Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
__Not on the ballot, though, right?__
No - US constitutional amendments are harder to do than Californian ones - you cant just stick it on the ballot and have 50% +1 people think it's a good idea.
Also - there has never been a nationwide referendum.
The US Constitution is amended by getting a two-thirds majority in the House and the Senate to agree to something, and then getting three-quarters of the states to agree to that (some states will get their agreement in their legislatues, others would put it to a public vote).
-
ramming fairl major consitutioal changes through parliment using urgency
Such as?
Electoral Finance Act - no.
Supreme Court Act - no.You're not talking about the Local Government Act, are you?
-
Mr Key acknowledged yesterday that he was wrong and "in hindsight" it had worked well.
What's wrong with this?
Yes, I opposed it. I didn't think it would work well. It can. Why would I oppose it as an option now? Do I look like an idiot who can't evaluate evidence?
It's far superior to the alternative, with which we've had some experience: "having coalition ministers outside cabinet has always been XYZ Party policy."
Superior, not least because it is honest.
-
surpassing the USA in draconian and ineffective "law & order" (vindictiveness) policy
Surpassing?
California three-strikes - three felonies, and third conviction is life with 25 years non-parole.
ACT's three-strikes - three serious violent offences, and third conviction is life with 25 years non-parole.
Argue it's stupid (the definition of serious violent offences includes the offence provision under which people would be charged for lightly smacking their kids), but how you get to surpassing the USA is somewhat a mystery.
[Also, California has the death penalty]
-
Ministers outside cabinet are subject to cabinet collective responsibility.
-
I just heard Key said that "Hide as a Minister outside cabinet was a good idea." Remember the fuss when Peters was so appointed? Flop-flip.
That was over the suggestion that he was a minister outside government - a complete nonsense.
[and to a small extent, it was also over the Foreign Minister in particular, being outside government/cabinet]
-
__Ratification of treaties by the Senate requires a two-thirds vote.__
Huh, didn't know that - puts a slightly different spin on the US being removed from the international scene. That really seems unworkable for the country in a two-party, partisan environment.
It kept the US out of the League of Nations, and torpedoed US support of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (though, when it comes down to it, they weren't close).
-
His disabilities policy is historic, not only in what it contains (among other things, it ratifies the UN convention on the rights of the disabled)
His policy may do that, but unlike in New Zealand, ratification of treaties isn't an executive power.
Obama may sign the US up (as you'll know, they've yet to even do that, let alone ratify the thing), but ratifying the treaty will require support in the Senate, and while the Democrats have a majority, they look unlikely to have a filibuster-proof majority, and even if they did that still wouldn't be enough! Ratification of treaties by the Senate requires a two-thirds vote.
I wonder if this is a little like various parties' entrenchment promises in New Zealand ... sounds good to some, but meaningless without the numbers.
-
unless they do pretty badly come specials time - have to lose about five thousand.
It's not really possible to lose votes from the Specials.
-
Pita Sharples respectfully declared himself willing to talk with National, emphasising that any accord would need to be good for both parties ("mana enhancement" he called it).
I'm not sure that's exactly what mana enhancement means - you may have fallen into the same trap as Barry Soper (I think) on Agenda.
Maori Party president Whatarangi Winiata was explaining that the dialogue between National and the Māori Party would have to be "mana enhancing" explaining that Māori Party ideas would have to receive serious consideration, etc.
Barry then asked (transcript not yet up, so not a direct quote) "well, what if the National Party were to stick with their policy to abolish the Māori seats, that wouldn't exactly be mana enhancing?"
Professor Winiata disagreed, noting that such a position could well be an expression of National's rangatiratanga.