ksazma posted:

Django posted:

 

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/p...es/supermajority.php

Australia

Both the Australian House of Representatives and Senate have rules that enable motions to be moved for the suspension of standing orders.[1]  Such motions may be used to change the order of business before the relevant house,[2] or to permit the introduction of bills and their passage without delay,[3] among other matters.[4]  If motions to suspend standing orders are moved without notice, then an “absolute majority” of members must vote in favor of the motion.[5]  This means that more than half of the total number of members of the relevant house must vote in favor of the motion, as opposed to a simple majority where only a majority of those present for the vote must vote in favor of the motion.[6]

However, most motions to suspend standing orders are moved by a special type of notice called a “contingent notice” in order to avoid the need to obtain the agreement of an absolute majority of the house.  Such motions only require the agreement of a simple majority.[7]  In addition, other mechanisms (referred to as the “guillotine”) that do not require the agreement of an absolute majority are available to government ministers with respect to placing time limits on debates for bills that are declared urgent.[8]

This is where the Coalition's argument is running into a brick wall. Absolute majority means every MP has to vote and the side that has less votes loses. A simple majority means that only those willing to vote need to and the side that has less votes loses. On December 21, 2018, the 33 votes acquired by the PPP is the absolute majority of ALL 65 MPs voting. too bad the Coalition's shittings came only after Charrandas voted with the PPP for had five of them start their shittings before the vote and been out of the chambers during the vote, the PPP could have had only their 32 votes and the Coalition could have had only 28 and still the PPP would have lost the motion since only 60 MPs would have voted. But no one ever accused the Coalition of not being hapless. 

Guyana's constitution doesn't say anything about absolute and simple majority.  Neither does it say that 34+32=65.  That was all PNC conundrum.

Bibi Haniffa posted:

ksazma posted:

Django posted:

 

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/p...es/supermajority.php

Australia

Both the Australian House of Representatives and Senate have rules that enable motions to be moved for the suspension of standing orders.[1]  Such motions may be used to change the order of business before the relevant house,[2] or to permit the introduction of bills and their passage without delay,[3] among other matters.[4]  If motions to suspend standing orders are moved without notice, then an “absolute majority” of members must vote in favor of the motion.[5]  This means that more than half of the total number of members of the relevant house must vote in favor of the motion, as opposed to a simple majority where only a majority of those present for the vote must vote in favor of the motion.[6]

However, most motions to suspend standing orders are moved by a special type of notice called a “contingent notice” in order to avoid the need to obtain the agreement of an absolute majority of the house.  Such motions only require the agreement of a simple majority.[7]  In addition, other mechanisms (referred to as the “guillotine”) that do not require the agreement of an absolute majority are available to government ministers with respect to placing time limits on debates for bills that are declared urgent.[8]

This is where the Coalition's argument is running into a brick wall. Absolute majority means every MP has to vote and the side that has less votes loses. A simple majority means that only those willing to vote need to and the side that has less votes loses. On December 21, 2018, the 33 votes acquired by the PPP is the absolute majority of ALL 65 MPs voting. too bad the Coalition's shittings came only after Charrandas voted with the PPP for had five of them start their shittings before the vote and been out of the chambers during the vote, the PPP could have had only their 32 votes and the Coalition could have had only 28 and still the PPP would have lost the motion since only 60 MPs would have voted. But no one ever accused the Coalition of not being hapless. 

Guyana's constitution doesn't say anything about absolute and simple majority.  Neither does it say that 34+32=65.  That was all PNC conundrum.

The Coalition especially Williams made so many unforced errors since 12/21/2018 that I am beginning to think they are thinking that they were better off when they were doing absolutely nothing since May 2015.  

Only a DUMMY will bring Australia Constitution to Court regarding a case for Guyana!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nehru posted:

Only a DUMMY will bring Australia Constitution to Court regarding a case for Guyana!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roysdale Ford's submission to the CCJ was about the constitution of India, Cook Islands, Australia and some place name Mammaloney or something like that.  The judges kept interrupting him but he couldn't find the brakes to stop his express train.

ksazma posted:

Django posted:

 

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/p...es/supermajority.php

Australia

Both the Australian House of Representatives and Senate have rules that enable motions to be moved for the suspension of standing orders.[1]  Such motions may be used to change the order of business before the relevant house,[2] or to permit the introduction of bills and their passage without delay,[3] among other matters.[4]  If motions to suspend standing orders are moved without notice, then an “absolute majority” of members must vote in favor of the motion.[5]  This means that more than half of the total number of members of the relevant house must vote in favor of the motion, as opposed to a simple majority where only a majority of those present for the vote must vote in favor of the motion.[6]

However, most motions to suspend standing orders are moved by a special type of notice called a “contingent notice” in order to avoid the need to obtain the agreement of an absolute majority of the house.  Such motions only require the agreement of a simple majority.[7]  In addition, other mechanisms (referred to as the “guillotine”) that do not require the agreement of an absolute majority are available to government ministers with respect to placing time limits on debates for bills that are declared urgent.[8]

This is where the Coalition's argument is running into a brick wall. Absolute majority means every MP has to vote and the side that has less votes loses. A simple majority means that only those willing to vote need to and the side that has less votes loses. On December 21, 2018, the 33 votes acquired by the PPP is the absolute majority of ALL 65 MPs voting. too bad the Coalition's shittings came only after Charrandas voted with the PPP for had five of them start their shittings before the vote and been out of the chambers during the vote, the PPP could have had only their 32 votes and the Coalition could have had only 28 and still the PPP would have lost the motion since only 60 MPs would have voted. But no one ever accused the Coalition of not being hapless. 

You are correct,

also this clause defines what is "absolute majority" the word "absolute" don't have to added before majority.

106 (6) The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.

Nehru posted:

Only a DUMMY will bring Australia Constitution to Court regarding a case for Guyana!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you a JACKASS ?

The article was use as a reference to define what is absolute majority. Lots of DUMMYS, including you don't know what it is, happens when students skulk from school and present at Gaumont.

Django posted:

ksazma posted:

Django posted:

 

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/p...es/supermajority.php

Australia

Both the Australian House of Representatives and Senate have rules that enable motions to be moved for the suspension of standing orders.[1]  Such motions may be used to change the order of business before the relevant house,[2] or to permit the introduction of bills and their passage without delay,[3] among other matters.[4]  If motions to suspend standing orders are moved without notice, then an “absolute majority” of members must vote in favor of the motion.[5]  This means that more than half of the total number of members of the relevant house must vote in favor of the motion, as opposed to a simple majority where only a majority of those present for the vote must vote in favor of the motion.[6]

However, most motions to suspend standing orders are moved by a special type of notice called a “contingent notice” in order to avoid the need to obtain the agreement of an absolute majority of the house.  Such motions only require the agreement of a simple majority.[7]  In addition, other mechanisms (referred to as the “guillotine”) that do not require the agreement of an absolute majority are available to government ministers with respect to placing time limits on debates for bills that are declared urgent.[8]

This is where the Coalition's argument is running into a brick wall. Absolute majority means every MP has to vote and the side that has less votes loses. A simple majority means that only those willing to vote need to and the side that has less votes loses. On December 21, 2018, the 33 votes acquired by the PPP is the absolute majority of ALL 65 MPs voting. too bad the Coalition's shittings came only after Charrandas voted with the PPP for had five of them start their shittings before the vote and been out of the chambers during the vote, the PPP could have had only their 32 votes and the Coalition could have had only 28 and still the PPP would have lost the motion since only 60 MPs would have voted. But no one ever accused the Coalition of not being hapless. 

You are correct,

also this clause defines what is "absolute majority" the word "absolute" don't have to added before majority.

106 (6) The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.

I take no credit for this Pal. I picked up on this as well as the quorum from Ramjattan when he had that discussion with Ram on that recent town house show. 

Django posted:

That's what you gathered from the article posted, tells a lot about comprehension.

Here is what you asked.

Dave posted:

Django, did the constitution has the word absolute majority? 

Django, you are the last person to question anyone about comprehension. 

What a good Saturday afternoon laugh 😆 

Dave posted:

Django posted:

That's what you gathered from the article posted, tells a lot about comprehension.

Here is what you asked.

Dave posted:

Django, did the constitution has the word absolute majority? 

Django, you are the last person to question anyone about comprehension. 

What a good Saturday afternoon laugh 😆 

Haven't seen you present nothing, towards the discussion on this thread. just interject with nonsensical questions.

Dave posted:

Django posted:

That's what you gathered from the article posted, tells a lot about comprehension.

Here is what you asked.

Dave posted:

Django, did the constitution has the word absolute majority? 

Django, you are the last person to question anyone about comprehension. 

What a good Saturday afternoon laugh 😆 

The thing I admire about Django, he goes down kicking and screaming even if his head is already buried in the sand.

So Django brought his Australian constitution to explain “ Absolute majority” and lil brother Kaz, put some good lash on his arss and send him back to school. 

DJ holding on  for that paycheque. Keep on selling Congress Place crap. 

Dave posted:

So Django brought his Australian constitution to explain “ Absolute majority” and lil brother Kaz, put some good lash on his arss and send him back to school. 

DJ holding on  for that paycheque. Keep on selling Congress Place crap. 

If you follow the conversation between my self and Kaz, there was no licking.

You wanted to know if Guyana Constitution have absolute majority, the info was presented to explain such.

Paycheck my foot, keep on believing you all smarter than others in the homeland.

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Dave posted:

Django posted:

That's what you gathered from the article posted, tells a lot about comprehension.

Here is what you asked.

Dave posted:

Django, did the constitution has the word absolute majority? 

Django, you are the last person to question anyone about comprehension. 

What a good Saturday afternoon laugh 😆 

The thing I admire about Django, he goes down kicking and screaming even if his head is already buried in the sand.

You are another, who doesn't bring any substance to this forum.

Django posted:

Dave posted:

So Django brought his Australian constitution to explain “ Absolute majority” and lil brother Kaz, put some good lash on his arss and send him back to school. 

DJ holding on  for that paycheque. Keep on selling Congress Place crap. 

If you follow the conversation between my self and Kaz, there was no licking.

You wanted to know if Guyana Constitution have absolute majority, the info was presented to explain such.

Paycheck my foot, keep on believing you all smarter than others in the homeland.

Where does the constitution state absolute majority? Or is this just more slop?

Django posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Dave posted:

Django posted:

That's what you gathered from the article posted, tells a lot about comprehension.

Here is what you asked.

Dave posted:

Django, did the constitution has the word absolute majority? 

Django, you are the last person to question anyone about comprehension. 

What a good Saturday afternoon laugh 😆 

The thing I admire about Django, he goes down kicking and screaming even if his head is already buried in the sand.

You are another, who doesn't bring any substance to this forum.

Hey hey. I’m at Nest right now.   Nuff duglarization in process. Queen Sheba gatt nuff company!

Drugb posted:

Django posted:

Dave posted:

So Django brought his Australian constitution to explain “ Absolute majority” and lil brother Kaz, put some good lash on his arss and send him back to school. 

DJ holding on  for that paycheque. Keep on selling Congress Place crap. 

If you follow the conversation between my self and Kaz, there was no licking.

You wanted to know if Guyana Constitution have absolute majority, the info was presented to explain such.

Paycheck my foot, keep on believing you all smarter than others in the homeland.

Where does the constitution state absolute majority? Or is this just more slop?

Baseman posted:

Drugb posted:

Baseman posted:

Drugb posted:

A few years ago under ppp watch I argued that govt should not be  owning any news papers. I got bused down by the slopcan crew. Its not about Miss Marshall but the real elephant in the room, the govt who controls chronicle. 

Don’t worry, soon we will have a baby elephant in the room, Irfaan.  

I just hope that his weight don't affect his brain as many are suggesting via fat shaming. 

Nah, you should know, fat don’t really affect the brain function!  Other things, but not brain!

Ohhhh rasssss, you insinuatin' somebody FAT FAT? Dah Clostmybag musbe big like rass...size of a garbage bag.

Baseman posted:

Django posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Dave posted:

Django posted:

That's what you gathered from the article posted, tells a lot about comprehension.

Here is what you asked.

Dave posted:

Django, did the constitution has the word absolute majority? 

Django, you are the last person to question anyone about comprehension. 

What a good Saturday afternoon laugh 😆 

The thing I admire about Django, he goes down kicking and screaming even if his head is already buried in the sand.

You are another, who doesn't bring any substance to this forum.

Hey hey. I’m at Nest right now.   Nuff duglarization in process. Queen Sheba gatt nuff company!

If you still deh round, I bet you doan go pinch da bamsie.

Anyway, back to the thread's heading. All I gotta say is, Guyana got melody. I doan know how de rass their cricketers ever kept up with playing by rules, seems as though everything goes in that dam place, throw out the rulebook. Whatever shit you feel to come up with in the moment is aright.

Drugb posted:

Django posted:

If you follow the conversation between my self and Kaz, there was no licking.

You wanted to know if Guyana Constitution have absolute majority, the info was presented to explain such.

Paycheck my foot, keep on believing you all smarter than others in the homeland.

Where does the constitution state absolute majority? Or is this just more slop?

I don’t understand the elongated discussion over absolute.  It clearly says majority of all shitting members.  This, by definition, is absolute.  So if you chose to insert the word or not, the answer is the same!

Baseman posted:

I don’t understand the elongated discussion over absolute.  It clearly says majority of all shitting members.  This, by definition, is absolute.  So if you chose to insert the word or not, the answer is the same!

And the absolutely correct answer is 33 votes not 34 as insisted by those two appellate court fools. Persaud quickly gave the correct answer while those two fools went on and on before giving the wrong one. 

ksazma posted:

Baseman posted:

I don’t understand the elongated discussion over absolute.  It clearly says majority of all shitting members.  This, by definition, is absolute.  So if you chose to insert the word or not, the answer is the same!

And the absolutely correct answer is 33 votes not 34 as insisted by those two appellate court fools. Persaud quickly gave the correct answer while those two fools went on and on before giving the wrong one. 

Anytime you take long to give a simple answer, you making things up.  

Anan posted:

thank you anan, i digress to the soldering expert. maybe he can fix my broken down 88 piano keyboard from the 70s that I am contemplating throwing out.