extensions for debate or voting may be requested, but that does not guarantee it will be accepted.

[Guest]

EDIT: changed my vote to Aye, even though I think point 4 is a bit weird.

[QuietDad]

Aye. But as a side, should there be mention/procedure of the option of changing the charter if two rules confict. If the rule is actually better than the charter/made to improve things, this leaves no option but to kill the new rule.

[HEM]

Sure

[Guest]

Aye. But as a side, should there be mention/procedure of the option of changing the charter if two rules confict. If the rule is actually better than the charter/made to improve things, this leaves no option but to kill the new rule.

In such a case, one should amend the charter with the procedure described in the charter for amending it.

[Polkstreet]

Yea

[king j]

Yea

[htz31361849782]

yuppers