August 2017 Clark Result

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Summary

50th Cosâ, Clark #6 results		Amendment?	Ziu	Cosâ				Senäts
Bill	Title		Result	Për	Contrâ	Abstain	Result	Për	Contrâ	Abstain	Result
RZ24	THE LEGISLATION PROOFREADING BILL	No (double majority needed)	Pass	134	21	0	Pass	6	0	0	Pass
RZ25	THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORGLAW (Separate Cosa and Senats Voting) BILL	Yes (2/3 Cosa needed, Majority Senäts)	Fail	37	105	13	Fail	3	2	1	Pass
RZ26	The Due Process Amendment	Covenent Amendment (2/3 Cosa needed, 2/3 voters)	Pass	116	39	0	Pass	6	0	0	Pass
RZ27	The Bar Reformation Act	No (double majority needed)	Pass	134	21	0	Pass	6	0	0	Pass
RZ28	The Ambiguity Resolution Act	Yes (2/3 Cosa needed, Majority Senäts)	Fail	64	78	13	Fail	6	0	0	Pass
RZ29	The Good Laws Take Preparation Time Act	No (double majority needed)	Fail	78	46	31	Pass	2	2	2	Fail
RZ30	The Tiebreaker Act	No (double majority needed)	Pass	103	21	31	Pass	5	1	0	Pass
RZ31	The Lannister Act + Sense of the Ziu	No (double majority needed)	Pass	116	21	18	Pass	4	2	0	Pass
VOC	Vote of Confidence		Pass	134	21	N/A	Pass

Cosâ Member Votes

#	Name	Province	Party	Seats	RZ24	RZ25	RZ26	RZ27	RZ28	RZ29	RZ30	RZ31	VOC
258	Alèxandreu Soleiglhfred	Cézembre	MRPT	13	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Contrâ	Abstain	Për	Për	Yes
449	Chirbi Scherpa-Carriedo	Vuode	FreeDem	10	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
140	Cresti Matáiwos Siervicül	Maricopa	RUMP	18	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Për	Contrâ	Abstain	Abstain	Abstain	Yes
292	Danihel Txechescu	Maricopa	RUMP	11	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
282	Eovart Xhorxh	Maricopa	RUMP	11	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	No
412	Erschéveþ (Ely) da Schir	Benito	MRPT	13	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Yes
260	Glüc da Dhi	Cézembre	MRPT	13	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Yes
466	Ian Plätschisch	Maritiimi-Maxhestic	MRPT	14	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Yes
298	Iason Taiwos	Benito	FreeDem	12	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Yes
391	Martì Vataldestreça	Cézembre	MRPT	13	Për	Abstain	Për	Për	Abstain	Për	Për	Për	Yes
114	Miestrâ Schivâ	Fiova	FreeDem	13	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Abstain	Për	Yes
61	Mximo Carbonel	Florencià	REP	10	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	No
187	Viteu Marcianüs	Vuode	FreeDem	12	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Yes
494	Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu	Maricopa	MRPT	13	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Yes

Number of Cosâ Members : 14

Senator Votes

Province	#	Name	RZ24	RZ25	RZ26	RZ27	RZ28	RZ29	RZ30	RZ31
Atatûrk	432	Sevastáin Pinátsch	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cézembre	74	Ián Anglatzarâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Abstain	Për	Për
Florencià	135	Manus J. Hand	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Maricopa	315	Munditenens (Dien) Tresplet	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për
Maritiimi-Maxhestic	422	Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac’hlerglünä da Lhiun	Për	Abstain	Për	Për	Për	Abstain	Contrâ	Contrâ
Benito	328	Lüc da Schir	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për
Vuode	254	Éovart Grischun	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ
Fiova	96	Gödafrïeu Válcadác'h	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për

[Viteu Marcianüs]

RZ28 may have lost but it wasn't an amendment and didn't not require 2/3 vote.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Oh right, it said:

the Ziu, acting pursuant to Article X of the Organic Law hereby amends Section G of el Lexhatx to include:

I get Ammend and Organic law and my brain got confused...

[King John]

With regard to RZ30, The Tiebreaker Act,

El Regeu en volt. — John R


With regard to RZ31, The Lannister Act,

El Regeu en volt. — John R


With regard to RZ27, The Bar Reformation Act,

The King has grave doubts as to the Organicity of making it a criminal offense "for any person to knowingly or recklessly practice law", in a bill that lacks a careful definition of "to practice law". Certain things would seem to fall under the general heading of free speech, which might be construed by someone, or some Cort, as "practicing law" — for instance, offering someone assistance or advice in reading the existing law, offering to help with the drafting of motions, negotiating on someone else's behalf with a prosecutor, etc. I would suggest adding a definition of "to practice law", to include (perhaps) the receiving of money or other items of value in exchange for this kind of activity. But, meanwhile, I would ask whether we really want to deny to most of our citizens the privilege of speaking on someone else's behalf in Cort, without first getting the permission of a national board. I would ask the Ziu to reconsider, and if they still think this is a good idea, to pass it again, with some clarification of these points. So for now,

Ça el Regeu non piaça. — John R


With regard to RZ24, The Legislation Proofreading Bill,

I would point out that I have *never* vetoed a bill, whether I felt like it or not, unless I had doubts as to its Organicity. I have signed a fair amount of legislation that seemed silly or misguided or incompletely thought through. Which being so, the "whereas" clause suggesting that the royal veto is "an additional check" on the quality of legislation, but "only functions" "when the King feels inclined to do so" is misleading and (if I may say so) rather insulting. I would ask that this clause be removed. But since the bill passed, including the offensive clause, I will not veto it for that reason. Nor will I veto it because of the very great arbitrary power it gives the Secretary of State to block legislation he doesn't like, since there's a simple legal way to remove him if he starts misusing this power. Nor does it seem to me to be the Secretary's place to examine legislation for its making good sense. That's up to the Ziu, and if the Ziu wants to pass something that the Secretary thinks is nonsense, his office shouldn't have anything to say about it. All this said, I will allow this bill to pass into law without my signature.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Perhaps John can point out where making it a criminal penalty to knowingly practice law without admission to the bar is inOrganic.

Yes, giving someone legal advice IS practicing law. Negotiation with a prosecutor on behalf of someone IS practicing law. And no, in most US jurisdictions, including where John lives, does anything of value actually need to be exchange (perhaps John could seek the counsel of Patrick to explain to him what pro bono representation is). And why do we have these? To ensure that people who seek legal counsel know they are receiving counsel from someone who has knowledge and can effectively argue their case. Also, to ensure people have recourse in the event of ineffective counsel. You know, in a similar fashion that many jurisdictions require a license to drive a car or to be a plumber - it tells other people that you have some minimal qualifications to engage in that conduct. But let's not fool ourselves, John is more concerned with an active judiciary that will continue to check his tyranny. 

Further, John should make note that even under the current law, nobody can "speak[] on someone else's behalf in Cort," and that John's ultimate argument can be summed up as: (1) we should have no bar and anyone can practice law; and (2) John is annoyed that the bill was introduced by someone who rightfully calls him a tyrant. Perhaps John can send me his mailing address so that I can send him a copy of Thomas Paine's Common Sense, common sense, of course, being what his "veto" is lacking.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I would point out that I have *never* vetoed a bill, whether I felt like it or not, unless I had doubts as to its Organicity.

Utter and complete lie

My reason for NOT proclaiming 47RZ28 is simply that to do so would limit the Crown's freedom in exercising the Royal Organic prerogative to appoint as Constable — that is, as the Crown's personal representative to a Province — whomever the Crown pleases. This action is in concert with my general intention vigorously (but always legally!) to defend the Crown's several privileges and prerogatives.

[Colonel Mximo Carbonèl]

All we need is new organic-law without a King...
Vote Republican...


Mximo

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Aug 23, 2017 0:22:11 GMT -6 Colonel Mximo Carbonèl said:

All we need is new organic-law without a King...
Vote Republican...


Mximo

Et combien des projets républicains a introduit votre parti unipersonel à la Cosâ dans ce mandat?

Of course someone HAS written a full new OrgLaw which has so far gotten praise from monarchists AND republicans, and he is now co-leader of the FreeDems.

[Lüc da Schir]

I realise the conversation has somewhat shifted from the actual Clark results, but, as a side note, 50RS01 has also passed. In my temporary capacity as Vice-Mençei or whatever it is that I'm doing now, here's the official-ish bestowment. Congratulations again to the awardees!

[King John]

Sigh.

Dame Miestra, to fail to proclaim an Amendment, and to veto a bill, are two entirely different things. Which I think you know.

V, I didn't even notice who had proposed the Bill in question; to call me a tyrant is silly, but doesn't bug me all that much. I didn't say there should be no bar. I asked that the bill specify more clearly exactly what behaviours are being criminalized, and suggested that some of them possibly shouldn't be.

Cordially,

— John R

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Lol cool story, John. But it's nonsense. Save your pseudo-libertarian nonsense. Your sudden concern about Organicity is laughable. Did you raise that concern with TERPs? Also, you're not the judge of what is or what isn't organic, even with your continued refusal to recognize the authority of the UC and rule of law. But then again, tyrants rarely think the law applies to them.