Second Clark of the 50th Cosă

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Esteemed fellow Senators,

thank you very much for participating in the very stimulating discussion on the Discussion thread of the last Clark. Now, this Clark is very, very busy, and I apologise for not having posted this sooner. Let us turn to the proposed bills, and begin discussions at once:

RZ2 – The Senators Are People, Not Parties Amendment (proposed by S:reux Ian Plätschisch, Glüc da Dhi, and Éovart Grischun)
RZ3 – The Fleshing Out IRV Act (proposed by Ian Plätschisch)
RZ4 – The Raising Some Revenue Act and Amendment (proposed by Ian Plätschisch)
RZ5 – The Advisory King Amendment (proposed by Ian Plätschisch, Magniloqueu É. A. da Lhiun)
RZ6 – THE ORGANIC LAW AMENDMENT (Amendments (I Can't Believe This Is Still Ambiguous But Apparently It Is)) BILL (proposed by Damă Miestrâ Schivâ, Lüc da Schir, Magniloqueu É. A. da Lhiun, Ian Plätschisch, Mximo Carbonèl)
RZ7 – The OrgLaw Amendment (Nonfeasance) Act (proposed by Damă Miestrâ Schivâ, Mximo Carbonèl)
RZ8 – The Pirates Yes, Rape Culture No Bill (proposed by Culture Minister Damă Miestrâ Schivâ)
RZ9 – The This Is Not Happy Days And We Are Not The Fonz Bill (proposed by Culture Minister Damă Miestrâ Schivâ)
RZ10 – The Scribery to the People Bill (proposed by Damă Miestrâ Schivâ, Magniloqueu É. A. da Lhiun)
RZ11 – The Royal Society to the People, Also Too, Bill (proposed by Damă Miestrâ Schivâ)
RZ12 – The 50th Cosa Budget Act (proposed by Ian Plätschisch, Seneschal Lüc da Schir, Finance Minister Munditenens Tresplet)
RZ13 – The Referendum on the King Act (proposed by Mximo Carbonèl)
RZ14 – A Referendum on the Monarchy (proposed by Viteu Marcianüs)
RZ15 – The Electoral Commission Reform Amendment (proposed by Lüc da Schir, Munditenens Tresplet)
RZ16 – The Electoral Commission Reform Act (proposed by Lüc da Schir, Munditenens Tresplet, Mximo Carbonèl)

And that, quoth he, short of breath, was the whole Clark. I open the floor for discussions, and ask Senators to approach!

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.

---

Estimats senators cuncuriais,

graschcias trei bhen per à tirh partiçipat àl raisnă asalt del Clarqeu paßescu. Ça, ¡acest gClarqeu isch trei mhült encumprat! Escusetz qe non téu zivulgat această rhaisnă da phü fhrü. Zirectameux nútîmp ar spritzen àls bproxhets anaintsch da nhoi, es ziscutameux strax:

RZ2 – L’Amendamaintsch q’els Senators non sînt partins, ischù int (Els S:reux Ian Plätschisch, Glüc da Dhi, es Éovart Grischun urînd)
RZ3 – El Proxhet dal Cunpoçaziun dal Votaziun Alternativă (S:reu Ian Plätschisch urînd)
RZ4 – El Proxhet es l’Amendamaintsch da thamaint revenüns (S:reu Ian Plätschisch urînd)
RZ5 – L’Amendamaintsch del Regeu Cunseglhînd (Els S:reux Ian Plätschisch, es Magniloqueu É:A da Lhiun urînd)
RZ6 – EL PROXHET DA L’AMENDAMAINTSCH DEL REGEU ORGÄNIC (Eu non put credarh qe c’e txa ambiguös, mas c’e cumpäts com’acest) (La Damă Miestrâ Schivâ, es els S:reux Lüc da Schir, Magniloqueu É:A da Lhiun, Ian Plätschisch, es Mximo Carbonèl urînd)
RZ7 – El Proxhet da l’Amendamaintsch del LegOrg (Ostatsch) (La Damă Miestrâ Schivâ, es el S:reu Mximo Carbonèl urînd)
RZ8 – El Proxhet q’Üc àls bPirats, Non àl Cúltură da Vhiol (La Mhinistră dal Cúltură Damă Miestrâ Schiva urînd)
RZ9 – El Proxhet qe Non C’e Las Ziuăs Alegrăs, es Non Estameux Els Fonz (La Mhinistră dal Cúltură Damă Miestrâ Schiva urînd)
RZ10 – El Proxhet del Grefierïă Burgal (La Damă Miestrâ Schivâ, es el S:reu Magniloqueu É:A da Lhiun urînd)
RZ11 – El Proxhet dal Società Rexhital Burgal, Ocså (La Damă Miestrâ Schivâ urînd)
RZ12 – El Proxhet dal 50-l:t Cosă sè Presupuest (S:reu Ian Plätschisch, el Seneschal Lüc da Schir, es el Ministreu dal Finançù Munditenens Tresplet urînd)
RZ13 – El Proxhet del Referendüm på’l Regeu (S:reu Mximo Carbonèl urînd)
RZ14 – Ün Referendüm på la Mhonarc'hà (S:reu Viteu Marcianüs urînd)
RZ15 – L’Amendamaintsch reformînd la C'homità Electoral (S:reux Lüc da Schir, es Munditenens Tresplet urînd)
RZ16 – El Proxhet reformînd la C'homità Electoral (S:reux Lüc da Schir, Munditenens Tresplet, es Mximo Carbonèl urînd)

Es ça, cianceva-t-o, esteva el Clarqeu cumpläts. Aspertüréu el palc per las raisnăs, es rogéu q’els Senators si proximent.

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.

[Lüc da Schir]

Quoting almost word by word what I wrote in my provincial office:

I am planning to support bills about MRPT platform items, which are:
RZ2 - The Senators Are People, not Parties Amendment
RZ3 - The Fleshing Out IRV Act
RZ4 - The Raising Some Revenue Act and Amendment (possible abstention?)
RZ5 - The Advisory King Amendment

I wholeheartedly support:
RZ6 - THE ORGANIC LAW AMENDMENT (Amendments (I Can't Believe This Is Still Ambiguous But Apparently It Is)) BILL
RZ8 - The Pirates Yes, Rape Culture No Bill
RZ9 - The This Is Not Happy Days And We Are Not The Fonz Bill

I will also obviously vote in favour of the following bills (and put on record my thanks to my colleague the Senator for Maricopa, who did the lion's share in the planning and writing of these bills):
RZ12 - The 50th Cosa Budget Act
RZ15 - The Electoral Commission Reform Amendment
RZ16 - The Electoral Commission Reform Act

And I don't plan on supporting:
RZ13 - The Referendum on the King act

So, on to the more "controversial" stuff:
RZ7 - The OrgLaw Amendment (Nonfeasance) Act
Leaning PËR, but I think this should not be intended or seen as an easy way out to remove a monarch. In other words, I support the right of the people to be free from an inactive King, but I am not particularly a fan of using nonfeasance as a political tool, or potentially putting more partisan strain on the Uppermost Court.

RZ10 - The Scribery to the People bill, and
RZ11 - The Royal Society to the People, Also Too, Bill
Leaning Contra on both. Doesn't mean I don't support an easier way to appoint/control the two, just that right now we seem to be doing good (not necessarily just because of a better PM-King synergy than usual) and we (luckily?) don't really need to shift them to Cabinet control at the moment.

RZ14 - A Referendum on the Monarchy
Still undecided on this. I am not necessarily opposed to polling people on the issue, though, even though I am not really in favour of getting rid of the monarchy.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

My comments aren't going to be as neat and in order as those offered by my colleague, the Senator for Benito.

I'm against RZ2 and RZ5 for reasons I've outlined in their respective Hopper threads.

I also plan on voting Contrâ on RZ6, because while I'm glad that the cosponsors of the bill recognize that the current text of the OrgLaw leaves some things in question, it would not have necessarily resolved what they considered to be a crisis for the failure of the Scribery to enforce the Cosa list amendment. If this language had been in place prior to the filing of a certain lawsuit, the only difference would have been is that the King would not have been named a party to the suit, and the Plaintiff would have been in a better position to get a restraining order against the Electoral Commission from certifying the amendment in the first place. Furthermore, digressing from that point, I question why it is necessary to continue requiring the King to assents to the OrgLaw amendment after they would already be in effect following passage.

While I appreciate the primary author's purpose of Hoppering this amendment, which was to point out that yes, the King's assent to an amendment--even though it may now be required--is still a formality that the Cort itself found it could constitutionally restrain and thus prevent OrgLaw from being amended immediately (despite the opinions being thrown about from uninterested parties on the sidelines), the actual text of this amendment is not something I can bring myself voting for.

I'm voting against RZ13, even though it seems to be just a more strongly worded advisory poll than its FreeDem counterpart in RZ14 and wouldn't actually force the King to abdicate.

With respect to RZ14 itself, I planned on voting in the affirmative, if nothing more than just to show that the people clearly wish to retain the hereditary monarchy, but I now plan to abstain. I question how clearly the people's opinion can be determined given that I continue to affirm my belief that the people just vote in favor of everything, and it's too bad that my Ham Sandwich Amendment failed in the first Clark so we will never know. (Though taking a page from recent history, I suspect you haven't seen the last of the Ham Sandwich.) Additionally, the second question is also one of my concerns, and I feel it doesn't leave any room for a middle ground. For instance, someone who may wish to reduce the King's general power, but who believes methods such as the absurd Advisory King Amendment just go too far, might find it difficult to choose only one of two options...not that there is anyone who would, since again, most everyone just votes Për anyways.

I'm fine with RZ10 and RZ11, assuming we have a functional civil service.

I'm in support of RZ8 and RZ9, less so RZ9, but it does remove some unnecessary portions of statutory law I can get behind, even if I still think Talossa is way cool.

I'm also obviously in support of RZ12, RZ15, and RZ16. If any Senators have any questions regarding these three bills, I'm happy to answer them.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

If I may rise again to briefly address a question that was posed and seemingly directed towards me, as the interim Party President of the Free Democrats of Talossa, by a colleague in the Cosâ chamber:

Question to the FreeDems: Will the FreeDems end their agnostic policy and come out in support of the Monarchy, should that turn out to be the will of the people?

No matter how clear the Free Democrats' agnostic clause (as in, clause in our constitution) can be, time and time again we are just considered the ZRT with another name, despite individuals like myself being strongly pro-Monarchy on levels that are often higher than those professed by many in the MRPT. We do have several very intelligent members who happen to hold valid beliefs that republicanism is the best way for Talossa to move forward, but one reason this party was originally founded (as the Liberal Congress) was so that members wouldn't be attached to a label of either pro or anti Monarchy when sponsoring legislation that had nothing to do with the Monarchy. So the answer is no, the party would continue to not expressly back the Monarchy if that were to be the will of the people, nor would we back getting rid of it entirely if that were to be the will of the people. As always, members are free to construct and express their own beliefs and opinions on the subject without fear of reprisal from party leadership.

But since we're having fun asking questions, may I pose a question to the ModRads: If 50RZ5 were to pass, would the MRPT drop their claimed support for the monarchy so as not to confuse voters in the future? I personally feel as though this would be the best way to move forward for the ModRads, especially given their party's authorship of electoral reforms in the past to ensure that voters would be well educated on who exactly they would be voting for and not deceived by whatever party they choose.

My apologies if I'm offending other Senators by referencing party politics within this chamber. Rest assured there will be no more of this if 50RZ2 passes!

[Lüc da Schir]

Mar 19, 2017 22:31:33 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

No matter how clear the Free Democrats' agnostic clause (as in, clause in our constitution) can be, time and time again we are just considered the ZRT with another name, despite individuals like myself being strongly pro-Monarchy on levels that are often higher than those professed by many in the MRPT. [...]

Indeed, you were a member of the RUMP after all. I wouldn't comment on the "ZRT with another name" part (and indeed the rest of the answer), as I don't think that's the case at all and the initial question didn't concern me in the first place.

But since we're having fun asking questions, may I pose a question to the ModRads: If 50RZ5 were to pass, would the MRPT drop their claimed support for the monarchy so as not to confuse voters in the future? I personally feel as though this would be the best way to move forward for the ModRads, especially given their party's authorship of electoral reforms in the past to ensure that voters would be well educated on who exactly they would be voting for and not deceived by whatever party they choose.

Not at all, although I understand this kind of question in return, given that it is in rebuttal to a question that was evidently made without proper knowledge of your own party platform; likewise, a quick search on Wittenberg, or the Wiki, or modrads.proboards.com would suffice to find out that the bill is perfectly in line with the MRPT's party stance of a moderate, accountable monarchy.

My apologies if I'm offending other Senators by referencing party politics within this chamber. Rest assured there will be no more of this if 50RZ2 passes!

Party politics would not be barred from the Senate with RZ2. You perfectly know that all the bill does is removing the need for a Senatorial candidate to be endorsed by a party to get on the ballot, and ensuring Senators are actually elected to represent a province instead of a party, which is the spirit of the Senate. This doesn't preclude a Senator from "referencing party politics", or taking political stances, or holding political offices, or whatever else you see written there that I don't. I don't agree in full with all of the Whereases as well, but they will not "count" if and when the bill comes into effect.