|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 13, 2019 19:05:34 GMT -6
Gonna be honest here and say that I have never listened to a Kate Bush song. Going to go listen to Nine Million Bicycles now.
|
|
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 Feb 13, 2019 19:16:16 GMT -6
My favourite Kate Bush song is Nine Million Bicycles. Slightly better effort, well done. (Why anyone would move to Belfast escapes me.)
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 13, 2019 19:20:51 GMT -6
That song was okay. Pretty, pleasant, and nice. But I'm surprised since I was imagining something different, somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Feb 13, 2019 20:18:55 GMT -6
These petitions are a joke.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 14, 2019 6:23:34 GMT -6
Then it will be laughed out of court. As I have said, it's possible that I am wrong.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Feb 14, 2019 10:51:24 GMT -6
I believe I severely messed up by releasing this statement after reading about the ongoing discussion before consulting with the database admin and the electoral commission. It was premature. My sincere apologies to everyone involved.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 14, 2019 12:40:52 GMT -6
No worries I'll wait until the Cort asks to reply further in the hearing, but you're very gracious to just be like, "Hey, let's just fix it and deal with this if it happens." This is the ideal solution, as far as I'm concerned -- the database is updated, the info is all collected but secret, and then we just wait and see if we have to make a case out of it at all.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Feb 14, 2019 17:07:09 GMT -6
For what it's worth, I posted several times, over many years, even before I was King, my opinion that an Amendment required the assent of the Crown, either explicitly (by "proclaiming" it) or implicitly (by not objecting to it). I was, and am, pretty sure that King Robert I put that in there so that he could block any Amendment he didn't like. I wasn't the only one reading the OrgLaw that way.
— John R
|
|
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 Feb 14, 2019 19:11:49 GMT -6
For what it's worth, I posted several times, over many years, even before I was King, my opinion that an Amendment required the assent of the Crown, either explicitly (by "proclaiming" it) or implicitly (by not objecting to it). I was, and am, pretty sure that King Robert I put that in there so that he could block any Amendment he didn't like. I wasn't the only one reading the OrgLaw that way. — John R I'm sure that was your sincere opinion, sir. It probably would have behooved you to make that legal opinion more widely known before you "pulled it out of your hat", so to speak. Here again is another parallel to the current situation, where Sir Alexandreu initially wouldn't tell me his novel analysis of OrgLaw XV.5, for purposes of political tactics. This is not good-faith politics. In any case, re: the Proclamation Crisis the CpI found against you; and the issue is moot now.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Feb 15, 2019 15:10:58 GMT -6
I'm sure that was your sincere opinion, sir. It probably would have behooved you to make that legal opinion more widely known before you "pulled it out of your hat", so to speak. Here again is another parallel to the current situation, where Sir Alexandreu initially wouldn't tell me his novel analysis of OrgLaw XV.5, for purposes of political tactics. This is not good-faith politics. In any case, re: the Proclamation Crisis the CpI found against you; and the issue is moot now. What you call "the Proclamation Crisis" was exactly my attempt to "make that legal opinion more widely known". I waited for an entirely non-partisan issue to arise, and refused to proclaim an Amendment that had passed the Ziu unanimously. Honestly, I didn't think anyone could read the OrgLaw provisions in question, and maintain that I didn't have that power; I figured most people hadn't read it carefully, and I'd point it out in a way that couldn't be held to favour one party over another. My object was precisely to publicize the existence of the power, so that if I ever did decide to use it in a politically charged situation, its existence wouldn't take anyone by surprise. Which is to say, I was being careful to act in good faith. — John R
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Feb 15, 2019 21:00:00 GMT -6
I'm sure that was your sincere opinion, sir. It probably would have behooved you to make that legal opinion more widely known before you "pulled it out of your hat", so to speak. Here again is another parallel to the current situation, where Sir Alexandreu initially wouldn't tell me his novel analysis of OrgLaw XV.5, for purposes of political tactics. This is not good-faith politics. In any case, re: the Proclamation Crisis the CpI found against you; and the issue is moot now. What you call "the Proclamation Crisis" was exactly my attempt to "make that legal opinion more widely known". I waited for an entirely non-partisan issue to arise, and refused to proclaim an Amendment that had passed the Ziu unanimously. Honestly, I didn't think anyone could read the OrgLaw provisions in question, and maintain that I didn't have that power; I figured most people hadn't read it carefully, and I'd point it out in a way that couldn't be held to favour one party over another. My object was precisely to publicize the existence of the power, so that if I ever did decide to use it in a politically charged situation, its existence wouldn't take anyone by surprise. Which is to say, I was being careful to act in good faith. — John R Instead of bringing it to the People's attention, you anticipated that you would use it politically so to distract from your partisanship you thought to dilute its impact preemptively in what you deemend a nonpolitically charged situation? That's not good faith; that's being neferious.
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Feb 18, 2019 8:16:56 GMT -6
For what it's worth, I posted several times, over many years, even before I was King, my opinion that an Amendment required the assent of the Crown, either explicitly (by "proclaiming" it) or implicitly (by not objecting to it). I was, and am, pretty sure that King Robert I put that in there so that he could block any Amendment he didn't like. I wasn't the only one reading the OrgLaw that way. — John R Legally, you were within your rights to nix that Cunstuval amendment some years back (I hope I expressed that back then). The reason why we put up such a fuss was it 1. preserved unecessary royal powers 2. It was not objectively bad for the country. & 3. It was our expectation such a veto would only be used in emergency circumstances or when said amendment would disrupt the democratic process. The cultural and other roots of our displeasure are best discussed in private channels and are the absolute heart of Talossan politics going back to August 2005. Again, though, that is a gigantic discussion for another day.
|
|