|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2009 15:38:03 GMT -6
WHEREAS the first Senate Reform amendment failed to organically pass through the Senate and
WHEREAS that doesn't change the fact that Members of the Cosa can be removed from office while Senators cannot and
WHEREAS the last amendment was unfavorable to many Senators due to potential abuse and
WHEREAS we are all about having our cake AND eating it too so
THEREFORE, Article V Section 5 of the Organic Law is hereby amended to read:
A Senator vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or if he resigns from office, loses his citizenship, dies or is removed from office for misconduct in a manner prescribed by Talossan law. ,as described in applicable Talossan law, by the Uppermost Cort or any inferior court established by the Cosa or for official misconduct, as described by provincial law, by the provincial court holding appropriate jurisdiction over the Senate seat in question.
Uréu q'estadra så: T.M. Asmourescu, MC-PP
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2009 15:39:43 GMT -6
All right. Here's the scoop.
What does this act change? Nothing. This is a baby step toward change that would permit us to write additional law which could then specify how exactly a Senator can be removed. Without any current law on the books, the sentence will simply allow us to have yet another discussion down the road on what would be fair.
Thoughts?
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Jul 31, 2009 16:18:21 GMT -6
We have to be careful about allowing the results of elections to be overturned "by law". Among other considerations, remember that Prime Dictates have the force of law — and I don't think we want to violate checks-and-balances to the point where the PM, with the collusion or at least the non-involvement of the King, can fire Senators, or even replace the entire Senate.
— John R
|
|
|
|
Post by Iustì Carlüs Canun on Jul 31, 2009 20:13:14 GMT -6
and I don't think we want to violate checks-and-balances to the point where the PM, with the collusion or at least the non-involvement of the King, can fire Senators, or even replace the entire Senate. Damn! They're onto me! My diabolical plan-- foiled! I must return to my evil lair and plan another diabolical plan. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2009 20:21:34 GMT -6
Hmm...this is a good point. We want to balance the power, not throw it off more. I will sleep on this and hope that I am either inspired or a whole bunch of people post meaningful feedback..
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2009 12:57:19 GMT -6
All right, I put the power in the hands of the court. I delegated that authority down to the Provincial level as well. Only if a Province has a court system will this apply, and any decision by a Provincial court can be appealed all the way to the Uppermost Cort.
By placing it in the hands of the judiciary, a Senator can be removed from office, but the court is bound to define misconduct based on applicable law.
So, the legislature (Talossan or Provincial) can (if they choose) define what constitutes misconduct, and a judge can remove a Senator from office with a court order. However, the appeals process protects the rights of the Senator, and a judge won't be able to remove a Senator unless they can base their decision on the law.
Any abuse would have to involve a major conspiracy.
I am curious as to what our noble Senators think about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2009 14:50:34 GMT -6
Don't all rush in at once.
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Aug 4, 2009 15:17:21 GMT -6
I am curious as to what our noble Senators think about this. Don't all rush in at once. Sorry. Us power-hungry, corrupt Senators think more slowly than most. It was the cost of the Faustian bargain we made to become Senators in the first place. I'm sure you'll get some input. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2009 16:10:49 GMT -6
I'd like to reiterate, this isn't about anyone being power hungry, it is about a flaw in our current system.
An MC can be removed from office, a Senator cannot. Last time around we carefully crafted a piece of legislation with a pretty involved system of referenda, named replacements and the like.
That proved unpopular, and perhaps rightfully so. As it failed, we can now examine how such a system could have been abused and see that we might be better off without it.
That doesn't change the original problem. What could change it would be taking a drastic step and allowing for removals based on misconduct. This does two things:
1) It eliminated the potential for politically motivated removals
2) It causes us to examine what defines "misconduct."
Under our current system, we don't even have laws against bribery. Even if we did, a Senator could potentially do something corrupt, and the only way to get them to vacate their seat would be if the UC revoked their citizenship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Aug 6, 2009 11:09:45 GMT -6
Captain, this approach seems so cautious. I am starting to think Senats would probably oppose any proposal as any proposal carries the risk of "potential abuse".
Why not resubmit the recent legislation with protocol to more effectively address the "potential for abuse"? Further, I would be more than happy to help create some kind of chart in a legislative appendix which would visually represent the differences in accountability between the Cosa and the Senats. And then we will see what other hurdles come into view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2009 13:18:59 GMT -6
The primary potential for abuse in the original draft deals with the electoral process being abused. Essentially, a Senator wins an election, but the members of the Provincial Assembly initiate a recall and replace the Senator with someone else.
I tried to offset this by requiring a recall election. However, there is the opinion that it defeats the purpose of an election in the first place, as essentially, the people are asking for a "do-over."
So, here is an alternate possibility. Here, a Senator can be removed for misconduct. The balance of power remains intact. It also opens the door for us to define misconduct.
|
|
Sir X. Pol Briga
Talossan since 11-10-2005
Knight since 12-26-2009
59 is an important number - keep it prime in the thoughts of Talossa
Posts: 1,227
|
Post by Sir X. Pol Briga on Aug 7, 2009 14:54:21 GMT -6
I have supported the various amendments previously Clarked, but that opinion has not prevailed. Another way of looking at things is that any person or persons who are in someway upset with their representation by a given Senator have various ways of approaching redress, including a direct appeal to the monarch. While the Senate seats are elected, I would see little difficulty for the King to put into action a sequence of events where the Cort or officers of the realm would discuss a resignation prior to some type of impeachment should there be significant outcry from a large percentage of concerned citizens from a specific province.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2009 15:31:51 GMT -6
I have supported the various amendments previously Clarked, but that opinion has not prevailed. Another way of looking at things is that any person or persons who are in someway upset with their representation by a given Senator have various ways of approaching redress, including a direct appeal to the monarch. While the Senate seats are elected, I would see little difficulty for the King to put into action a sequence of events where the Cort or officers of the realm would discuss a resignation prior to some type of impeachment should there be significant outcry from a large percentage of concerned citizens from a specific province. I certainly hope you and the other Senators can see that this amendment clearly does not speak to a particular incident, as I am not aware of any Senator who has committed a crime. However, I admit that the previous attempt was inspired by something of that caliber. And it would not be unreasonable for a similar politically motivated measure to be taken under those guidelines. This is maintaining the current checks and balances and ensuring equal treatment, pure and simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 7, 2009 20:45:47 GMT -6
I will support this bill. I think it installs a check while not giving much leeway for abuse in its current form.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2009 22:50:13 GMT -6
My stance on this matter has been progressing as the debate continues. I have re read this bill countless times and I do not like this part: A Senator vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or if he resigns from office, loses his citizenship, dies or is removed from office for misconduct by a Talossan or Provincial Court.
I will vote against it.
*edit*
I realized I didn't put in why I didn't like it. With the current flux of Provincial Governments, many of them in infancy or non existent or non functioning, I feel this should NOT be an option.
|
|
