Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 18, 2018 19:18:24 GMT -6
Yet another situation where Sir AD is prepared to go to the wall to stop change. He knows he can't win a vote to stop the OrgLaw Convention; he knows that he can't stack it with RUMP/royal appointees who will prevent any progress; so he's throwing everything against the wall to persuade the Seneschál to withdraw support from the concept before it gets going. This isn't our first rodeo, of course. We've seen these tactics before and seen that if we do it AD's way, nothing changes. Won't get fooled again.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 19, 2018 4:20:37 GMT -6
It's telling you can only attack me personally.
This is the same attitude you brought when I embraced the cultural initiative idea. You came at me with bile and crude insults, but we moved past it, and now... you just submitted your first column for the impending relaunch!
This is the same attitude you brought when I helped start a committee to reform the Orglaw. You mocked it as an attempt to just halt all organic reform, but then... well, it cranked out two reforms that entirely revamped two different articles of the OrgLaw, and could have gone on to more if we hadn't run out of steam.
Give progress a chance here, maybe?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 20, 2018 16:01:52 GMT -6
So, here is a way we could divide the reform up while still retaining all of it:
-Repeal Article I-II, replace with Chapter I -Repeal Article III, replace with Chapter II -Repeal Article IV-VIII, XI-XIV, XX, replace with Chapter III -Repeal Article XVI, replace with Chapter IV -Repeal Article IX-X, XXI, replace with Chapter V -Repeal Article XVII, replace with Chapter VI -Repeal Article XVIII, replace with Chapter VII -Repeal Article XV, replace with Chapter VIII -Repeal Article XIX, replace with the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Oct 20, 2018 16:41:33 GMT -6
I'm sorry, until I receive assurance that the Seneschal who is cosponsoring this legislation doesn't actually believe his statement he made earlier in the Senäts regarding the inviolability of Prime Dictates, I must oppose any changes to our current Organic Law which his name is signed to.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 20, 2018 19:37:29 GMT -6
So, here is a way we could divide the reform up while still retaining all of it: -Repeal Article I-II, replace with Chapter I -Repeal Article III, replace with Chapter II -Repeal Article IV-VIII, XI-XIV, XX, replace with Chapter III -Repeal Article XVI, replace with Chapter IV -Repeal Article IX-X, XXI, replace with Chapter V -Repeal Article XVII, replace with Chapter VI -Repeal Article XVIII, replace with Chapter VII -Repeal Article XV, replace with Chapter VIII -Repeal Article XIX, replace with the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms Something like that, although I suspect we'll want to retain the current terminology (article instead of chapter) since that's another change that seems to have no utility beyond a deliberate break with the past. Personally, I think it would make more sense to approach this from the standpoint of ideas, rather than looking at isolated articles. If we are changing how the legislative process works to the three readings version to more closely mimic some American lawmaking, then it makes sense to tackle that single issue as a whole. This means that we are likely going to be amending the same sections multiple times, but it also means there's much less chance of a disastrous screw-up caused by isolated fiddling. Accidentally making it impossible to pass bills or something seems less likely if we're tackling the legislative process in toto.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 20, 2018 19:38:07 GMT -6
I'm sorry, until I receive assurance that the Seneschal who is cosponsoring this legislation doesn't actually believe his statement he made earlier in the Senäts regarding the inviolability of Prime Dictates, I must oppose any changes to our current Organic Law which his name is signed to. I think it is unlikely he meant it that way.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 20, 2018 22:24:36 GMT -6
In the above structure, we would be tackling the legislative process all at once, because that is what Chapter V is all about (speaking of Chapters, I do think they make the organization much more logical and orderly by grouping like articles together).
Trying to amend the same article over and over again seems more likely to cause errors and confusion, not less, and is frankly what has made the 1997 Organic Law so messy to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 20, 2018 22:36:19 GMT -6
We might be speaking of semantics, then. So we would also tackle other instances of language relating to legislation while tackling the specific article, as needed?
Let's defer chapter vs article for the nonce, and work it out later with the input of others. I'm inclined to hew as closely as possible to established terminology, but it's not such a big point that we need to sort it out now.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 27, 2018 17:39:50 GMT -6
I'll be explicit - to any extent that an ad hoc revision is made to the current Org Law, I will only support it as follows:
Articles I - XXI of the Organic Law are hereby abolished and replaced by Articles [insert new articles].
Further, the Organic Law shall henceforth be known as "The Organic Law of the Unified State of the Kingdom of Talossa."
This "1997 Organic Law" argument is nonsensical, and it continues to wreak of the monarchist dog whistle to the former republic that "hahahaha you lost; we won."
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 27, 2018 19:46:16 GMT -6
It would probably have been easier and more explicit to just say that you refuse to compromise and insist on the abrogation of the OrgLaw, since that is more important to you than any actual reforms or changes.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 27, 2018 21:40:01 GMT -6
What is there to admit? I will admit that I introduced an organic law to completely replace the current organic law, which is quite explicit from the very first post I made, when you admit that you're a hypocrite more focused on partisanship than compromise and that you manipulate Talossans into thinking you're acting in good faith when you're nothing more than a charlatan. But Alex, great job at pointing to the obvious. Point scored. Don't you have talossan money to waste, which you asked for to undermine the Goverment but when that didn't pan out, you decided to focus on a hit piece attacking me?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 27, 2018 21:51:23 GMT -6
What is there to admit? Well, most people interested in government reform are interested in the reform bit, not just "winning" a victory over their enemies. They mostly want to make things better, and so if offered a reasonable compromise, they will take it.
I will say that it's weird for you to declare that I am more focused on partisanship than compromise while simultaneously rejecting a reasonable compromise due to a partisan desire to "win."
My first post, by the way, was actually about stuff like, "Hey, this draft of a new constitution is missing one whole branch, maybe that's a problem."
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 27, 2018 21:54:56 GMT -6
And just to be clear, I'm saying, "Hey, let's go through the entire Organic Law and reform the whole thing, including the material forms proposed here such as a change to the legislative process, as warranted, but as a compromise can we retain the identity of the original Organic Law?"
And you're saying no.
It's fine to take that position, but it's really hard to take that position while declaring that I'm the one unwilling to compromise.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 27, 2018 23:26:07 GMT -6
Whatever you say kid. Whatever you say.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 28, 2018 15:49:31 GMT -6
If Sir AD proposed a bill to amputate all Talossan's left legs at the knee, and V set himself in opposition to it, I imagine that Sir AD would then propose a "compromise" of moving the amputation point to the ankles, and then complain about the intransigent Distáin. Seriously: the question for the FreeDems has always been a brand-new totally rewritten OrgLaw. This is the question we want to put to the legislators and then to the people. If a brand-new totally rewritten OrgLaw is rejected by the Ziu or by the people, then fair enough. But we want that option on the Clark/ballot. Compromising it away before it can even get to that point is not an option. The point of the OrgLaw convention is to produce the text of a brand-new totally rewritten OrgLaw that will stand the most chance of getting Ziu and popular approval. I understand that people who oppose the concept will fight it, and that's their right. But they won't be able to talk us out of the concept through verbiage, bafflegab, appeals for "compromise". They may be able to defeat it, and that's their right. But they won't be able to bamboozle its proponents out of even getting it to the Clark/people in the first place.
|
|