[FreeDemsCon] Main Thread

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Free Democrats of Talossa

Welcome one and all to the Second Annual Convention of the Free Democrats of Talossa. I’m proud to hold this convention in the great province of Fiova, where my new collegue and our fellow party member Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h was just unanimously chosen to join me in the Senäts to represent this province!

This is our first convention opening as a unified party, though technically our second convention held together, and we’ve had our ups and downs over since we last met. For one, we saw the departure of CCX as our President and I was honored to be elected his successor. After what may be the shortest tenure of a political leader in history, I turned over the reigns a month later to my duly elected successor, Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN. Unfortunately, she too had to resign, and appointed me as the interim-President going into the recent election for the 50th Cosa.

We were proud to be the first party to overtake the RUMP as the largest party in the 49th Cosa, though we were unable to continue being in government. Coming into the 50th Cosa election we held out hope that we would be able to repeat such a showing, but unfortunately, we dropped in size.

But we won’t let this count us out! Fresh off a reenergizing campaign, we’re proud to have several members return to a more active status to help better represent the party as we attempt to meet our goals going into this historic 50th Cosa.

It's my honor as the interim-President of this great party to officially open this year’s annual convention of the Free Democrats of Talossa!

Convention Agenda

Speeches

I. Official Opening - Munditenens Tresplet
II. Remarks - Senator Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h
III. ZRT Caucus Report - Viteu Marcianüs
IV. Remarks - Ián Tamorán S.H.
V. Guest Speaker - Vit Caçeir
VI. Not-So-Guest Speaker - Inxheneu Crova
VII. Guest Speaker - Lüc da Schir
VIII. Closing Remarks - Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Speeches may not be in order, and additional speeches may be added.

Business:

Amendments to Platform/Other Business - Link
Amendments to Constitution - Link
Election of Officers - Link
Any other new business that may arise.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

It's my honor to introduce the newly elected Senator from the great province of Fiôvâ (though not as great as Maricopa), my colleague Senator Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h!

*roaring applause*

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

Azul, all!

The continued existence of the Kingdom of Talossa is a miracle. How many times it should have died, but was saved from the brink by sheer tenacity - a trait in Ben Madison's very fibre and being which rubbed off on enough people around him to have kept things going in the eleven years (has it been that long?) since he and Amy absconded.

As for where the FreeDems should 'go' or how they should 'be', I think one direction we can mostly agree on is the supplanting of the 1997 Organic Law in favor of a new constitution. Almost all of the pre-2004 legal rulings on same are gone, and the document itself has been amended so many times as to make it (save for the Rights and Covenants plus a few other things) so unrecognizable from what it was when first enacted almost twenty years ago.

To put it another way, the OrgLaw tries too hard to be a book of by-laws as well as a document establishing a playing field for legality, as I think the constitution of Texas tries to do. Certainly there are laws the changing of which should be treated with kid-gloves, but a novel approach to resolving this issue presents itself.

Have a Constitution. Make it bare-bones. Make it as bare-bones as possible. Then have a set of what I would call 'Great Laws' apart from the Constitution that would be changed/amended in the same way the Constitution itself would be. I would even put into the Great Laws the way we handle our Head of State. In this way, we don't need to tinker with the Constitution when/if the monarchy is dissolved.

The one thing I would have the constitution itself do in very specific terms is the enumeration of rights. I would take time to run through the current Rights and Covenants and figure out what rights are codified and think of anything else that might have been left out. I would look to the constitution of the Republic of Talossa for help, here (as much as Woolley would loathe that, I know).

I would put into the Great Laws the way in which we do the Ziu, Head of State, and the courts. Minor immigration things and other matters can be put into regular statue law.

With this, we have three categories of Talossan law: the supreme law of the land (Constitution); those laws that will be changed often, but should be done so in the same way the Constitution itself is changed (Great Laws); and all other laws (regular statute law, provincial law, etc.).

A new constitution and the dissolution of the monarchy can and should be seen as two separate questions, and I encourage this Convention and the post-Convention FreeDems to look into all this further.

+ + +

I should think a Constitutional Convention would take one to two years with the goal of having a document that could last for at least two decades. Talossa has with seismic historical happenings accompanied same with new constitutions. In the light of the Split, Ben-going-bye-bye, and Reunision, let's continue this tradition.

One other thing: on 26 December, the Royal Archives will release the first installment of the Archivist Quarterly. Watch for it!

Thanks very much, everyone!

Dec 20, 2016 16:40:28 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

It's my honor to introduce the newly elected Senator from the great province of Fiôvâ (though not as great as Maricopa), my colleague Senator Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h!

*roaring applause*

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Thank you Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h for your thoughtful speech, and indeed I hope perhaps we can address some of the points you raise when we amend the party platform later in this convention, as well as going forward. I'm sure we all also look forward to the first installment of the Archivist Quarterly as well!

Up next, I'm pleased to introduce my friend and fellow party member Viteu Marcianüs, who most of us know simply as Viteu Marcianüs. V, who was recently a candidate for Senäts from Vuode, will be giving a speech on behalf of the ZRT (Republican) Caucus of the Free Democrats.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

My fellow Talossans, let me start by thanking the Free Democrats for granting me the privilege of addressing this Convention. Let me also take a moment to thank the Great Province of Fiova for hosting this convention. Today I speak to you all on behalf of the Zefençadéirs del Repúblicanismeu Talossán. And let me be clear, the Zefençadéirs del Repúblicanismeu Talossán is not only alive and thriving, but ready to fight hard for a simple truth – that all people are equal and that no individual is so important as to possess some divine right to consider themselves above all others, by right of birth or for any other reason that they may construct.

This is a simple concept and one that Talossa has ignored for far too long. It is one that is dismissed under the guise of “tradition.” It is a truth to which many pay lip service in one breath, but seek to obfuscate under the false premise of illusory representative democracy.

My fellow Talossans, I speak to you today with no personal animosity towards any particular individual in Talossa, but as a human who unequivocally believes in democracy, and who believes that institutions that inhibit a country’s democratic growth should be abolished in their entirety. I speak to you not as a subject of a kingdom, but as a citizen of a country – of Talossa.

But enough of this, let me get to the point. Many years ago I asked to join Talossa, and for nearly eight years, I was proud of Talossa and staunchly defended the monarchy. I did so because of tradition; I did so thinking that the institution was harmless and that Talossa existed as a true democracy. I did so because my I failed to consider that my privilege of living in an actual democracy with no monarchy allowed me to romanticize what it means to have unelected leaders. I dismissed the Republic of Talossa and our Republicans family who came back. I saw this as a sign of victory for the monarchy. But, as many of you know, I departed Talossa. And I departed it because of that animosity towards many Republicans. But I was wrong then. I realized after my departure that my anger was misplaced, and I acknowledged that some time after my departure. And to that, I apologize to the ZRT, to our Republican friends, and to the former Republic of Talossa itself. Nevertheless, earlier this year, when I sought to become a citizen once more, I vowed to myself to fight for a truth – that a monarchy is inherently inconsistent with democratic principles.

Now, no democracy is perfect. That much I concede because perfection is paradoxical; because perfection is a goal to work towards, never a state of being. My duty as a human is to fight for what I believe is perfection, to move us along the path of true justice and true democracy. That fight requires me to take a firm stance against those things that block our path to a more perfect democratic system. From time to time, we may be blinded to these blocks, or we may willingly stick our heads in the sand and pretend they don’t exist. But when the time comes that we do see them, that we must remove our head from the sand, when we are finally competent and mature enough to recognize them, we have an obligation to fight to remove them, to bring us closer to democracy. In Obergefell v, Hodges, Justice Kennedy spoke directly to the ever-changing nature of the guarantee of liberty promised to all Americans under the U.S. Constitution, and how that understanding of liberty changes as society matures. His words are not only enlightening but instructive to our current struggle: “The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.”

My fellow Talossans, we are currently faced with such a block that prevents us from continuing along our perpetual path towards democracy. And it is up to use to ensure that the nature of this injustice is addressed. With the monarchy as it exists today in Talossa, under no circumstance can Talossa call itself a democracy or a republic. For Talossa to call itself a representative democracy, or a constitutional republic, or to allude to anything of the sort by whatever innovative name these so-called monarchist may construct is to spit in the face of the spirit of democracy, of the noble idea that we, as the people, govern ourselves; that we, as the people, each have an individual right to participate in our government, and to work for, to fight for, to campaign for, a chance to occupy any position in that government. That every aspect of our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. But Talossa denies us this very right. Talossa says, “no, you are subjects to a king; you are inherently less than the king; only he is competent enough to hold the position of Head of State; only his heirs are worthy of occupying this position; you are not worthy and you will never be worthy.”

This is certainly the position of the so-called “king” himself. Cxhn. John Wooley believes that he is above the Organic Law. He refuses to recognize the independent authority of our judiciary. He actively refuses to recognize the Uppermost Cort’s recent holding In re Petition for Injunctive Relief re: OrgLaw amendment. He went so far as to recently instruct the Scribe of Abbaville to ignore the Cort and to reflect the Organic Law AS HE BELIEVES IT SHOULD BE REFLECTED, not based on the will of the people of Talossa, not based on the independent and Organic authority of our Judiciary to interpret the Organic Law, not based on any sense of democracy, but by virtue of the fact that he said so. He believes that his alleged “legal” interpretation alone should resolve questions of Organic interpretation. He sees himself as equivalent to the Ziu – as equivalent to the Cosa and the Senate. He ignores that the Ziu is made up of democratically elected representatives that are answerable to the citizens of Talossa. In a recent discussion I had with Cxhn John, when he attempted to argue that he can deny the will of the Ziu, and the will of the people, and block an amendment to the Organic law, I countered that this his position places him above the Organic Law, that he alone would then possess the absolute authority to decide if and when the Organic Law could be amended. He countered that my logic means that the respective houses of the Ziu were equally above the Organic Law as they, too, can decide when to block an amendment. But in his attempt to assert monarchal supremacy over the Organic Law, he ignored that the Ziu is made up of two democratically elected bodies that are answerable to the citizens of Talossa. He ignored that he is unelected; that he is not subject to recall; and that his argument deprives Talossans any form of recourse if he so chooses to hold the Organic Law hostage. He sought to equate an unelected position insulated from any form of democratic recourse with our duly elected legislature. Under his logic, if we sought to change the monarchy, he can say no. If we sought to revoke more powers, or to abolish it, he can say no. My fellow Talossans, what do you call an individual who places his position above the most important document of a State, its constitution, our Organic Law – the document from which all law derives, from which justice derive, from which our judiciary’s authority derives; and from which our legislature’s authority derives, irrespective of the will of the people; who thinks he alone possesses the final authority on how that document should be interpreted and who thinks he possesses the absolute authority on how it should be amended? What do you call a “head of state” who not only ignores the authority of an independent judiciary, but instructs other government officials to also ignore that authority, to ignore the law, to cast the Organic Law aside? I call them a tyrant.

My fellow Talossans. I stand before you a mere humble servant of democracy. I stand before you as someone who is no better, and no worse, than you. So now I make one plea to you. If you truly believe in democracy; if you truly believe in absolute equality before the law; if you believe our work towards implementing democratic principles never ends and must always seek progress; if you believe in justice; and if you believe in the right of the people to govern themselves in all respects, then I stand before you with one simple proposition – you must fight to abolish the monarchy. You must acknowledge that a monarchy in any inform is categorically anti-democratic. To do otherwise would be dishonest. To argue that we should keep the monarchy because of tradition is reprehensible. It spits in the face of every person who has ever fought for social justice. Slavery was tradition. Denying women the right to vote was tradition. Denying me, as a gay man, the right to marry my husband was a tradition (and still is in many part of the world). Apartheid was a tradition. Absolute monarchy and despotism were once traditions. Constitutional monarchy was once a tradition. Discrimination even in democratic systems were once traditions. But we have a moral obligation to identify those “traditions” and end them. Traditions that deny equality, that deny democracy, that deny justice cannot stand in the face of what is right, of what is moral, of what is justice. In the immortal words of Thomas Paine, “O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth.”

Now, I will end with this: I am not a naïve person. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” I understand that often the best change comes through incremental steps, but I also acknowledge that we are, from time to time, presented with opportunities to take a big leap forward. When those times arise, we have a moral obligation to take them. But this may not be the time. The ZRT stands committed and ready to work towards a new constitution. But we recognize that while we work towards, we can make other progress. What we do have, however, is a chance to put Talossa on the path it should be on. 48RZ14 was a step in the right direction, and now it’s time to ensure that we do not become complacent in one victory, but we fight even harder for the next.

The ZRT does not retreat in any fashion from its noble, logical, moral, and ethical goal of creating a republican government based entirely on a democratic foundation, but will take any steps necessary, even if incremental, to achieving that goal. Thus, I now proclaim before this Convention and without any hesitation that the ZRT will push for two referendums: first, a non-binding public referendum under Article XX of the Organic Law on whether the monarchy should be abolished, with a simple “yes” or “no” choice; second, an amendment to the Organic Law that requires a mandatory recall of the current monarch to occur once every five years, or every ten elections, whichever is sooner.

My fellow Talossans, thank you for your time. And thank you to Munditenens Tresplet for allowing the ZRT the chance to address this convention. Thank you to the ZRT Caucus for allowing me to speak on its behalf. And thank you to Talossa for listening, and considering, even for a moment, that the arc of the moral universe always bends towards justice, and that justice demands we make further progress in abolishing the institution of the monarchy. Thank you!

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

I respectfully seek permission to make a short address to this assembly, in my status as citizen and not any office that I hold.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Thank you to Viteu Marcianüs for that great and well organized speech! Despite being a monarchist, I'm glad to see the ZRT is alive and well, and look forward to participating in the debates on the measures that were proposed in the speech. I'd now like to turn it over to the one and only Ián Tamorán S.H. who wishes to make an address.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

(Some readers here may have seen a version of this text in PM)

Thank you for granting me the privilege of addressing you here. I have a hard task in attempting to match the eloquence and erudition of the other speakers at this Convention, and I am sure to fail – so I shall take as little of your time as possible.
…........

I speak here as an individual - myself, and not in any official capacity.

At base there is the prime question: “who chooses the monarch?”.

If the monarch, once chosen, cannot ever legally deposed, then we have to consider extremely carefully the political and executive powers of the monarch. There is a fundamental principal in democracy – indeed, in all regimes widely recognised as democracies across the world – that no election means no power. If any immutable power is conferred upon any individual then that regime is de facto a dictatorship – perhaps a benevolent dictatorship, but a dictatorship none the less.

If, on the other hand, the monarch can be legally deposed, then what the fundamental constitution of the realm should cover is how that deposition should take place and how the subsequent monarch (if any) should be chosen. The fundamental constitution may not, of course, exist: in the case of Talossa we have layers of Laws, one layer of which (the Organic Law) overrides all others. If there is no detailed specification of this act of deposition in any of the laws, then it is up to those that have power to say how that should be done. And if, for example, the then monarch can veto any such change prior to its being effected (a political or executive power) then we are back to the condition of dictatorship (or tyranny).

There may be no legal way to depose a monarch – but if that, ultimately, is what the people, in bulk, want then by action legal or illegal the monarch will be deposed. This is revolution. Revolution cannot be fully prior planned, or else it would not be revolution. Subsequent to revolution the structure and content of the laws, the structure of the legislature and executive and all parts of governance might also be reconsidered – it might not, or be subject to only small alterations – in a revolution who can say what the consequences will be?

We have, in Talossa at the moment, a difficult series of questions to consider, and deep thoughts to make about the future structure of this realm. My personal opinion is not necessarily my legal opinion. My personal opinion here would be to consider the possibility for a Cort to declare:

- firstly that Justice is prior to Law – those sitting are Justices not judges;
- then that the Laws of Talossa are prior to all other laws;
- then that the Anglo/American systems of justice are only advisory, not binding (Talossa may, at its pleasure, choose different processes);
- then that the Constitution of the United States of America, whilst being an interesting, informative and very well-written document, is not part of the Law of Talossa (I stand to be corrected here);
- furthermore that the techniques used in other realms for appointing monarchs are instructive and not, of themselves, in any way binding upon Talossa;
- then that all political and executive powers must be granted by the people alone, and that such grants of power must be temporary, else there is no democracy;
- then that all offices of state, including that of the monarch, are subject to the will of the people, expressed through the elected legislature or determined by referendum, else – again – there is no democracy;
- and ultimately, that it is for the people to decide – with or without the Law on their side – to choose, and how to choose, the monarch. (This last point, that of suggesting the Law be surpassed, would be difficult for a Cort to make – but is a part of what we, as a nation, must consider).

Whatever any Cort declares, it is – finally – the people that choose. And the people will choose.

We have had a revolution before. We have appointed a new monarch before, using such Laws as were then at our disposal, and interpreting those Laws in a way that best fitted Justice at that time. We can do so again.

Looking at the mood of the realm, I suspect that we shall do so again.

…..

Thank you for permitting me to speak here.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Thank you to Justice Tamorán for those words.

I would like to remind all members that there are votes and discussions taking place for 72 hours in all of the party business threads, which are linked in the first post of this topic. Please participate!

I will be introducing our final speakers shortly.