Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Mar 29, 2016 21:17:27 GMT -6
MIÉIDÂ! Sorry, that's a typo on my part. I just cut and pasted the electing a Mençéi section. I didn't mean that to happen. Will revise. Ok that's better! In that respect, I support 100% your report. I'm still looking to see if there are any changes I want in addition (I just got home from a 4-day road trip).
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Apr 2, 2016 22:48:55 GMT -6
Damn, I just keep coming with them. Sorry, another addendum:
New Section: XI.7
During the debate on the first Clark of every Cosâ, as well as the first Clark after a new Seneschál has been appointed if at any other time, the Seneschál shall present an Address from the Incoming Government to the Cosâ.
(REASONING: most parliamentary democracies do this. In Britain, it is known as the "Speech from the Throne" because the Monarch delivers it although the Prime Minister writes it. We already have an Independence Day Speech from the Throne tradition, so I want to add this, as a way for every new Government to introduce itself; for the Seneschál to "open his account"; and for the Opposition parties to offer comment and challenge.)
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Apr 3, 2016 20:26:41 GMT -6
Please submit reports no later than ten days from now, April 4. I'm afraid I won't be able to complete my report by tomorrow, unless it's to be just a very cursory list of ideas. I had a project that required me to bring a lot of work home from the office this weekend. So I propose a one-week extension of the deadline for submitting individual reports. I'm fully prepared to issue a PD extending the deadline for the Commission if necessary.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Apr 3, 2016 21:04:38 GMT -6
Ok, I would hate to not have input from you so hopefully you can have a report shortly.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 3, 2016 22:05:11 GMT -6
For the past few days, and for the next coming days, I have/will only access Talossa through iPhone. I have made my suggestions in the notes app, which I have copied here. Its written in semi-shorthand, and I will reformat it when I can
Article 2
Move last sentence of 2-6 to lex Move last two sentences of 2-7 to lex Move 2-8 through 2-10 to lex
Article 3
3-2; Does the King have power to issue Writs of Dissolution or Warrants of Prorogation independently? 3-4; When a King dies, etc, Ziu chooses whether to follow the line of succession or elect a new King through referendum. When there is no successor, there must be an election, while CpI is Council of Regency Remove 3-11 Move most of 3-12 to Lex *Add provision for King to be removed by a large majority of the people* *Add provision for the King to be censored for failing to perform duties*
Article 4 Remove 4-5 4-6; use IRV 4-8; last vote counts, rather than first *Add a provision for the imposition of a uniform fee for all successful senatorial candidates*
Article 5 5-6; remove bullets 5-6 appears to give more power to parties which have many individual MCs Remove 5-7, or move to Lex
Article 6
Remove all but the first sentence and equal fees portion of 6-2 and move to Lex
Article 7
7-3; remove election timing requirement 7-6; Abolishment of public voting 7-6; provision for the removal of an unresponsive justice seems subject to abuse; perhaps give the unresponsive member three days to respond? 7-8; last response counted, rather than first
Article 8 8-3; Insert text from my mandatory list amendment Remove 8-5
Article 9
Enact the changes in Standing Committee amendment
Article 10
Change the Royal veto to a suspensive veto, in a similar way to the 3/4 majority amendment
Article 11
Move most of 11-3 to Lex 11-4; why must the right of the Seneschal to make speeches be specifically included?
Article 12
Remove all but first sentence of 12-1 Remove 12-3 through 12-7
Article 13
13-4; Remove the Kings ability to independently dissolve the Cosa 13-5; Can the King independently dismiss ministers? 13-6; Abstain on VoC
Article 14
Move to Lex
Article 15
No changes
Article 16
16-2; Remove lettering 16-4; Move oath to Lex 16-8; why can't the decision of one justice be appealed? 16-9; First sentence moved to Lex Cut last part of 16-10 Move 16-11 to Lex
Article 17
Delete last sentence of 17-1 or move to Lex Delete 17-3; allows people to stay in a province they shouldn't be in Move 17-10 to Lex
Article 18
18-7; move essay requirement to lex
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 5, 2016 9:03:03 GMT -6
Posting it here for the benefit of the public. === PRELIMINARY NOTES: I am of course a Republican, but this is not a proposal for a Republican reform since we are in a small minority on this Commission. What this proposes is to keep the bare-bones of the monarchic principle intact, but to move all the details to El Lexhátx. I envisage that this reform would be fully functional for the existing monarchy; or for a move to a different kind of monarchy; or, with mild amendments (eg copy-pasting "President" to "King" and including election provisions) even for a Republic. I also introduce flexibility of the size of the Cosâ and the Senäts (though making sure that the former is always twice the size at least of the latter), and opening the possibility of differential votes for Senators based on province population, as has been mooted. I introduce also the option of abstaining on VoCs which would make it easier to form governments in a fragmented Cosâ. ARTICLE IIMove sections 8-10 to El Lexhátx ARTICLE III3.1 Remove "hereditary" 3.4-6, 8-10 Remove and substitute with: "Succession to the Throne shall be established by law." 3.7 Amend first sentence with: ARTICLE IV4.6 Amend: (explanation: allows the Ziu to introduce alternative voting systems by law, eg. IRV)Also add new sentence to end of 4.6: (explanation: allows the Ziu to put fees on Senäts elections, same as Cosâ elections)ARTICLE V5.1 Amend: 5.10 Amend first sentence: (explanation: allows Ziu to establish weighting voting in the Senäts)ARTICLE VI6.2 Amend as follows: (explanation: actual requirements for registration are moved to statute law)ARTICLE VII7.6 Add the following: (explanation: some parties suggested a reform allowing the Ziu to mandate that, for example, a public vote must be expressed through the Chancery rather than posted on Witt or sent up in smoke signals or whatever. This will make this possible if the Ziu wants.)ARTICLE VIII8.1 Amend: (explanation: makes number of Cosâ seats flexible)New section after VIII.2: (explanation: allows the Ziu to mandate party candidate lists, either binding or non-binding)Amend VIII.3: New section 8.7 (explanation: establishes the Túischac'h on exactly the same basis as the Mençéi)OARTICLE XIXI.2: Amend to (explanation: the Seneschál will be elected by the Cosâ.)XI.5 Amend to: (explanation: downgrades the function of PDs. They are no longer full laws and can only supplement El Lexhátx rather than amend, repeal or add to it. Thus Seneschál can no longer rule by decree.)ARTICLE XIIXII.3-7 Delete / move to El Lexhátx. Explanation: these sections Organically dictate what Cabinet portfolios there must be. This is useless.XII.9 (on Túischac'h:) Delete (replaced by new 8.7 above) ARTICLE XIIIXIII.6 Amend to read: (explanation: in most countries abstaining on a VoC is an option. This will help form governments in future fragmented Cosâs - i.e. a party may decide to allow even their sworn enemies to form a government in the interests of stability by abstaining on the VoC.)ARTICLE XIVReplace in entirety with: ARTICLE XV: I withhold my suggestions on this section until such time as we learn whether the King will proclaim 48RZ14 or not. ARTICLE XVI:XVI.1 Amend to read: (explanation: life terms are nonsense. No UC Justice has ever stayed in office until death.)XVI.2. Amend to read: (explanation: the current Cort agreed that Organic cases should be heard by three justices in the first instance and five on appeal, which I think is an excellent rule which should be enshrined.XVI.4 Delete words "for life" in line 3. ARTICLE XVIIXVII.9 Delete words "shall serve as Military Governor and". Add sentence: (48RZ27, thou art avenged!)ARTICLE XIXDelete Second Covenant except for: "No religious or ideological organisation shall be "established" by law". (explanation: the rest of the Second Covenant institutionalises the principle of opposition to affirmative action. This is a shibboleth of American conservative politics that has no place in Talossa.)Some feedback on points of disagreement (excluding minor differences);
Article 4; IRV should be explicitly placed in the Organic Law Article 5; Do we really have enough people for 16 Senators? 24 Senators? I think not Article 5; I am very opposed to weighted Senate voting, because larger provinces already get more representation in the Cosa.
See below for more
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Apr 5, 2016 9:12:31 GMT -6
Provinces each get the exact same number of Senators, and MC's technically represent their political parties, not their provinces. It may be that there are more MC's from Province A than from Province B, but TECHNICALLY the provinces do not get more or less representation.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 5, 2016 10:55:05 GMT -6
Provinces each get the exact same number of Senators, and MC's technically represent their political parties, not their provinces. It may be that there are more MC's from Province A than from Province B, but TECHNICALLY the provinces do not get more or less representation. 1) One of Miestra's (and by extension yours) amendments allows for an unequal number of senators based an population 2) Although MCs do not represent provinces, more populous provinces by definition have more people, and thus more votes in the Cosa election
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Apr 5, 2016 15:45:03 GMT -6
Allows for it but doesn't mandate it. It is one of those questions which keeps being raised with people being upset at some provinces being bigger that others. By making it a matter of statute law it's open to experiment.
Same with the number of Senators. My main focus is to make the OrgLaw more flexible so we can try things. Note that I have no issue with one-Senator-one-province-one-vote, I in fact prefer it that way - I just want to make the OrgLaw flexible.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Apr 5, 2016 15:48:06 GMT -6
Okay, and since His Colorado Majesty has gone rogue on OrgLaw amendments, I am hereby suggesting that the monarchy has lost any right to a say. Hence, Article XV in its entirety:
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 5, 2016 21:12:36 GMT -6
Allows for it but doesn't mandate it. It is one of those questions which keeps being raised with people being upset at some provinces being bigger that others. By making it a matter of statute law it's open to experiment. Same with the number of Senators. My main focus is to make the OrgLaw more flexible so we can try things. Note that I have no issue with one-Senator-one-province-one-vote, I in fact prefer it that way - I just want to make the OrgLaw flexible. I don't think that the OrgLaw should be flexible. The major institutions of government should be laid out in the OrgLaw, and changing them should require larger majorities. Leaving the OrgLaw "flexible" makes it vague, and thus leaves open many avenues for potential abuse .
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 5, 2016 21:16:39 GMT -6
Okay, and since His Colorado Majesty has gone rogue on OrgLaw amendments, I am hereby suggesting that the monarchy has lost any right to a say. Hence, Article XV in its entirety: The King is part of the Ziu, and thus deserves some say in the amendment process. The monarchy as an institutions should not be punished for the actions of King John.
That said, I still hold firm to my original amendment. I also believe that the Royal Veto over statutes should be converted to a suspensive veto (ie if the King vetoes a statute, it can pass with 2/3 majority in the same Cosa or with a 1/2 majority in the next Cosa; perhaps then it would go to referendum).
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 7, 2016 8:36:50 GMT -6
Posting it here for the benefit of the public. === PRELIMINARY NOTES: I am of course a Republican, but this is not a proposal for a Republican reform since we are in a small minority on this Commission. What this proposes is to keep the bare-bones of the monarchic principle intact, but to move all the details to El Lexhátx. I envisage that this reform would be fully functional for the existing monarchy; or for a move to a different kind of monarchy; or, with mild amendments (eg copy-pasting "President" to "King" and including election provisions) even for a Republic. I also introduce flexibility of the size of the Cosâ and the Senäts (though making sure that the former is always twice the size at least of the latter), and opening the possibility of differential votes for Senators based on province population, as has been mooted. I introduce also the option of abstaining on VoCs which would make it easier to form governments in a fragmented Cosâ. ARTICLE IIMove sections 8-10 to El Lexhátx ARTICLE III3.1 Remove "hereditary" 3.4-6, 8-10 Remove and substitute with: "Succession to the Throne shall be established by law." 3.7 Amend first sentence with: ARTICLE IV4.6 Amend: (explanation: allows the Ziu to introduce alternative voting systems by law, eg. IRV)Also add new sentence to end of 4.6: (explanation: allows the Ziu to put fees on Senäts elections, same as Cosâ elections)ARTICLE V5.1 Amend: 5.10 Amend first sentence: (explanation: allows Ziu to establish weighting voting in the Senäts)ARTICLE VI6.2 Amend as follows: (explanation: actual requirements for registration are moved to statute law)ARTICLE VII7.6 Add the following: (explanation: some parties suggested a reform allowing the Ziu to mandate that, for example, a public vote must be expressed through the Chancery rather than posted on Witt or sent up in smoke signals or whatever. This will make this possible if the Ziu wants.)ARTICLE VIII8.1 Amend: (explanation: makes number of Cosâ seats flexible)New section after VIII.2: (explanation: allows the Ziu to mandate party candidate lists, either binding or non-binding)Amend VIII.3: New section 8.7 (explanation: establishes the Túischac'h on exactly the same basis as the Mençéi)OARTICLE XIXI.2: Amend to (explanation: the Seneschál will be elected by the Cosâ.)XI.5 Amend to: (explanation: downgrades the function of PDs. They are no longer full laws and can only supplement El Lexhátx rather than amend, repeal or add to it. Thus Seneschál can no longer rule by decree.)ARTICLE XIIXII.3-7 Delete / move to El Lexhátx. Explanation: these sections Organically dictate what Cabinet portfolios there must be. This is useless.XII.9 (on Túischac'h:) Delete (replaced by new 8.7 above) ARTICLE XIIIXIII.6 Amend to read: (explanation: in most countries abstaining on a VoC is an option. This will help form governments in future fragmented Cosâs - i.e. a party may decide to allow even their sworn enemies to form a government in the interests of stability by abstaining on the VoC.)ARTICLE XIVReplace in entirety with: ARTICLE XV: I withhold my suggestions on this section until such time as we learn whether the King will proclaim 48RZ14 or not. ARTICLE XVI:XVI.1 Amend to read: (explanation: life terms are nonsense. No UC Justice has ever stayed in office until death.)XVI.2. Amend to read: (explanation: the current Cort agreed that Organic cases should be heard by three justices in the first instance and five on appeal, which I think is an excellent rule which should be enshrined.XVI.4 Delete words "for life" in line 3. ARTICLE XVIIXVII.9 Delete words "shall serve as Military Governor and". Add sentence: (48RZ27, thou art avenged!)ARTICLE XIXDelete Second Covenant except for: "No religious or ideological organisation shall be "established" by law". (explanation: the rest of the Second Covenant institutionalises the principle of opposition to affirmative action. This is a shibboleth of American conservative politics that has no place in Talossa.)Continued from above Article 7; I would rather there be no public voting at all Article 8; Changing the number of Cosa seats is significant enough that it should require an amendment Article 8; PLEASE no subsections in the Organic Law! Article 11; "Subsidiary law" sounds vague, so I would rather go with Epic's suggestion that the OrgLaw restrict what can be done with a PD Article 14; Can't all (or at least most) of this stuff be moved to el Lexhatx? Article 16; Justices have life terms so that they can rule according to law rather than according to public opinion. This should not be changed Article 19; I happen to be a conservative who strongly dislikes affirmative action schemes. Sorry if my views have no place in Talossa
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Apr 7, 2016 9:03:23 GMT -6
I tend to agree with you that justices should have life terms (or at the very least, quite lengthy terms) because we need to be able to rule and interpret the laws without worrying about being re-appointed, termed out, etc.
As for article 7, I believe the manner of voting should be personal, but that the Ziu should be able to regulate this instead of enshrining it in OrgLaw.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Apr 7, 2016 17:27:20 GMT -6
Life terms are ridiculous in practice. No Justice has ever died in office.
|
|