9

The law is not settled and will shortly be before the High Court (sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns) but theoretically: yes! The provision on Disqualification is s44, specifically subsection (i): Any person who: (i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the ...


8

It's the mechanism used to allow for adjournment debates: An adjournment debate is a way in the Commons of enabling a debate to take place but without a question which the House must then decide. An adjournment debate is held on the motion 'that the House (or sitting) do now adjourn'. There is a half-hour adjournment debate at the end of each day’s sitting. ...


7

Where the primary part of two acts in the same year would be the same, commonly a secondary phrase is added in brackets indicating the narrow subject of the act to avoid this happening. For example, the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2016 was followed later in the year by the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2016. ...


5

Compliance with the Dutch Constitution is evaluated pre-enactment, rather than post-enactment as indicated below. The Dutch Constitution prohibits the courts from reviewing the constitutionality of Acts of Parliament. They are however obliged to assess whether statutory regulations are compatible with international treaties. The ban on ...


5

I strongly suspect that the answer is that no, this would not work. The validity of the additional grant of citizenship would be evaluated by an Australian court applying Australian law. One of the underlying principles of that body of law is that gifts must be accepted and can be disclaimed. Another is that an adult's legal status cannot normally be ...


3

From an opinion piece published by the public broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation What the High Court citizenship decision says about the health of our democracy The standard is a strict one: It is no excuse, for the purposes of section 44, that an MP has no real ties to a foreign power, or did not in fact know they were a citizen of ...


3

No An amendment must happen at a meeting: without a quorum there is no meeting.


3

Quorum defines the minimum number of members present in order to conduct business. Once quorum is met, members may make motions and the assembly may conduct business. Now your question concerns the minimum required for passing a motion, and you are correct some motions require more than majority, such as 2/3 vote. The problem in your analysis is that rules ...


2

A "group" is a rather Ill-defined concept. If the group is a familial or social group then their decisions are not legally binding so it doesn't matter. If the group is the creature of a contract then the contract will tell you. If the contract is silent then a decision would amount to a renegotiation of the contract and would have to be unanimous. If the ...


2

Private prosecution of crimes has become increasingly uncommon under common law systems, which have increased deference to public prosecutors. The U.S. Supreme Court eliminated private prosecution at the federal level in Leeke v. Timmerman, (1981), 452 U.S. 83. The closest exception found in case law appears to be an allowance for a federal court to ...


2

Section 13716 is a textbook case of ambiguous drafting. Subsection 1 The board shall elect from its members a president and other officers as it considers appropriate and necessary to conduct its business. can be read as requiring the board to elect a president, and allowing it to also elect other officers in case the board finds it appropriate and ...


2

Robert's Rules are one set of standing orders for the operation of a parliamentary-type assembly. They are not legally enforceable; they are simply "the way we do things 'round here." What is legally enforceable are the organisations constitution and any resolutions passed in accordance with them. If these prohibit a person who is on assembly A from being ...


1

I can't say that I have ever seen a "generic" set of rules for quasi-judicial proceedings made for adoption by NGOs. I drafted a set once for the University of Michigan's student government, and I have seen others in use (most recently for quasi-judicial proceedings concerning zoning variances before a municipal Board of Adjustment). So, there are many ...


1

Because when the ruling of the chair is appealed, an immediate vote on the appeal must take place and this vote cannot be filibustered. Which means you only need 51 votes to overturn the chair's ruling, which then rewrites the Senate rule.


1

No Presumably, the 75% of the quorum requirement is an additional requirement for the particular motion over and above the requirement that all motions must be carried by a simple majority of members present and able to vote. So it needs to pass both thresholds. For your example, 33-50 members present, the threshold is 25 - the 75% of the quorum ...


1

It depends on what manual of parlimentary procedure is used by the group if any (see comment). But in general i would take the 25 vote requirement to be a floor, but that a majority of those voting, however many they are, must vote in favor for a measure to pass. If that majority is less than 25 votes, it still doesn't pass due to this 75% of a quorum ...


1

A Demand for Grant is a bill (i.e. piece of proposed legislation) seeking approval for estimated expenditures for a particular department or sub-department of a large department of the national or state or territory government from the national government's general fund, each of which must be approved separately by the Lok Sabha in order to authorize that ...


1

Assuming everyone is in agreement, including the president, less than a day. Assuming there is one person in disagreement in the House Senate, about a week. Assuming there is one person in disagreement in both chambers and the president opposes it, approximately 3 weeks. If more than two-fifths of the members of Senate oppose a bill, a really long time. In ...


1

There is no legal duty on any state to pursue criminal prosecution. The legal duty extends only to giving consideration to doing so. If, after consideration, they decide not to, then no one can force them to. Case law on this is limited to the court ordering consideration when none was given.


1

Point #1 put simply says that when a decision or action (mandatory or otherwise) is given to 3 or more people then the decision of the majority is binding. For 1 or 2 people the decision must be unanimous. A quorum is either a) what the boards rules say (point 5) or b) a majority of the board (point 6) whichever is lesser. For the board you detail (7 ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible