|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 1, 2018 19:49:07 GMT -6
It is entirely up to the Seneschal, not Dien. If the Seneschal says he will respect this approach, then that's the end of it (unless he changes his mind, which he could do at any time). If the Seneschal says he will respect whatever approach Dien decides, ibidem.
The current draft of this MRPT/FDT bill is just like any other bill: the sponsor can accept or reject edits at their pleasure. I would assume he will want to say (at least for now) that he will make decisions to do so based on the previously-mentioned voting schema, although he does indeed have to decide whether such votes are weighted by representation.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 1, 2018 20:09:56 GMT -6
Despite the King's muddying the waters, I always envisaged that votes on amendments in "Pseudo-Clarks" would operate on a "one person one vote" scheme. Can Dien confirm that that will be the case? Yes, that's how I understood the author of the bill's intent, with each MC and Senator receiving one vote, along with the King. While the bill was vetoed, if this is how the Seneschal wishes to further proceed, then we're good to go.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 1, 2018 20:13:27 GMT -6
But not members of the body politic or the judiciary? It is unusual to require that all people who decide the shape of a constitution must be elected members of the legislature, and to bar everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 4, 2018 8:02:48 GMT -6
Were any ennumerated powers changed? No This appears to be inaccurate. The current OrgLaw provides that the Ziu's power over heraldry may be excepted for traditional heraldry practices, but this version deleted that provision.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 4, 2018 8:10:41 GMT -6
What the heck? I just looked at a few more provisions. As I recall, the plan was that this was a rewrite and reorganization of the current system. But with only looking in a few spots, that doesn't seem to be so.
The MRPT/FDT draft almost entirely eliminates provincial power, saying that the only power that provinces have are those explicitly reserved to them or that are not covered by national law. I can barely find any provincial powers in the draft, unless they are some other random place. This is a huge and dramatic change in the fundamental rules by which our nation is governed!
We have been through this before: I asked that we be told what changes were being made to how our country would work, and we were given a list. This is one of the biggest changes possible and yet no one has mentioned it anywhere that I can find.
Another big change is that now literally any power ascribed to the monarch is subjected to an undefined time limit called "a reasonable period of time," and that barely seems to matter because it looks like the monarch has been stripped of most of his role. Virtually all of his current powers are removed... were we told that was part of the plan?
Didn't we have a referendum on this very recently, and didn't the Talossan people affirm by a supermajority that they do not want a powerless figurehead?!
What is going on here, people? I would like an explanation for these hidden changes.
Maybe it was a mistake and unintentional (hard to believe, since the language was deliberately altered from the OrgLaw version)? Maybe it was an oversight (how many other huge changes have been overlooked, then)? I doubt it was malice.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 4, 2018 8:24:03 GMT -6
There's more, but since I'm mostly talking to myself, what's even the point?
|
|
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 Dec 4, 2018 15:04:11 GMT -6
The MRPT/FDT draft almost entirely eliminates provincial power, saying that the only power that provinces have are those explicitly reserved to them or that are not covered by national law. I can barely find any provincial powers in the draft, unless they are some other random place. This is a huge and dramatic change in the fundamental rules by which our nation is governed! One interesting point that hasn't been covered yet is that V based the Current Draft on the Australian constitution... which was also a major influence on the 1997 OrgLaw, through Evan G. In the Australian constitution, there are powers reserved to the federal government; powers reserved to the states; and concurrent powers, where federal law trumps state law. In Canada, in contrast, I think all powers are with the federal government except where explicitly reserved to the provinces. I am personally in favour of the Australian situation.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 4, 2018 17:20:37 GMT -6
This appears to be inaccurate. The current OrgLaw provides that the Ziu's power over heraldry may be excepted for traditional heraldry practices, but this version deleted that provision. My apologies for this oversight. I can add it back if you would like.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 4, 2018 17:21:15 GMT -6
The MRPT/FDT draft almost entirely eliminates provincial power, saying that the only power that provinces have are those explicitly reserved to them or that are not covered by national law. I can barely find any provincial powers in the draft, unless they are some other random place. This is a huge and dramatic change in the fundamental rules by which our nation is governed! What?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 4, 2018 17:23:24 GMT -6
Another big change is that now literally any power ascribed to the monarch is subjected to an undefined time limit called "a reasonable period of time," and that barely seems to matter because it looks like the monarch has been stripped of most of his role. Virtually all of his current powers are removed... were we told that was part of the plan? Didn't we have a referendum on this very recently, and didn't the Talossan people affirm by a supermajority that they do not want a powerless figurehead?! We have talked about making this change before, especially when the King's failure to act set the election schedule back a whole month. It really doesn't take any royal power away, because it just ensures that everything the King is already supposed to do actually gets done. It certainly doesn't reduce him to a figurehead.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 4, 2018 18:09:20 GMT -6
The MRPT/FDT draft almost entirely eliminates provincial power, saying that the only power that provinces have are those explicitly reserved to them or that are not covered by national law. I can barely find any provincial powers in the draft, unless they are some other random place. This is a huge and dramatic change in the fundamental rules by which our nation is governed! What? What? But later in the same document: "No act of the Ziu or the national Corts, or of any Ministry, shall contravene those powers explicitly reserved for the Provinces." Oh, I see. It's a blatant and almost comically direct contradiction! Just another mistake from the drafting process. Glad we caught it and that it was just a mistake. This is part of the problem with so much redundancy -- when it's imperfect, it results in contradictions that sometimes mean nearly the opposite!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 4, 2018 18:15:03 GMT -6
Another big change is that now literally any power ascribed to the monarch is subjected to an undefined time limit called "a reasonable period of time," and that barely seems to matter because it looks like the monarch has been stripped of most of his role. Virtually all of his current powers are removed... were we told that was part of the plan? Didn't we have a referendum on this very recently, and didn't the Talossan people affirm by a supermajority that they do not want a powerless figurehead?! We have talked about making this change before, especially when the King's failure to act set the election schedule back a whole month. It really doesn't take any royal power away, because it just ensures that everything the King is already supposed to do actually gets done. It certainly doesn't reduce him to a figurehead. Where in the new draft is the monarch's ability to dissolve the Ziu? Did I just miss it? Where is his ability to confer decorations and awards? Titles? Holidays? Is it rephrased somewhere? And I'm not being sarcastic, I'm honestly asking: did I just miss this stuff moved elsewhere? I mean, when I look at Chapter II, I see zero royal powers. I only find the veto power elsewhere in the document. I guess this wouldn't have quite a figurehead king, but after the whole kerfuffle over hidden changes, it was an unpleasant surprise to find literally all but one of the king's powers stripped without notice. Could someone, anyone, please make a list of other changes like this?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 4, 2018 18:19:08 GMT -6
The MRPT/FDT draft almost entirely eliminates provincial power, saying that the only power that provinces have are those explicitly reserved to them or that are not covered by national law. I can barely find any provincial powers in the draft, unless they are some other random place. This is a huge and dramatic change in the fundamental rules by which our nation is governed! One interesting point that hasn't been covered yet is that V based the Current Draft on the Australian constitution... which was also a major influence on the 1997 OrgLaw, through Evan G. In the Australian constitution, there are powers reserved to the federal government; powers reserved to the states; and concurrent powers, where federal law trumps state law. In Canada, in contrast, I think all powers are with the federal government except where explicitly reserved to the provinces. I am personally in favour of the Australian situation. Our system is a weird one, as though it were intended to be a mix of two things that pretty literally can't mix. Either the provinces are sovereign or they are not. It's really weird to have a system where the provinces are not sovereign but all powers are still reserved for them! I kind of love how weird it is.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 9, 2018 11:38:49 GMT -6
What's the deal with this stuff?
"Section 4. Common Law Established and Recognized by the Judiciary Part 1. National Common Law. The Judiciary shall retain the authority to recognize the Common Law of Talossa, composed of Judicial interpretations of the Statutory Law of Talossa as well as the Common Law of other Anglo-American legal systems as the Judiciary shall see fit, separate from its powers of judicial review. Such common law may be retained until such time as the Ziu passes legislation overturning, codifying or clarifying the law.
Part 2. The Rule of Law. The Rule of Law, being understood to mean an independent judiciary to ensure that all individuals and the State are subject to and treated equally under the law, shall be enforced in Talossa."
I don't understand the purpose of the second part at all. At the very least, I have no idea why it's stuck down in sources of law, rather than with the judiciary things as perhaps a single clause. Why does this document restate basic principles over and over in slightly different ways?
But the real problem is the first part. As I understand it, this encourages judicial orders that function as law -- the common law approach used by many countries. This also seems to be a new thing in Talossa... yet another enormous change that we haven't been told about.
This is starting to get ridiculous. Every time I get a spare few minutes and look at a new section of this thing, I see another giant change that has been kept secret. Does the government just not know what it's proposing? Is it hoping no one will notice?
Talossan courts have previously had a few functions: * Interpret the law: "Where there is an exact precedent, a court shall rule according to law. Where there is no exact precedent, a court will make a rule to fit the case, either by reinterpreting an old rule (statutory or otherwise) or by applying what it considers principles of justice, consistent with the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms." * Call for clarification to ambiguities in the law: "In the event that a court discovers unclear or confusing language in the Organic Law or in any law, the court may as part of its written decision call upon the Ziu, or if relevant, the Provincial legislature to revise the law." * Try accused criminals: "The Cort shall try persons for all offences under law, such as a person doing something he should not, or not doing something he should. The Cort shall inflict such punishment as the law provides." * Issue injunctions to compel people to follow the law: "Any judge or justice may issue court orders or injunctions according to the generally accepted principles of Anglo-American law. These injunctions may order a party to perform his legal duty, or may prevent the enforcement of a law which may be Inorganic (unconstitutional)."
The new power given to the Cort in the FDT/MRPT draft would add a new role: Write laws. These laws could be overturned or amended by the Ziu, but in the event that the Cort decided that something needed to be done that the Ziu had not yet acted upon, the Cort would write a new law!
Without yet getting into the merits of such a decision, why is this -- yet again, something we only find out is being proposed now?
This is getting outrageous.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 9, 2018 11:41:12 GMT -6
Not that there's any point to even bringing it up. Maybe the Seneschal will chime in after a while, or Miestra will say that I am being mean for daring to point these things out. These folks demanded a hasty constitutional convention for a document they never bothered to closely examine during a time when they were too busy to attend to it.
|
|