Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure

[Raul Miller]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:37:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> The Constitution provides no support whatsoever for what the Secretary
> has done.

Actually it does.

> Had he thought that the proposal was not Constitutional, he should
> have rejected it, NOT tried to add things to the Constitution himself.

I think you've been basing your actions on the idea that your way of
interpreting the constitution is the only way.  There's more than one
way to do it.

> Had he rejected it, I would have submitted a reworded version that
> would accomplish the exact same thing and have the exact same effect
> but would comply with this particular unsupportable and overly
> legalistic point of view.  The end result would have been a proposal
> fully Constitutional and votable under current rules.

If you thought this was a good idea, you should have already done it.

> However, the Secretary did not choose a logical path, and we a left
> with a huge mess.

You can vote for "further discussion".

That's what I'm going to do.

-- 
Raul


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