Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 9, 2019 10:53:00 GMT -6
I remark, with a sense of irony, that the argument seems to be that the will of the Florencian people must be accomplished, and therefore that the Florencian people must be required to change the Constitution they adopted for their self-government. Ah, politics. — John R The citizens who saw fit to grant the Constable an absolute veto (which, unless I’m wrong, was several years ago) shouldn’t be able to tie the hands of citizens today, which is exactly what an absolute veto by an unelected official does. It’s hard to say that Florencia is even fully self-governing given the power of this veto.
|
|
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 Aug 13, 2019 9:30:24 GMT -6
But isn't that what Constitutions DO, "to tie the hands of citizens today"? (Also elections, and laws, and appointments ...) Stable countries don't change their Constitutions in a moment, or without quite a bit of difficulty, even if the Constitution was enacted "several years ago".
— John R
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 13, 2019 12:53:21 GMT -6
But isn't that what Constitutions DO, "to tie the hands of citizens today"? (Also elections, and laws, and appointments ...) Stable countries don't change their Constitutions in a moment, or without quite a bit of difficulty, even if the Constitution was enacted "several years ago". — John R All other democratic Constitutions can be amended by elected officials. This one cannot.
|
|
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 Aug 13, 2019 16:28:53 GMT -6
]All other democratic Constitutions can be amended by elected officials. This one cannot. Effectively it would make Florencia a "royal demesne" which can't be meddled with without Royal permission. Kind of like Vuode was under KR1, but at least KR1 actually lived in Vuode.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Aug 14, 2019 11:08:44 GMT -6
But isn't that what Constitutions DO, "to tie the hands of citizens today"? (Also elections, and laws, and appointments ...) Stable countries don't change their Constitutions in a moment, or without quite a bit of difficulty, even if the Constitution was enacted "several years ago". — John R Well, no: that is not what they do. A Constitution is only a body of laws, but it is a body of laws that (by agreement) are slow, but not impossible, to change. A Constitution is a base set - firm, but not immovable. If a constitution cannot be changed, and the people wish it to be changed, then (as history has shown in many countries) there is a revolution of some sort. The citizens' hands are not tied - must never in democracy be tied - but are slowed down when changing these base laws. Tied hands means oppression from the past. We must learn from the past, but we must not be limited by it to the detriment of freedom. ...and some very stable countries do not even have a constitution - the United Kingdom, for example. ...and the Constitution of the USA has been amended twenty-seven times.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Aug 14, 2019 12:09:36 GMT -6
But isn't that what Constitutions DO, "to tie the hands of citizens today"? (Also elections, and laws, and appointments ...) Stable countries don't change their Constitutions in a moment, or without quite a bit of difficulty, even if the Constitution was enacted "several years ago". — John R Well, no: that is not what they do. A Constitution is only a body of laws, but it is a body of laws that (by agreement) are slow, but not impossible, to change. A Constitution is a base set - firm, but not immovable. If a constitution cannot be changed, and the people wish it to be changed, then (as history has shown in many countries) there is a revolution of some sort. The citizens' hands are not tied - must never in democracy be tied - but are slowed down when changing these base laws. Tied hands means oppression from the past. We must learn from the past, but we must not be limited by it to the detriment of freedom. ...and some very stable countries do not even have a constitution - the United Kingdom, for example. ...and the Constitution of the USA has been amended twenty-seven times. To piggy back off of this point, the amount of amendments to the US Constitution tend to occur in groups, with periods of no amendments. Amendments 01-12: 1791-1804 Amendments 13-15: 1865-1870 Amendments 16-21: 1913-1933 Amendments 22-26: 1951-1971 (with at least one amendment per decade) Amendment 27: 1992 Further, while amendments themselves require a lot of steam and politics, the submitted to ratified period is anywhere from 100 days to just shy of 4 years, with the average being 1.5 years. The outlier, of course, is the 27th Amendment, which was submitted on September 25, 1789 and ratified on May 5, 1992 (202 years, 223 days). In the US context, amendments are not usually something that happens overnight, but the point at which they are submitted and ratified is a lot quicker than people would expect. Further, most of the amendments respond to issues the US faced that the wording of the constitution did not then address. Also I point out, the 26th Amendment only took 100 days to be ratified. All of this to say--a constitution should not be tinkered with constantly. It should be functional and adapt to the changing needs of society while setting the basic parameters for the State to govern. It should be interpreted based on the living tree doctrine so it can evolve with society. Changing it should only be done to remedy a deficiency, clarify an issue, protect further rights, or update it when the text cannot address an issue impacting society. And sometimes, we realize the constitution won't work even if amended (see e.g. the articles of confederation), and we need an entirely new constitution. It should not be easy, but it should also not go at a snail's pace simply because one person disagrees. In the current context, the issue has been before the Nimlet twice. The second time, passing overwhelmingly. The people should now be asked whether they wish to maintain their current constitution or adopt a new one in a merged province. This is a slow process that has been debated and even litigated. This is not a constitution that is being changed in a moment and without much difficulty (John saw fit to the latter point). Finally, constitutions are not meant to "tie the hands of the citizens." That's textualist nonsense. Constitutions create the system for the State to functions, and sets limits on what the State can and cannot do. They should always be interpreted as expansive of the people's rights, not to bind them to the moralities of yesteryear.
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Aug 15, 2019 20:31:52 GMT -6
I remark, with a sense of irony, that the argument seems to be that the will of the Florencian people must be accomplished, and therefore that the Florencian people must be required to change the Constitution they adopted for their self-government. Ah, politics. — John R And what is wrong with that?
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Aug 15, 2019 20:38:39 GMT -6
But isn't that what Constitutions DO, "to tie the hands of citizens today"? (Also elections, and laws, and appointments ...) Stable countries don't change their Constitutions in a moment, or without quite a bit of difficulty, even if the Constitution was enacted "several years ago". — John R Well, no: that is not what they do. A Constitution is only a body of laws, but it is a body of laws that (by agreement) are slow, but not impossible, to change. A Constitution is a base set - firm, but not immovable. If a constitution cannot be changed, and the people wish it to be changed, then (as history has shown in many countries) there is a revolution of some sort. The citizens' hands are not tied - must never in democracy be tied - but are slowed down when changing these base laws. Tied hands means oppression from the past. We must learn from the past, but we must not be limited by it to the detriment of freedom. ...and some very stable countries do not even have a constitution - the United Kingdom, for example. ...and the Constitution of the USA has been amended twenty-seven times. And only twenty-seven times, unlike the constitutions of the American states of Alabama and Texas (California as well?)
|
|
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 Aug 15, 2019 20:45:15 GMT -6
And only twenty-seven times, unlike the constitutions of the American states of Alabama and Texas (California as well?) The constitution of the Republic of India has been amended 103 times in just over 70 years.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Aug 16, 2019 8:04:28 GMT -6
And only twenty-seven times, unlike the constitutions of the American states of Alabama and Texas (California as well?) The constitution of the Republic of India has been amended 103 times in just over 70 years. The Indian Constitution is the longest written Constitution in the World. At the time of its formation, the idea of the Constituent Assembly was to incorporate the better provisions of other countries and thereby avoid the loopholes and the complexities faced by others. Another reason that added bulk to it was due to the fact that the states did not have separate Constitutions. However 'Law' is a dynamic concept and so requires change from time to time. Since many laws which were not to be amended by a simple majority was incorporated in the Constitution, they were changed from time to time in consonance with the will of the people. Certain provisions have also been amended time and again as they were temporary in nature. The US Constitution on the other hand is short and crisp with other laws flowing from it. I believe this factor has restricted it from being amended frequently and rendered it concrete.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Aug 16, 2019 8:08:32 GMT -6
A better idea might be an amendment limiting the power of Constables. It is absurd that a Constable’s veto in Florencia cannot be overridden. I wonder whether any of you have noticed the other provision in the current Florencian constitution: Did you see there, where it comes to constitutional amendments, the Senator for Florencia also gets a binding and non-negotiable veto, as well as the Constable. The whole thing is massively undemocratic. However, I'm a little worried about opening the doors to national legislation on provincial constitutions. I point out that the King has muttered to me that he thinks the Merger constitution "may be inorganic" - which is of course Johnspeak for "I don't like it" - which means he thinks that the Fiovan constitution is inorganic (since they are 90% identical). The whole point of the F-F merger process has been to let the people speak in referendum, i.e. to encourage provincial democracy and autonomy, rather than to legislatively proclaim what they can and can't do. Personally, I want Constables abolished. Either they nod through what the elected officials say - in which case they're a waste of time - or they veto it - in which case they're undemocratic. They're a post-2005 innovation which didn't exist when I first became a Talossan - with one exception immortalised in a song, as follows: "The Appointee does with it what he wants, / Against good and against traditions." Rightly pointed out by the Seneschal. Since there were 5 PER votes (including 1 extra of Maximo the Governor), and 3 CONTRA votes (including 1 of the Senator), the Merger Resolution cannot be said to have been passed.
|
|
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 Aug 16, 2019 14:39:51 GMT -6
. Since there were 5 PER votes (including 1 extra of Maximo the Governor), and 3 CONTRA votes (including 1 of the Senator), the Merger Resolution cannot be said to have been passed. Wrong - this is not a constitutional amendment, the Senator's veto does not apply.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Aug 17, 2019 0:58:30 GMT -6
But by bringing in the resolution, you are amending the existing Constitution in totality. So how is it not a Constitutional amendment?
|
|
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 Aug 17, 2019 3:47:08 GMT -6
But by bringing in the resolution, you are amending the existing Constitution in totality. So how is it not a Constitutional amendment? Don't ask me, ask the Uppermost Cort, who said that the resolution only had to go through the forms of ordinary legislation, not of a constitutional amendment. If the Cort had ruled that the amendment process were necessary, I wouldn't have bothered because I know what the Senator from Florencia thinks about me, and everything I do.
|
|
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 Aug 19, 2019 15:17:58 GMT -6
Actually, the Cort didn't rule on that point, because nobody was contesting it. If I had to guess, though, I'd predict the Cort would rule that the merger wouldn't *amend* the Constitution of Florencia but rather simply create a new Province with its own Constitution.
— John R
|
|