Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 23, 2019 9:29:44 GMT -6
Attention citizens of Fiôvâ and Florencia, as authorised by the Seneschal here a referendum will soon be held on the proposed merger of the province of Florencia and Fiôvâ into a single province to be called Iarneria and the adoption of the proposed constitution, which can be found here. Few legal requirements exists with regards to midterm referenda as far as I know, nor do rules need to be approved by the electoral commission, which leaves a lot of discretion to the chancery. In this thread I will try to update you as good as I can about the procedure and rules of the upcoming referendum as they are now. This is all dependent on the great work that is being done by our brilliant database admin, Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.When does the referendum take place?Voting will start on the 1st of August and end on the 15th of August, 19:30 TST (UTC -5) What will be the question of the referendum?'Do you support the union of Florencia and Fiova into a single province, under the following constitution (http://www.talossa.ca/iarneria.php) which has been approved by both Provincial legislatures?' Who will be eligible to vote?All citizens of Florencia and Fiôvâ who are eligible to vote in General Elections will receive a ballot and will be able to vote. How do I vote?There are five ways to vote: 1 ) You can reply to their Ballot email with your vote, provided the PSC code is in the email. Those votes will be entered manually into the Database system. 2 ) You can write a different email (to talossachancery@gmail.com), provided the PSC code is in it. Those votes will be entered manually into the Database system. 3 ) You can vote using the online form: www.talossa.ca/files/vote.php using only your citizen number (available online and in the email) and the PSC code from the email. Those votes will be entered automatically into the Database system. 4 ) You can also vote in this thread. If you have received your vote code (PSC), you should cast your vote in that thread WITH your code. If you have NOT received a code (perhaps we didn't have your email), announce so and vote anyway. The SoS office will attempt to validate your vote. 5 ) You can print the ballot located here at www.talossa.ca/files/votebymail.php and mail it to the address located at the bottom of the ballot. Keep in mind that votes need to arrive before the election deadline to be valid and voting by mail might take long, especially from a location outside western Europe. Will there be an electoral commission?There is no legal requirement for this. However, I will contact the members of the Electoral Commission for the 53rd Cosa election. The way I understand it the database is set up in such a way that they will be able to access the same data as during normal elections and should thus be able to check the results if they so choose. Glüc da Dhi, Secretary of State
|
|
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 Jul 25, 2019 11:58:54 GMT -6
I would draw your attention to my Petition for an Emergency Injunction to block this referendum, pending Florencia's actually approving the proposed Constitution.
— John R
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 25, 2019 21:30:16 GMT -6
King John Completely inappropriate. You filed a petition. The Attorney General defends the Chancery and the Government. The Cort has yet to intervene. The Chancery need only draw its attention when required. And the mere allegations that Florencia has not approved the Constitution is insufficient. The Chancery needn't stop the referendum until such time as the Cort tells it to. You don't get to assert your interpretation as binding. You. Are. Not. The. Law. You. Are. Not. Above. The. Law.
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Jul 26, 2019 2:21:58 GMT -6
I would draw your attention to my Petition for an Emergency Injunction to block this referendum, pending Florencia's actually approving the proposed Constitution. — John R As I've asked you elsewhere, you, the chief watchdog of legalese in the country and a citizen of Florenciâ are only now bringing this up?
|
|
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 Jul 26, 2019 9:38:35 GMT -6
Estimat Gödafrieu —
La Seneschal only announced the Government's plans for a referendum on July 23 [CORRECTION: it was July 21], along with the assertion that Florencia had approved the merger. I filed this petition on July 25. Exactly how promptly, pray, do you *think* I should have responded?
Estimat Xheneral —
Of course I'm not above the law, and of course I don't "get to assert my interpretation as binding". I don't expect the Chancery to stop the referendum, unless the Government tells it to — which would be a wise thing to do, but certainly doesn't strike me as probable. I posted that one-sentence comment here, so that anyone interested would see that there's something germane going on in other threads. What could you *possibly* have thought I was saying, that drew your rebuke? I filed a petition, the object of which was to obtain an injunction. That's all I did; that's all I said I did. Get a grip.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 26, 2019 9:55:05 GMT -6
John - you replied to the Chancery to draw *its* attention to the petition. Something you already did here. You did not need to post a direct response to the Chancery. Your response, immediately under, and in reply to, the initial and only post from the Chancery, to "draw your attention to my Petition . . . pending Florencia's actually approving the proposed Constitution" (emphasis supplied) suggests that you were directing the Chancery to preemptively take action based merely on your allegation that Florenica has not approved the proposed constitution. You were not merely, as you now assert, commenting "so that anyone interested would see that there's something germane going on in other threads." If that were the case, you would not have sought to draw the Chancery's attention, but commented, "For those interested, please note that I have requested that the Cort enjoin the referendum based on my petition." Instead, you included your allegation, asserting such as true and binding, to ostensibly get the Chancery to act without a mandate from the Government or the Cort. That's palpably improper. Notwithstanding your claims to the contrary, this again bears repeating: You. Are. Not. The. Law. You. Are. Not. Above. The. Law. -V
|
|
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 Jul 26, 2019 10:23:28 GMT -6
Oh, come off it. If I had meant to instruct the Chancery, I would have instructed the Chancery. I *am* capable of pretty clear writing. If I want to instruct someone to do something, I don't "suggest" it, I instruct. If I want to request something, I request it. If I simply want someone to notice something, I use a phrase like "I draw your attention" or (as you suggest) "For those interested, please note".
Your whole "the King thinks he's above the law" schtick is getting pretty old.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 26, 2019 10:30:37 GMT -6
Your response is trite. Your reign and abuse of position is stale. Your nonsense is transparent.
Stop treating Talossa like a game of Diplomacy; quit taking extended absences and swooping in to prevent progress without any notice; cease acting as if you are the final arbiter of the law; and start respecting the Rule of Law. When you actually start acting like the Monarch you were circa 2008, maybe then I will "come off it." But until then, YOU. ARE. NOT. ABOVE. THE. LAW.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 26, 2019 10:36:31 GMT -6
"I think this is probably illegal, and we should probably follow the law."
"What?! You want all Talossans to die in a ditch all covered with scorpions?! That's the only possible interpretation of your actions. How dare you! YOU. SHALL. NOT. SCORPION. US."
|
|
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 Jul 26, 2019 10:44:26 GMT -6
C'est rire. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Jul 26, 2019 10:56:11 GMT -6
Estimat Gödafrieu — La Seneschal only announced the Government's plans for a referendum on July 23, along with the assertion that Florencia had approved the merger. I filed this petition on July 25. Exactly how promptly, pray, do you *think* I should have responded? Estimat Xheneral — Of course I'm not above the law, and of course I don't "get to assert my interpretation as binding". I don't expect the Chancery to stop the referendum, unless the Government tells it to — which would be a wise thing to do, but certainly doesn't strike me as probable. I posted that one-sentence comment here, so that anyone interested would see that there's something germane going on in other threads. What could you *possibly* have thought I was saying, that drew your rebuke? I filed a petition, the object of which was to obtain an injunction. That's all I did; that's all I said I did. Get a grip. You could have privately or publicly messaged relevant parties in your province about the 't's not yet crossed instead of pursuing legal stoppage of this. Have you done this, already, without my knowing? The unfortunate timing of all of this in a public vein fits in, unfortunately, with a narrative on 'my side' you are deliberately trying to keep Talossa, in every way, exactly as it was in 2007-2011. Hence, all or most of the vetoes we've seen as of late and the veto that precipitated the 'Proclamation Crisis'... I have ragged on you in the past for not perusing and informing the Hopper of your concerns in advance of bills being sent up to the Ziu and passed, which would have forestalled all or most of the vetoes you have handed down in the last year or two. Once again, the country does not hear from you until you have a Trident missle at the ready and have launched it. Our expectation (or at least mine) is you as Monarch using your veto-power only in the most dire of circumstances (violation of Covenants, etc.) and using that power as little as possible, doing everything you can in advance of passage of said errant bills to call people out on things that well and truly need to be changed. Annotations in assents saying, "This needs to be sorted out in the Corts" would more than suffice. In the way you handle bills put together by the legislature, I and most everyone else in Talossa expect you to act as Queen Elizabeth II of England does in her country. No, Talossa is not Britain, but as you seem rightly enamoured of the political and governmental example she continues to set for her people, I think it is safe to say most of us in Talossa would think you would follow that example as much as humanly-possible, using legal means only as a last resort. Do your job, sir. Advise. Warn. Speak out. In advance. Because at the moment, veto by veto, you are slowly eroding the confidence of the Talossan people in the very way in which you have always desired to do Talossa: wearing a crown.
|
|
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 Jul 26, 2019 15:17:45 GMT -6
La Seneschal only announced the Government's plans for a referendum on July 23 [CORRECTION: it was July 21], along with the assertion that Florencia had approved the merger. I filed this petition on July 25. Exactly how promptly, pray, do you *think* I should have responded? You SHOULD have responded - as a citizen of Florencia - on May 23 of this year, when Spencer Kerfoot submitted his resolution to the Nimlet, which you now (in retrospect, after it validly passed) was worded badly enough to invalidate its meaning. But you didn't. An important part of your pleading against the merger process reads: Since the "Constitution is silent", by your own standard of following the letter of the law: Cxhn. Kerfoot did absolutely NOTHING WRONG in process (leaving aside the question of wording). Your complaint is about nothing but the fact that you didn't notice it, or didn't notice anything wrong with it. You are appealing here on no legal principle apart from a vague feeling that "it would be irrational" - which really flies in the face of the rest of your complaint, that the letter of the law was insufficiently followed. I should point out that I read Wittenberg using the "latest 59" feature, meaning I see every new post on every forum. I think the King should be expected to be at least as vigilant. The legal question of "was the resolution passed validly?" will be answered by the Cort, if it decides to hear this case. The political question of "is it right for the King to be active in Talossa only in vetoing or otherwise attempting to stop other people's activity" is a wider one.
|
|
Iac Marscheir
Citizen of Talossa
yak marsh air
Posts: 782
Talossan Since: 12-3-2016
Baron Since: Qet Miestra tent zirada.
|
Post by Iac Marscheir on Jul 26, 2019 15:39:14 GMT -6
Non säpeveu þonestmint qe si povadra úçarh Wittenberg sanc l'útzil d'aceasta featüra, schi si voladra remáinarh inovescu profta dels afaes Talossaes.
(I was, frankly, unaware that one could use Wittenberg without using that feature if one wanted to stay updated about Talossan affairs.)
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jul 26, 2019 16:19:46 GMT -6
You. Are. Not. The. Law. You. Are. Not. Above. The. Law. You. Are. Not. The. Law. You. Are. Not. Above. The. Law. YOU. ARE. NOT. ABOVE. THE. LAW. These wildly overblown pronouncements, I think, distract from the real problem. It is not that the King believes he is the law or that he is above the law. Instead, he uses the law, and the ambiguities therein, to achieve his ends with little regard to practical realities. Two prominent examples: - The few people who were active at the time of the merger vote in Florencia did the best they could with the low amount of activity available. While it's possible that they failed to follow the exact letter of the law, it is doubtful the outcome would have been any different if they had done everything the King now accuses them of not doing. For the King to appear with a procedural challenge now, when he had ample opportunity to bring it up before, is of course legal. However, it certainly conveys his lack of interest in being helpful, and lack of interest in anything up until the very last possible moment. Perhaps the King has a point and the referendum should be halted; I don't know. But what I do know is that, going forward, we need to have legal policies that are not only flexible enough to accommodate varying levels of activity, but also robust enough that there is a process that can be followed and that can be referenced in case of challenge. Otherwise, we will be perpetually be victim to claims that not enough other citizens had a say in the matter, even though these other citizens are never available to comment. I should be clear; I don't have a problem with inactive citizens. I do have a problem with the notion that a citizen can both not be around and also expect to be consulted on all matters. - As has been noted in many other places, the King very rarely says anything about a bill before the day he signs or vetoes them, even when he is explicitly asked. This is his right as King, but clearly not how the country expects him to wield his power. Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h and I disagree about how often it would be appropriate, in theory, for the King to exercise his veto (I would not have a problem with more vetoes as long as the King was engaged in the lawmaking process), but we very much agree that the appropriate number of "ambush vetoes" is zero. I have only the best to say about the King personally, but Talossans should be upset about how he chooses to exercise his power. We vest the King with such power because we expect him to not only have a vision for Talossa, but to work for it. He hasn't done that in the four years I've been a citizen.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 26, 2019 16:28:43 GMT -6
Feel better, Ian? Although I agree with all other parts of your post, the King's actions, here and elsewhere, continuously point to a single conclusion-he thinks he's above the law.
But alright, I have no issue with you using me as a punching bag so you can make your point against the King.
|
|