With respect: January Senate Votes

[Olaf]

Gentlemen of the Senate. I rise to cast my votes in, uh, this Clark.

36RZ13: Per.

36RZ14: Per.

36RZ15: Astaneu.

36RZ16: Astaneu.

Thank you.

[King John]

My Lord President, My Lord Duke, My Lord, Gentlemen —

I beg the Senäts' indulgence to allow me to address a few words to the measures on the January Clark.

First, the Murder of Crows Act. Senators, it is no exaggeration to state simply and openly my conviction that this legislation is of the *very* highest, the *most vital* importance to our nation. Seldom has any of us been privileged to vote for a measure that will so directly and dramatically increase the security, happiness, and prosperity of the Kingdom. It is a matter of pure providence that Talossa has endured to this late date *without* having officially designated a National Group of Birds, and it would be presumptuous of us — nay, criminal of us! — to allow our beloved Kingdom to continue any longer under such unaccountable negligence. A hearty and thankful Për to 36RZ13.

Now, regarding the Amendment Amendment. I have given a deal of thought to S:dâ Casálmac'h's doubts about this measure, but I must respectfully disagree with her. I support the King's veto power, but I also support there being a limit to that power. If the King feels strongly about a proposed Amendment — strongly enough that he would veto it if he could —, he can certainly make his feelings and opinions known before the proposal passes the Ziu, and even more before it is finally approved in a referendum. If in spite of the King's arguing against it, the measure were to pass with 2/3 of this august body favouring it, 2/3 of the Cosâ favouring it, and (after some time for further considertaion) a majority of the populace favouring it, we have to ask ourselves — is this a measure that *should* be blocked? Or — another way of asking the same question — is there ever likely to be a situation in Talossa where the nation *should* be able to amend the Organic Law over the objection of the King? If so, the King must *not* have an absolute veto over amendments. I vote Për.

The Living Cosâ Reform Amendment, it seems to me, gives us a chance to revive this very Talossan institution, without riding roughshod over the ever-increasing portion of our population that is *not* resident in or near the Kingdom itself. Për.

And finally, Lord Lauriéir's "I Knew KRI ..." Amendment is a matter of simple accuracy. The Kingdom owes its existence to nobody else but Robert I. Should Talossa and her empire endure a thousand years — which I fervently hope will be the case —, still Robert Ben Madison will be the one whose unique combination of genius, quirky humour, and persistence got the whole thing off the ground. Për on 36RZ16.

My thanks for the Senäts' patience. I yield the floor.

— John Woolley, UrN, Senator from Florenciâ

[Olaf]

Dear Talossa,

What follows are my thoughts. It's rather late. Lateness, as most realize, results in disjointing and things. So all this lettery stuff might not make any sense. For the really important bit you can skip to the bold stuff at the end.

As can be seen, I have already cast my votes as Senator of Maricopa. Mostly, my decisions remain the same. On one issue before us this month, however, I have been given reason to pause, consider, and perhaps recast my vote. That issue is The Amendment Amendment (Amendment), 36RZ14.

The Cap'n Casalmac'h (Spelled right? Yay? Nay?) stated some opinions. I have known the Cap'n since she was less than a ship's boy, if she could ever have been. Let's call it ship's lass. I've always respected her knowledge and attention to detail and thoughtfulness. Not many people run around boasting of an A level understanding of American history, AND a pirating comission before they're twenty-one. She can't even have rum yet, and already terrorizing at least two seas. However, I have an argument. The Cap asked the hypothetical question: "The Presidents of America have never abused their power of veto. Why should the King of Talossa?" My argument is simply one of time. A king is a life sentence--er--calling. Presidents live in the politicol poobah fast lane, as it were. The way I understand it, we have presidents for only a little while so they don't go getting ideas and abusing the power we want them to wield, at least in part that is why. A king, or queen, having their power for the little bit of forever that they can call their own, could possibly make a right nuisance of his or her self.

I firmly believe in the idea that a good king without any power in politics would still be very capable of influencing every single thing about our big and little country, for better or worse. When a king talks, people listen. When a king says "Ach, well that idea is bad," then people pause and consider and say "is 't so?"

On the flip side, we have many checks and balances. On the same flip side, we have other positions of power that don't last for life. On a very similar flip side, there are almost zillions more of us than there would be a king. On the flip side close to indistinguishable from the first or second flip sides, a king that's gone loopy could be distracted, if we had enough tinker toys.

What it all boils down to is the future. I know, I'm a RUMPer, and the future is clipper territory. I know that I proved at some point--scientifically and beyond a shadow of a doubt ;D--either that the present was much better than the future or that the future did not, in fact, exist. But some day this present will be a different present that we'll all have to live in. And in that present after this one (damn if this isn't complicated. I know. I'll make up terms for this present, and the next present. Now and the future, those will do.) In the future, someone may look at our king, without any power political, and wonder why the king person prominently and proudly panders the pillow of poobah at all. Why do we need, says this hypothetical future troublemaker, to have this funny man and buy him expensive, large hats?

The way I see it, removing the king a step further from politics gets him one step closer to being downsized.

You don't vote for a king, says King Arthur, except obviously under very special circumstances. But a king should never be allowed to be downsized.

Therefore--my sources assure me this is legal--would the Secretary of State please amend my official Senate of Maricopa vote on 36RZ14, The Amendment Amendment (Amendment) to this: Contra.

Thank you.

Back to the shrew race.

Olaf Brainerd