Call to Order, First Clark of the 50th Cosă

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Esteemed fellow Senators,

welcome to the Fiftieth Cosă of our humble nationette. I would like to congratulate those members of our Chamber, who stood for re-election and were supported by their respective provinces. Now, I would like to direct your attention to this month’s Clark, which is somewhat small, yet that may mean a more in-depth discussion for us:

RZ1 — The Ham Sandwich Amendment

I yield the floor to a Senator who wishes to speak his mind about the bill. I would like to nudge the discussion into motion by tossing a word into the room, namely Vegetarianism. Please note that within a few days, I will start a separate Voting Thread, so if you wish to vote in-Wittenberg, please wait for the appropriate place and time.

Thank you.

---

Raßemblamaintsch, Pirmalaiset Clarqeu dal 50-l:t Cosă

Estimats senators cuncuriais,

estetz benveneschti în Ár Regipäts se Simeinçalaiset Cosă. Desiradréu pirmeis gratülescharh acestilor Senators-là, qi cuntestavent dîn lor bprovinçuns, es füvent sosteneschti per lor üstraes. Restetz-veletz nun voschtri spritzen al gClarqeu bpic'hotsch dad acest mes; ainda qe c’e scurznieu, noi zona ünă uportunità da rhaisna dîn acest dtagoror-ci:

RZ1 — El Stinc-Sändwitsch Amendamaintsch (“The Ham Sandwich Amendment”)

Cedéu el palc à lan, qi perstrepa på’l proxhet, avetz l’ißü del vexhetarismeu.

Veladretz notarh qe véu asigürarh ün altreu post da Vhotaziun da dhîn viensas ziuăs. Schi voletz votarh dîn Wittenberg, cün vfavour atendetz el post în vfragă.

Graschcias.

[Eðo Grischun]

Segnor Mencei, Esteemed Senators,

I would also like to congratulate those members coming back to the chamber following successful re-elections.

RZ1. The Ham Sandwich Amendment.

If you merely glance at this Amendment you would be forgiven for thinking it was a bit of silly fluff that we can either easily dismiss or safely pass into law without consequence. However, the real nuts and bolts of this Amendment pose a serious constitutional question.

I'm leaning NON on this Amendment based on the following:


1) The National Sandwich of the Kingdom should not be a Ham Sandwich, IMO.

2) The National Sandwich does not deserve to be listed in the Organic Law.

3) The argument made in the Whereas sections is almost sound, but he misses one massive vital piece of process; The public are only asked to ratify an Amendment once it passes these Houses. The public have faith and trust in the august houses of the Ziu to ensure that the people of Talossa don't vote in a Ham Sandwich because we would, firstly, reject such proposals at this stage of the law-making process. Before the general citizenry got all Mad as Hatters and ratified such an Amendment, the Ziu would have to have gone Mad as Hatters to pass the Amendment in the first place.

4) I have better faith in the citizenry than that.

I'm leaning NON.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I thank the Senator from the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg for his reply. If you please, I have a few remarks thereupon, Senator:

1) What would your feelings towards Cucumber Sandwiches be?
2) I absolutely agree with you that the Kingdom’s symbolic items have no place within the Organic Law.

I yield the floor again to the Senators.

---

Îngrascheléu el Senator dallas Phrovinçuns Vhiensiçadăs da Vhuode es Dhandenburg, på’l síeu dhiscuors. Téu, cün vfavour, viensas anotamaintschen, Senator Grischun:

1) ¿Qet ziradretz-voi àd ün gCucumvar Sändwitsch?
2) Éu sînt ben dad acîrd complätsmînt; els sümvois naziunais sînt starschats dîn el Legeu Orgänic.

Cedéu el palc ün altreu fhäts.

[Eðo Grischun]

Feb 7, 2017 13:11:34 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

I thank the Senator from the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg for his reply. If you please, I have a few remarks thereupon, Senator:

1) What would your feelings towards Cucumber Sandwiches be?
2) I absolutely agree with you that the Kingdom’s symbolic items have no place within the Organic Law.

I yield the floor again to the Senators.

---

Îngrascheléu el Senator dallas Phrovinçuns Vhiensiçadăs da Vhuode es Dhandenburg, på’l síeu dhiscuors. Téu, cün vfavour, viensas anotamaintschen, Senator Grischun:

1) ¿Qet ziradretz-voi àd ün gCucumvar Sändwitsch?
2) Éu sînt ben dad acîrd complätsmînt; els sümvois naziunais sînt starschats dîn el Legeu Orgänic.

Cedéu el palc ün altreu fhäts.

My feelings towards so-called cucumber sandwiches are that someone left the filling out but left the garnish in. A garnish sandwich? No thanks.

I'm actually more concerned over the irresponsibility of creating a National Sandwich and then leaving people up to their own devices over the bread choice! I mean, can you imagine an onion rye loaf being abhorrently abused to create a lowly ham sandwich?

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Segnor Mençei, Esteemed Senators,

I rise today to speak in favor of the proposed Amendment.

First, I would begin by saying that generally speaking, I dislike ham sandwiches. Indeed, when other meats are offered such as turkey or chicken, I will almost always choose one of those over ham. Only on occasions where ham is presented alongside bologna will I consider choosing the former. I also recognize the issue of vegetarianism so artfully placed in the discussion by the Mençei, and note that I am not opposed to vegetarian or vegan options when they are presented either, and that I would probably also prefer them over ham.

However, I choose to support this Amendment because it speaks to the failure of our citizenry to properly vet and consider Organic Law amendments. The Organic Law is the superior law of our Kingdom, and its importance is recognized in the numerous required steps to amend it as detailed in Article XV. All amendments must first pass by a two-thirds majority of the Cosâ and be subjected to potential objections by our King before they are even permitted to be placed on a ballot. Once it is placed on the ballot, a majority of voters participating in a referendum on the question of adoption must vote in favor for it to become promulgated. If amendments affect the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, then they must be approved by a two-thirds majority of voters rather than a simple majority. We have these requirements because they are necessary for any amendment to be made to our supreme law, as opposed to simple majorities of the legislature being necessary to amend mere statutes.

This is why I must adamantly disagree with my colleague, the Senator from Vuode. His assertion that the citizenry's faith in the Ziu and their ability to properly vet and decide amendments before they are presented for adoption in a referendum as being the reason behind the seemingly automatic votes in favor of any particular amendment demeans and demotes the public's clearly distinguished role as the last barrier to faulty, unnecessary, or indeed, potentially damaging amendments being made to our constitution. This assertion ignores the very purpose of my bill, whether the public adequately vets any referendum before they mark the box in favor of it. Their reasons for not doing so, of which the Senator from Vuode's theory may be one, aren't relevant to the discussion, for there can be no acceptable reason for any individual to mark a ballot in favor of a referendum without so much as a cursory glance at its contents.

Moreover, if the public's input mirrored that of the Ziu on every occasion for the reason outlined above, then I question why it is in fact necessary for their input at all. Surely if the public's automatic ratification of whatever is put in front of them is due to their steadfast faith in their representatives, they would have no problem with a ratification process that did not require their affirmative vote. To further demonstrate this, perhaps I should or should have instead Hoppered an amendment to Article XV to remove their input entirely as it would always be duplicitous.

Whether the recognition of a national sandwich belongs in Organic Law is indeed a debatable question. Without yet expressing my opinion, it is worth noting that Article II, which my Amendment would add an additional section to, already contains several points of recognition that are unrelated to how this Kingdom functions, which is--or should be--the sole purpose of any constitution. For instance, the colors of our flag aren't necessary to be included in Organic Law, and even if it were, rules for the proper display of the flag during times of war would certainly not be. Whatever our national anthem is, or whether we even have a national anthem, is equally unnecessary. If I may quote from our great law:

The National Anthem of Talossa is "Chirluschâ àl Glheþ." Its English translation, "Stand Tall, Talossans," shall have equal legal status. Words and music shall be determined by law. The patriotic songs "Tusk" by Fleetwood Mac and "Ein Feierlichgesang"/"Dallas Pätsilor" by John A. Jahn shall have constitutional status as patriotic songs. The Government shall take steps to promote, celebrate, and preserve Talossa's indigenous musical heritage.

Segnor Mençei, while I might also enjoy Fleetwood Mac's "Tusk", and while I may be filled with an overwhelming sense of patriotism whenever I hear it, its continued and so far uncontroversial existence within our Organic Law, or the existence of our Kingdom's "motto", something traditionally absent in constitutional documents, leads me to question just how undeserving the existence of language recognizing a national sandwich would be among these other symbolic Points of State.

For the truth is, Segnor Mençei, that none of these Points I've referenced deserve placement in our Organic Law, but while we continue to have such bloated, unnecessary text in not only this but other Articles, then the addition of of a Ham Sandwich would make no difference in either the short or long terms. But therein we circle back to the purpose of the Amendment, would the public exercise their civic responsibility to ensure that our Organic Law isn't encumbered with unnecessary language any more than it already is?

If I may speak on the merits briefly, I don't think that recognition of a national sandwich belongs in our Organic Law, and if it did, I certainly wouldn't support it being a sandwich that I don't much like in the first place. This is why I will vote Contrâ, and urge the citizens of Talossa to do the same, if and when it is presented before the public in a referendum. I would optimistically hope that the public rejects the amendment, but I don't share in my colleague from Vuode's faith that the public would actually reject it.

In the Hopper today, the Ziu is considering an advisory referendum proposed regarding the Monarchy. The foundation of our Kingdom. I'm a Monarchist, and if I were presented with the question as proposed in a referendum, I would vote to strongly support the current hereditary Monarchy. I also strongly support the rights of all citizens to speak their position on the issue, especially those within my own party, and I would very much be interested in the outcome of such an advisory opinion. But I question whether the advisory opinion would adequately affect the views of the Kingdom if the public fails to acknowledge or exercise their responsibility to consider referenda without automatically voting "Për" on whatever question is before them.

This is why my Ham Sandwich Amendment is important. If the citizens do vote in favor of the Amendment, we have a problem that needs to be adequately addressed, and no, I would not actually support taking away their vote on referenda. After we quickly pass an Amendment to remove the Ham Sandwich from our Points of State, then we should just as quickly move on to trying to address Talossa's penultimate problem: Can our country survive without at least an attempt at active participation from the majority of our citizens?

With that, Segnor Mençei, I yield the floor.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Thank you, Senator Tresplet, for this very detailed reasoning for the amendment. I must, however, say that I am surprised.

You purport that the citizenry were unable to defend the Organic Law from shenanigans, by seemingly rubber-stamping every amendment passed in the Ziu. To prove this, you have introduced an amendment which you, yourself, do not support. This approach is highly doubtful, to say the least. And what is furthermore grave, is the fact that you seem to have no idea how to give weight to referenda, or how to protect the Organic Law from the Citizenry’s alleged disinterest, short of doing away with referenda altogether — and I agree that that would not be an acceptable solution.

I do not find this approach sensible at all. Do you?

Another point: I hardly find it fair to compare our National Language, our Official Insignia (the Flag), and the Official Ode to Our Country (the National Hymn) to a Ham Sandwich.
Do I hear other voices?

---

Graschcias, Senator Tresplet, per această xhustificaziun del amendamaintsch. Mas, eu fost cunceßarh, qe sînt propi avotat.

Opinetz qe la C'hitaxhenità estadra zefençunattä contra unfriðen på’l Legeu Orgänic, parç q’a tzarc'hadra* cadascu dels amendamaintschen validats per el Ziu. Svo àð en provarh voastră þeorïă, propoçevetz ün amendamaintsch qet voi, steçéu, non sostenetz. C’e, mitigavaliteir zirat, utxasnevămînt duftatïu. Petosch pü ghrav, c’e’l fäts qe sembletz sînc ingen ideă come revalidarh els referenda, eda come behütarh el Legeu Orgänic dal Citaxhenità se apaþetică – salvă qe matralaiviçarh els referenda complätsmînt, ¡echida q’acest non c’e ünă tsoluziun adequäts!

Eu non penséu qe c’e sensival, ¿es voi?

Ünă altră auxheziun: non credéu qe l’aiquiparonçă dad Ár Glheþ Naziunal, Ár nDistintivă (el Bicoloreu), eda Ár Drapour Uficial påd Ár bPäts (la C'hirluschă Nhaziunal) àð ün Stinc-Sändwitsch, c’e xhust.
¿Üscüdéu altrăs voces?

*tzarc'har, c’e ün verb noveu dal Tamazight (ttesriḥ = permitarh), avetz la tsençù da « to wave through ».

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Segnor Mençei,

I absolutely find this approach sensible.

There is no one good approach to how to better engage the citizens who only come around when it is time to vote in an election. There is also no way to approach the issue without first recognizing that it is, in fact, an issue, and I find it odd that some of my fellow Senators don't see it as such. If this Amendment were actually passed and proclaimed, would that not demonstrate the gravity of the situation? This situation wouldn't be easily fixed by one bill or one amendment, it would be an overall change in how we approach citizens who don't actively participate, for one reason or the other, in Talossan life. To some respect, many have already recognized this is a problem, but have yet to carry through such thinking to how it affects or would affect the approval of referenda. But if my fellow Senators have so little hope in the citizenry that they are opposed to even placing this Amendment before them for rubber stamping, then that alone speaks volumes already.

I don't exactly understand as to what you mean by I have "no idea" how to give weight to referenda. If you mean that I am not proposing a solution to the alleged problem, then I refer you to the paragraph above. And if you note the context in which I made the statement regarding taking away the public's right to vote on amendments, you will find that it is indeed a logical outcome to the counterpoint raised by the Senator from Vuode. If the citizens rubber stamp anything that is put before them, then it would be duplicitous to continue to do so.

As to comparing a Ham Sandwich with the Points of State you reference, I agree that the points are important to our culture. But I disagree, and I hope you would as well, that any of them belong in Organic Law. Though, to quote from Article II of our supreme law once more:

The reality of the Kingdom of Talossa is lived out most positively through its historic spirit, of which all Talossan institutions are guardians and enhancers. The Kingdom of Talossa is a community of persons having fun by doing things which are reasonably similar to what other ("real") countries do, whether for reasons of tourist nostalgia, out of a lust for power, in pursuit of parody, or -- yes -- as nationbuilding.

Perhaps the reference to the fact it is a Ham Sandwich is lost on most on people, despite reference to the origin in the bill itself. Given the situation and the detailed reasons for it being introduced, and given that the subject being considered for inclusion would in fact be a parody of the entire situation, I find it completely appropriate to have authored and Clarked a bill to add a Ham Sandwich among the other items in Article II.

If we vote this Amendment down, we are brushing the potential existence of a major problem under the rug once more. On the other hand, if we were to vote to move it forward, there are only two outcomes: Either I'm wrong and the general public would vote it down, something for which I would be extremely surprised and would not hesitate to apologize for leveling such accusations, or I'm right, the public rubber stamps everything, and we can remove the Ham Sandwich by Clarking another amendment to do so which would be, unsurprisingly, rubber stamped again.

The latter outcome would also set off healthy debate on the issue, as no one could dispute any longer that it is an issue, and through this healthy debate we may in fact find a solution to the quite serious problem; at least, I would sincerely hope we do. For it isn't merely whether I think the public can protect themselves from what you call "shenanigans", but whether the public would actually overcome their apathy to properly vet and consider Organic Law amendments that have a much more significant effect than adding a national sandwich to our Points of State.