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 9, 2018 14:51:29 GMT -6
BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosa and Senäts in Ziu assembled that:
1. An Organic Law Convention is established, consisting of the King and all members of the Ziu. Any of these members may choose not to participate.
2. The duty of this Convention shall be to propose, debate upon and decide upon amendments to the Draft of the 2019 Organic Law Act (hereinafter called "the Current Draft"). The text of the Current Draft shall be that authorised by the Seneschál upon this Bill becoming law.
3. The aim of this Convention shall be create a Final Draft 2019 Organic Law, in time to be Clarked before the end of the 52nd Cosa.
4. The Túischac'h shall be Chair of this convention and be responsible for enforcing rules of order, which shall be the same as for the Cosa until decided otherwise.
5. Amendments to the Current Draft shall be "Hoppered" in the same way as bills for the Ziu.
6. At the end of the Convention, on the 1st day of a calendar month, the Túischac'h shall publish a "Pseudo-Clark", containing all properly "Hoppered" amendments, for voting by Convention Members. The Túischac'h shall indicate whether one or more amendments contradict each other.
7. Any amendment which receives more "per" than "contra" votes from members of the Convention shall be adopted.
8. On the 21st day of that same calendar month, the Túischac'h shall integrate the successful amendments into the Current Draft, to create the Final Draft, and deliver it to the Seneschál to be Clarked before the Ziu. The Convention shall then be dissolved.
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Oct 9, 2018 15:03:57 GMT -6
I would suggest the Convention not be dissolved until the 20xx Constitution is law. And yes, I would adhere to the inadvertent Talossan pattern of alternating names: 1979 Constitution, 1985 Organic Law, 1988 Constitution, 1997 Organic Law, & 20xx Constitution.
I would also aim for the completion of this Final Draft by the end of 2019 or the end of the 53rd Cosâ. Rome was not built in a day, we want this new document to last twenty to thirty years, and the course of approximately one year is not too much to ask to make sure we get this done right.
That being said, Talossan politics will never be more-balanced than it is right now, and I would not object to a completion date by the end of this Cosâ.
Hoppering amendments to the draft on the Hopper is a smart move and keeps Convention activities in the minds of everyone not participating. And it's wise to just go ahead and include everyone in the Ziu in the process.
I will put together a Big, Huge, GV Draft Constitution and Hopper same. I will work on that today and tonight, as a matter of fact. I thought I was done with that project, but it looks like I am not done just yet - lol.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Oct 10, 2018 4:36:03 GMT -6
Is it workable to open a "second Hopper" for the explicit use of hoppering and debating such amendments?
|
|
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 10, 2018 13:47:31 GMT -6
Is it workable to open a "second Hopper" for the explicit use of hoppering and debating such amendments? That would be helpful but I personally don't know how to do it on this Witt, nor who would. We could start a new ProBoards forum but that'd be confusing.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 10, 2018 14:10:57 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure I could do that.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 11, 2018 6:03:11 GMT -6
So this is essentially a Ziu commission, it looks like? With its own internal rules?
My main issue is with the deadline. Given the power of the Tuischac'h to manage this thing, they should just keep it moving until it's done. No artificial deadline (four months is not a long time to write a new supreme governing document!)
Who is the Tuischac'h, by the way?
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Oct 11, 2018 6:13:54 GMT -6
I'm currently the Tuischac'h.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 11, 2018 7:36:11 GMT -6
Nice! So yeah, Dien will keep it moving. There's no reason for the deadline. If folks are going to bin the twenty-year-old document we all swore to protect and uphold, then we should at least take our time and get it right.
|
|
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 11, 2018 12:26:11 GMT -6
Nice! So yeah, Dien will keep it moving. There's no reason for the deadline. If folks are going to bin the twenty-year-old document we all swore to protect and uphold, then we should at least take our time and get it right. Previous Committees and Commissions on the OrgLaw failed because of sandbagging and apathy from those opposed to change. But - if Dien has the confidence of conservative forces - I don't see a real problem with removing the deadline if that would get the issue broad support. I deliberately wrote the King in, btw, because I would like to let the Head of State participate in discussions rather than just vetoing whatever he doesn't like at the end of the process.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 11, 2018 14:02:00 GMT -6
Well, the the organic law reform committee was actually a pretty significant success, hammering out and passing two sweeping sets of changes that reorganized entire articles. That is still my preferred approach, as you know, because I think it just works much better. After all, the new commission you're sitting up is now going to be considering something like four or five proposed new constitutions, many of them very different. Without focusing on specific areas of contention, it becomes much more of a political battle than a focus on the merits of each individual bit. But I am willing to give it a shot in good faith.
Much of my discomfort with the process would be assuaged if we did not frame this as a replacement, though, but rather a series of amendments to the organic law, even if they were all packaged together. That way, we would still be maintaining The inbroken legal supremacy of the organic law, even if it was significantly changed and even if we did drastic stuff like removing the Covenants from it. are you open to that compromise? Consider wholesale change to the entire document like you want, rather than focused progression through the articles like I would prefer, but with the proviso that we were still amending the original organic law rather than annihilating it and replacing it?
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Oct 11, 2018 14:22:36 GMT -6
My own proposal aside, the Covenants (revised or status quo) can be kept/incorporated. They are the bedrock of Talossan society, and of course, the Cosâ, monarchy (fixed-term elective, please?), Clark, SoS, language, etc. will be (continue to) be enshrined.
At the risk of sidelining my party, I think AD is correct: four months is too short a time to write a new supreme document for Talossa. However, putting the end of the 53rd Cosâ, should such a move have conservative support, is a good thing to do, conservative support or not. The coalition will have to get through an election to make that deadline happen, but I believe the majority of Talossans see the absolute train-wreck the 1997 OrgLaw regarding its dearth of early version-preservation and the loss of its judicial record through February 2003 (start of Witt X).
I also believe the majority of Talossans will see the chaos of having to amend the Org Law in such minute detail with each and every election, it seems, and I believe they have had enough of that.
Besides, a new constitution would be in the grand tradition of such things coming about when Talossa has gone through great change. The 1985 Organic Law was the Kingdom's response to democratization. The 1988 Constitution remedied the issues with the 85OrgLaw. The 1997 Organic Law was a response to the dawn of the Cybercit Era, and the 20xx Constitution will be the response to 2003-2004, the National Schism, and Reunision.
Each of these documents was also a response to issues found with previous documents, without which we cannot justify the bother of writing a new constitution now.
Yes, the 1997 Organic Law is a direct link to Old Talossa. But found within it are the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms which, even without my many proposed revisions, still keep the Kingdom intact. They can and must be our constitutional and historical continuity (while throwing out the clunkiness and beat-up-old Pinto lying in the front yard), linking us back to Ben, JJ, Eif, and Old-Growth Talossa from which we as a nation spring.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 11, 2018 14:43:05 GMT -6
So again, even if you think a major revamp is necessary -- I don't, since so far no one has identified any specific and real problems that can't be fixed -- but even if you think that, I'm not completely buying the argument that we must jettison the OrgLaw just because it's been around a while or because we don't want to amend it so much. I promise you, any new constitution will get amended about as often if it contains a similar amount of useful law, because a ton of people enjoy making new rules or leaving their own stamp on things. Your constitution says the Scribe records laws? Well, someone is going to want to tweak that job so that he can correct typos, like in a bill from last term. Or they want to undo that because it's undemocratic. Or whatever.
We are just flattering ourselves if we think we can create a document that has useful guidelines about important things that people won't want to change regularly.
I am not sure what the terrible flaws of our twenty-year-old OrgLaw might be, but whatever they are, let's fix them... even if it means drastic change to even the whole thing. I don't think that's a great approach and I think it's likely to get bogged down in a hellish array of a thousand details, but I'm game to try.
To also say that the idea of this OrgLaw must be destroyed... it makes me so sad to think of it and what we'd lose. We'd be governed by last Tuesday's constitution.
I want to come halfway, but please compromise with me so we can get something done.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 11, 2018 14:51:27 GMT -6
|
|
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 11, 2018 18:36:05 GMT -6
After all, the new commission you're sitting up is now going to be considering something like four or five proposed new constitutions, many of them very different. No it's not. The basis for discussion will be the 2019 OrgLaw draft, originally written by the Distáin, with such amendments to it as the Seneschál approves before the convention opens. The business of the convention will be to consider amendments to that draft, to be taken in before it is Clarked before the Ziu. Stop bafflegabbing. You want to keep the current OrgLaw, fine. Propose all the amendments to it you like in the Ziu under regular order. Meanwhile those who DO want a whole new OrgLaw will work on that. And when the Convention is done, there will be an up-or-down vote; 1997 OrgLaw as amended or 2019 OrgLaw, and you'll only need 67 Cosa votes to make the nasty new OrgLaw go away.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 11, 2018 19:28:15 GMT -6
Oh, weird. Ok, I see it in the draft now. I had assumed we would be looking at all of the various possibilities -- things like GV's proposal or Flip's. I do see where it is specified that only the preordained one will be the basis for changes and revisions. Maybe we can at least ask them to contribute the things they thought made their versions superior?
|
|