Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 06:24:54PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > You can't because it ain't there.  The only thing the constitution says
> > > about any of this is that the secretary may make a decision.  Apparently,
> > > that decision need not be otherwise constitutional.  I don't believe this
> > > was intended.  I don't believe it's right.  And I'll be damned if I'm
> > > going to simply ignore this precedent.
> > 
> > Oh, the secretary's decision can be overridden.  You don't need to
> > argue that it's unconstitutional, you just need to pass the relevant
> > GR, or amendment, or whatever is appropriate, to cause the precedent
> > to be overridden.
> 
> The vote wouldn't take place until after this one was finished, making it
> somewhat a moot point, would it not?

The claim is that it is the precedent that matters, not this specific
vote.  In any case, if the secretary's decision is overridden, nothing
in the constitution prohibits a second vote on the present issue.



--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]