If someone is appointed to a committee, is that member allowed to vote in the same meeting? If a committee appoints a member to itself, is that newly appointed member allowed to vote in the same meeting he/she is elected or must the meeting be adjourned before that right is granted?
First, there are many versions of Robert's Rules of Order: here is an early free version. §26(c) suggests a procedure for creation of a committee to draft resolutions, and §53 contemplates other (standing) committees. Nothing therein suggests that there are restrictions on the right of a member to vote, in terms of a mandatory adjournment. However, RRO is not a Universal Organizational Bylaws, so in order to have any force, it must be adopted as part of the bylaws (in whole or part). It especially cannot dictate who is eligible to vote – that is a detail that has to be in the organization's bylaws.
These clauses are called recitals. Taken together, they are a form of preamble. The tradition of preambles is quite ancient. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, has a preamble. This preamble serves to establish the authority of the one enacting the laws, however, rather than his motivation. United Nations instruments typically use a series of participial phrases as preambular paragraphs (pdf) rather than subordinate clauses, but they have the same function of establishing context and motivation. I have not been able to locate the origin of this particular form of preamble, however. It seems to have evolved gradually from freely constructed preambles. I could not identify when this form became fixed.
In an instant run-off, there are multiple rounds of voting (two, in this case). In the first round, everyone voted for their preferred candidate. In the second round, Jane's voters still vote for Jane, Joe's voters still vote for Joe, and John's voters vote for either Jane or Joe depending on their preferences. So everyone gets a vote in every round. To make an argument against this, you'd have to explain why this &quot;instant system&quot; is unconstitutional while conventional run-off elections, in which everyone votes again on a later day, are constitutional. (Some states use this system if no candidate meets a 50% threshold; for example, the special Senate election in Mississippi recently ended with a run-off.) The only real distinction between these two systems is that Jane's and Joe's voters can't change their minds between the two rounds of voting. So-called &quot;jungle primaries&quot; used in California and Washington effectively work on the same two-round structure, and have been found to be constitutional. If you want some legal precedent, in 2009 the Minnesota Supreme Court specifically refuted this argument in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis (bolding mine): The central premise of appellants' unequal weighting argument is that in the second round, first-choice votes cast for continuing candidates were exhausted in the first round and have no further opportunity to affect the election. Appellants claim that, in contrast, voters who cast their first-choice vote for the eliminated candidate get a second chance to influence the election by having their second-choice votes, for a different candidate, counted in the second round. Appellants assert that the same is true in subsequent rounds—voters for continuing candidates have exhausted their ability to affect the election, while voters who had selected the next eliminated candidate get yet another opportunity, as their next choice is counted. Like the district court, we reject the central premise of appellants' unequal weighting argument: that the vote for a continuing candidate is exhausted in the first round in which it is exercised and then is not counted and is of no effect in subsequent rounds. On the contrary, the vote for a continuing candidate is carried forward and counted again in the next round. Just because the vote is not counted for a different candidate in the new round (as is the vote originally cast for an eliminated candidate), does not mean that the ballot was exhausted, that the vote for the continuing candidate is not counted in the subsequent rounds, or that the voter has lost the ability to affect the outcome of the election. See Stephenson v. Ann Arbor Bd. of Canvassers, No. 75-10166 AW (Mich.Cir.Ct. Nov. 1975) (rejecting a claim that an IRV system for election of mayor gave more weight to votes of some voters than others because those who voted for an eliminated candidate had their second choice counted while the second choice of voters whose candidate remained in the race were not counted). Indeed, it is only because votes for continuing candidates are carried forward and combined with subsequent-choice votes of voters for eliminated candidates that any candidate can eventually win. Moreover, this aspect of the IRV methodology is directly analogous to the pattern of voting in a primary/general election system. In a nonpartisan primary election, each voter's vote counts in determining which two candidates survive to reach the general election. In essence, those primary votes are the voters' first-choice ranking of the candidates. As a result of the primary, all but the top two candidates are eliminated. Then, in the general election, voters who voted for candidates eliminated in the primary are allowed to cast another ballot, which necessarily will be for a different candidate-presumably, their second choice. This is no different than the counting of the second-choice votes of voters for eliminated candidates in instant runoff voting. At the same time, in the general election, voters who voted in the primary for either of the two surviving candidates are allowed to vote again, and they are most likely to vote again for their choice in the primary (unless, perhaps, they were voting strategically in the primary and did not vote for their actual first choice in an effort to advance a weaker opponent for their first choice to the general election). This is the equivalent of the continuing effect of the first-choice votes for continuing candidates in instant runoff. A vote in the general election still counts and affects the election, even though it is for the same candidate selected in the primary. Appellants attempt to distinguish the primary/general election system on the basis that those elections are separate, independent events, but the effect in terms of the counting of votes is the same.
Usually I would think one answer to a question is enough. But since your edits have transformed a reasonable procedural question into what appears to be a rant about unfairness of the sort which any bankruptcy court has heard hundreds of times before, I will give another piece of advice: Focus on one thing at a time. The judge at the hearing of the application will be deciding (if your question is accurate) the single point whether a house should be sold. The submission "There is an application to annul the bankruptcy to be heard on XXX; if it succeeds this application is a waste of money and if it fails there will still be time for this application before the time limit, so you should adjourn till YYY" is a reasonable one that he will take into account. Saying "The bankruptcy order should never have been made; it was a mistake by my accountants and HMRC, and a High Court Judge joined in the conspiracy" will get you precisely nowhere. Even if the judge believed you rather than the written evidence, it has no bearing on the point he is being asked to decide. More generally; besides casting your arguments into proper shape, there is another good reason to consult a professional, namely that he can tell you when to give up. The courts are bound by laws and regulations; however unfair you may think the result, at some point it is necessary to accept the reality rather than wasting time and money making points that the law cares nothing about. (And no, I see no point discussing this further in comments. This answer can be upvoted if you think it helpful or downvoted if you think it "not useful"; it isn't something to argue against.)
Yes, so long as you are still a US citizen, it does not matter if you no longer maintain residence in the United States. If you no longer have any sort of residence that can be claimed as a current residence, you simply register at whatever the last residence you used was when you lived in the United States (even if someone else lives there now). You would then have an absentee ballot mailed to you overseas. However, if you don't maintain any sort of residence in the United States, you will only be eligible to vote for federal offices (president, senate, house). You won't be allowed to vote in state or local elections. The keywords you'll need for voting are: UOCAVA, which is a program that allows for easier voting overseas (in some cases the ballot can actually be emailed to you and you are only responsible for printing it out, filling it out, and mailing it back). FPCA, which is the form you fill out. It actually doubles as a registration and an absentee ballot request, so you only have to fill out one form. The absentee request is good for all elections in the calendar year it is submitted, so you only have to fill it out once for both the primary and the general.
If 20 percent of the voting interests petition the board to address an item of business, the board, within 60 days after receipt of the petition, shall place the item on the agenda at its next regular board meeting or at a special meeting called for that purpose. Assume that the Association fails to follow the rule and fails to hear the agenda item and the business item is under Arbitration / Litigation. What is the appropriate monetary and non-monetary remedy to request? A Petition for a Writ of Mandamus or affirmative injunction ordering the board to consider the matter, depending upon the customs of Florida courts would be the usual remedy. But, one can imagine a fact pattern where some other relief such as also allowing money damages would be appropriate where, for example, delay impacts the cost of doing work.
It is not a crime in the US. It may be a firing offense depending on the nature of the appointment (that is, what exactly do you mean by &quot;diplomat&quot;?) or at least cause for demotion / reassignment. A diplomat from another country could be declared persona non grata, but again it is not a crime to act contrary to a governmental boycott call, in the US. This follows from the First Amendment.
In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress). 2 United States Code § 2c. What is &quot;PL 2 USC 2c?&quot; First of all, it is 2 U.S.C. § 2c, not &quot;PL 2 USC 2c&quot; which mixes two ways of citing to statutes PL for &quot;Public Law&quot; is used with a public law number to identify the Act of Congress by which a provision was enacted (and sometimes additional Public laws amend a statute). 2 U.S.C. § 2c means &quot;Section &quot;2c&quot; of the Second Title of the United States Code&quot; which is a codification of all public acts passed by Congress and still in force of general applicability. What does it mean? What does it legally mandate? 2 U.S.C. § 2c mandates that for years after the effective date, when a state with two or more members of Congress draws Congressional Districts after a U.S. Census that it must do so into single member districts. It does not mandate a &quot;first past the post&quot; voting system (also called a plurality vote system) and indeed, some states (e.g. Louisiana) have a system in which a winner in a Congressional district must receive a majority to win in the first round, and if that does not happen there will be a runoff between the top two finishers in the first round, and one state (Maine) has ranked choice voting in single member district Congressional races. There is some dispute over whether systems like ranked choice voting count as proportional representation. They do not cause political parties to receive seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. But they do eliminate spoiler effects which strongly discourage the formation of third-parties in the U.S. What is the legislative process for overturning or editing an article of public code like &quot;PL 2 USC 2c?&quot; It can be changed by an ordinary law passed by majorities in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate in identical form and not vetoed, or vetoed and then overridden by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress within the time allowed by the U.S. Constitution. Can it be edited to let states choose how to elect their representatives, so that proportional representation can be implemented on a state-by-state basis? Yes. Generally one says that one &quot;amends&quot; a statute, however, rather than &quot;editing&quot; it. Are there Constitutional obstacles to proportional representation and specifically to editing &quot;PL 2 USC 2c&quot; in this way? No. As long as proportional representative is only within the Congressional seats allocated to a particular state, there is no Constitutional obstacle. But, a national scale proportional representation system would pose constitutional issues. 2 U.S.C. 2c was enacted in order to end the previously common practice of having multi-member districts in which you could vote for as many candidates as there were seats available at large, with the highest X vote getters in the X member district winning. When people vote on party lines, that causes the party with majority support to get all of the seats in the multi-member district much as the plurality winner in a state in all but two U.S. states in Presidential elections gets 100% of the electoral college votes in a state. But, the drafters of 2 U.S.C. 2c underestimated the potential for gerrymandering to circumvent the benefits of having single member districts.