|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on May 3, 2016 14:54:37 GMT -6
And how is pointing out someday is using a word wrong, and then following that up with the understanding that I know I do it from time to time as well, in any way ad hominem. If you can find any ad hominem in anything I've said, except telling you to get some reading comprehension in my previous post, then I'll apologize and disappear forever. If you can't, then shut up.
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on May 3, 2016 14:58:31 GMT -6
Also, how is it unfair to get irritated when your elected representative insults you for disagreeing with them?
Lüc's a great person and one of my favorite Talossans, but I disagree with him on this particular topic.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on May 4, 2016 7:42:17 GMT -6
I'm also going to have to come out against this bill, and not only because of its impact on my catchment. As I mentioned in the Hopper thread, this is make-work and not going to solve the real problem. Further, I would suggest that shifting catchment areas without consultation and approval of the affected provinces is a deeply InOrganic assault on provincial sovereignty and autonomy. When Fiova was carved out during Reunison, two provinces also had to approve the shift in their territory.
You might argue that "Catchment area" is not "Territory" but that is ignoring the peculiarities of our situation. The catchment is what decides which people a province will exercise sovereignty over, and is, as such, analogous to territory.
Say NO to this InOrganic Bill.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on May 4, 2016 8:57:18 GMT -6
Also, how is it unfair to get irritated when your elected representative insults you for disagreeing with them? Lüc's a great person and one of my favorite Talossans, but I disagree with him on this particular topic. But I didn't insult you in any discernible way, at least not intentionally. I just wondered why did you use some unnecessarily strong language here and elsewhere instead of contributing to the discussion, providing meaningful input like Iason did privately. I respect his handling of the situation, and I have tried to address his concerns with the last map I had posted on the Hopper thread for the Act, even if it was barely noticed. That's just childish. People who defend their position and act for the good of their province so passionately is actually what Benito needs more of, not "what I don't want in my province". This is outright preposterous. The provinces only approved the transfer of cantons from Maricopa and M-M to Fiova. No mention of catchment area is made in the acts passed by the Cleivi and the Assembly in early 2012. Plus, the OrgLaw is full of specific references to the difference between "Catchment area" and "Territory". Therefore, this bill is both Organic by fact (it doesn't contradict the law) and by well estabilished precedent. If you truly think this is inOrganic, you'll have a hard time convincing an UC justice of that.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on May 4, 2016 12:41:35 GMT -6
This is outright preposterous. The provinces only approved the transfer of cantons from Maricopa and M-M to Fiova. No mention of catchment area is made in the acts passed by the Cleivi and the Assembly in early 2012. Plus, the OrgLaw is full of specific references to the difference between "Catchment area" and "Territory". Therefore, this bill is both Organic by fact (it doesn't contradict the law) and by well estabilished precedent. If you truly think this is inOrganic, you'll have a hard time convincing an UC justice of that. I do truly think this is inOrganic. References to "Catchment" and "Territory" is largely predicated on our collected fiction that we exercise actual sovereignty over the GTA, while those living outside fall into another sort of animal, called "Catchment." But when you look at the actual functioning of provincial governance, you cannot in any meaningful way, differentiate between catchment and territory. Further, the Wisconsin revised code provides for the state to consult with its subdivisions (counties) before transferring part to another entity (such as the US govt.). This goes right to the heart of provincial autonomy AND the very definition of the word territory, generally defined as the space under the jurisdiction of a given entity. The OrgLaw makes literally NO references to catchment areas. The word does not appear in the document at all. Further, it defines the right of the national government in XVII.6... changing PROVINCIAL SOVREIGNTIES does not appear on that list. Indeed, XVII.6.19 explicitly requires consultation and approval of the provinces for such a change. Further, XVII.8 reserves such powers as not explicitly given to the National govt. to the provinces.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on May 4, 2016 13:06:17 GMT -6
I'm worried by this trend to expand the concept of Provincial autonomy outside its boundaries... That can lead to inorganic acts, and it's an unconscious threat to the very essence of Talossa peculiar fiat existence.
I really don't like the Catchment Area for Fiôvâ in this bill, because I believe it's a very small and arid pool. However this bill is fully Organic ex § XVII.2
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on May 4, 2016 15:19:35 GMT -6
I'm worried by this trend to expand the concept of Provincial autonomy outside its boundaries... That can lead to inorganic acts, and it's an unconscious threat to the very essence of Talossa peculiar fiat existence. I really don't like the Catchment Area for Fiôvâ in this bill, because I believe it's a very small and arid pool. However this bill is fully Organic ex § XVII.2 XVII.2 has no bearing here. It does not touch upon the establishment of said catchments, it only says "laws in place." XVII.3 implies that the Ziu can redraw the assignment boundaries, indeed even talking about residencies inside the GTA itself. But the OrgLaw requires that boundaries within the GTA be moved with provincial approval. "Catchment" boundaries define the reach of provincial sovereignty in the same way "territorial" ones do, plain and simple. Acknowledging this is acknowledging Talossa's peculiar existence, ignoring it is A.) A sad attempt at derivativism and B.) opening the way to ignore sovereign subdivisions entirely. If we want to start picking at things. The Moves Like Mick Jagger Act is inOrganic in terms of XVII.3. That law states that when moving, your province is reassigned. Period. Nothing about it being voluntary. And so, I, in moving to Ohio, was coerced into changing provinces under false pretentions. What's done is done there. But this provincial catchment law tramples the very concepts of territorial integrity and autonomy and is deeply inOrganic. The governments of the provinces were not consulted.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 4, 2016 15:41:29 GMT -6
What false pretentions? (I'm trying not to intervene in your provincial discussion, but I was the author of the Move Like jagger Act, so if ESB is talking about it being passed with "False Pretentions", I'd like to hear what he is talking about.)
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on May 4, 2016 16:30:36 GMT -6
Also, how is it unfair to get irritated when your elected representative insults you for disagreeing with them? Lüc's a great person and one of my favorite Talossans, but I disagree with him on this particular topic. But I didn't insult you in any discernible way, at least not intentionally. I just wondered why did you use some unnecessarily strong language here and elsewhere instead of contributing to the discussion, providing meaningful input like Iason did privately. I respect his handling of the situation, and I have tried to address his concerns with the last map I had posted on the Hopper thread for the Act, even if it was barely noticed. That's just childish. People who defend their position and act for the good of their province so passionately is actually what Benito needs more of, not "what I don't want in my province". Yes that was quite childish. I apologize for the hyperbole. As for the insults, I found you're accusations that I had ignored this and your hard work to be insulting, as well as your completely false accusations of "hot headed conservatism," which is about the opposite of my stances on most things, including this. I know I don't know you all that well, but I do know you well enough to know you wouldn't insult me on purpose, without provocation. I also know you did a lot of work on this and feel as though your efforts were unappreciated. I do appreciate your work. I voted for you, and if you run again, I'll vote for you again. I knew I wouldn't have the time or mental focus to pay attention to everything around here, that is why I voted for someone I trusted to do the right thing. The right thing doesn't always mean "what I want." I only became aware of this matter when Iason lamented to me about the shift of Ohio's catchment, which I was disappointed by. However, my opposition to this bill is not about my personal attachment to Benito. I oppose the very nature of this bill. The very nature of our current catchment system. But I missed out on the discussion. That's my problem and I really didn't want to be the guy late to the party that wants everyone to wait for him so he can catch up (Hi, King John!) All I felt I was entitled to was to voice my opinion. I believe I did it properly in this thread. I believe I did ignorantly in the hopper. One was impulsive, one was thought out.
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on May 4, 2016 16:37:46 GMT -6
Also: I'm not ignoring your compromise offers (well, not maliciously anyway.) I don't believe it is within my rights to barter one-on-one with my Senator. I am but one of your constituents. You have a duty to all of them. I made you aware of my opinion, as did Iason, and now Eiric. Hopefully, any other Benetians that support or oppose this proposal have informed you as well. You were elected because a majority of Benito trusted you to make the best choice for the most Benetians. You are the one to decide your vote and I will not engage in debate over what your vote will be. Sure, I'll tell you what I think it should be, but you have to take the myriad 'shoulds' and make one 'will.' I trust you to make the right choice. I hope I agree with that choice, but I don't demand it.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on May 5, 2016 6:13:52 GMT -6
XVII.2 has no bearing here. It does not touch upon the establishment of said catchments, it only says "laws in place." XVII.3 implies that the Ziu can redraw the assignment boundaries, indeed even talking about residencies inside the GTA itself. But the OrgLaw requires that boundaries within the GTA be moved with provincial approval. "Catchment" boundaries define the reach of provincial sovereignty in the same way "territorial" ones do, plain and simple. Acknowledging this is acknowledging Talossa's peculiar existence, ignoring it is A.) A sad attempt at derivativism and B.) opening the way to ignore sovereign subdivisions entirely. No, you're wrong. The Ziu ex § XVII.6.11 has exclusive authority to legislate on « Immigration and emigration, naturalization and aliens» subject to the limitations set by § XVII.2 and 3: - those who live inside the metropolitan territory of Talossa (§ II.3 and 4) always belong to the relative territorial subdivision - defined by law - they live in; - those who live outside the metropolitan territory are assigned to a Province according with the law (and § XVII.2 reiterate the authority of the Ziu to legislate in that matter) in place at the time of their naturalization, a law based on (one may argue if the assignment should be strictly or mainly based on) geographic assignment boundaries, and their assignment cannot be altered without their express consent even if their macronational residency is subsequently assigned by the Ziu to a different Province from the one it was assigned to at the time of their naturalization. Catchement areas, or using a proper organic terminology "geographic assignment boundaries", are used only to assign a person living outside the metropolitan territory to a Province: they doesn't constitute a provincial border nor establish authority of the Province over these territories, because Talossan territory is not the entire world but the one established by § II.3 and 4. The provision of § XVII.5 (« Provincial borders may only be changed by the Ziu with the consent of the Province or Provinces in question») appllies only to the phisical borders of the Province as a subdivision of the metropolitan territory. This is the peculiar nature of Talossa sovreignty. However I do agree that El Lexhatx § E.7.3. (« A citizens living inside or outside of Talossa, who moves permanently into an outside zone corresponding to a different province will be (re)assigned by the SoS to the province corresponding to the new geographic zone») is inorganic because it provides for an automatic reassignment. Provincial assignment for those living outside is not dynamic, but a fixed feature acquired according with the law in place at the the time of their naturalization (OrgLaw § XVII.2 « All Talossan citizens shall belong to the Province in which they live. Citizens living outside of Talossa are assigned to a Province by the Ziu at the time of their naturalization by the Ziu, in accordance with the laws in place») and its alteration requires the express consent of the citizen (OrgLaw § XVII.3 « No person shall have his assignment to a Province altered without his express consent, even if the Ziu shall see fit to redraw the geographic assignment boundaries»). An automatic reassignment is allowed by the Organic Law only for those who live inside the metropolitan territory whether they move to a different place, still inside, or the provincial boundaries are changed; however their consent should be required also if they move from inside to outside (§ XVII.2 « All Talossan citizens shall belong to the Province in which they live.» and OrgLaw § XVII.3 « No person shall have his assignment to a Province altered without his express consent, even if the Ziu shall see fit to redraw the geographic assignment boundaries. However, a Talossan living in Talossa shall always be assigned to the province in which he lives, even when provincial borders change and his home is thereby "reassigned" to a different province.»). Another refection on § XVII.2. It is constituted by two parts: - All Talossan citizens shall belong to the Province in which they live.
- Citizens living outside of Talossa are assigned to a Province by the Ziu at the time of their naturalization by the Ziu, in accordance with the laws in place.
It clearly create a dynamic assignment for those living inside - because only them live "in the Province" - (reiterated by § XVII.3) while they continue to live inside, and a fixed assignment for those living outside because of the 6 words « at the time of their naturalization»: a dynamic assignment would have been granted to those outside by their absence ("Citizens living outside of Talossa are assigned to a Province by the Ziu, in accordance with the laws in place."). Of course this reasoning is reiterated and confirmed by the following section.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 5, 2016 7:11:38 GMT -6
However I do agree that El Lexhatx § E.7.3. (« A citizens living inside or outside of Talossa, who moves permanently into an outside zone corresponding to a different province will be (re)assigned by the SoS to the province corresponding to the new geographic zone») is inorganic [...] OrgLaw § XVII.3 « No person shall have his assignment to a Province altered without his express consent, even if the Ziu shall see fit to redraw the geographic assignment boundaries. However, a Talossan living in Talossa shall always be assigned to the province in which he lives, even when provincial borders change and his home is thereby "reassigned" to a different province.»). WOAH! you're right. Can't believe I missed that. That's something that needs to be fixed.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on May 5, 2016 7:24:05 GMT -6
However I do agree that El Lexhatx § E.7.3. (« A citizens living inside or outside of Talossa, who moves permanently into an outside zone corresponding to a different province will be (re)assigned by the SoS to the province corresponding to the new geographic zone») is inorganic [...] OrgLaw § XVII.3 « No person shall have his assignment to a Province altered without his express consent, even if the Ziu shall see fit to redraw the geographic assignment boundaries. However, a Talossan living in Talossa shall always be assigned to the province in which he lives, even when provincial borders change and his home is thereby "reassigned" to a different province.»). WOAH! you're right. Can't believe I missed that. That's something that needs to be fixed. Yes, and relief should be granted to those, if there are indeed, whose assignment was inorganically altered by 47RZ2. At the moment I'm not sure if that could be achieved by law or if the proper solution is to seek judicial relief from the UC.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on May 5, 2016 13:52:41 GMT -6
You're right in that the Ziu assigns the province according to the laws in place. But when you go changing those laws without consulting the provinces affected, it becomes inOrganic infringement. The Ziu is nowhere in the Orglaw given the right to set the boundaries as it sees fit. Show me where it says that, and then maybe you have a point.
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on May 5, 2016 14:29:26 GMT -6
You're right in that the Ziu assigns the province according to the laws in place. But when you go changing those laws without consulting the provinces affected, it becomes inOrganic infringement. The Ziu is nowhere in the Orglaw given the right to set the boundaries as it sees fit. Show me where it says that, and then maybe you have a point. To be slightly fair to the other side, the Senäts almost qualifies as a consultation of the affected provinces. At least it should, given properly functioning senators, which I believe we have.
|
|