|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2009 8:02:09 GMT -6
MC Asmourescu, are you suggesting that if a majority of MCs voted against a measure, it would still pass? I don't really understand your meaning. Please clarify. I never said that. But it really is no secret that even if a measure unanimously passes the Cosa, 4 individuals can halt a bill in its tracks, regardless of the will of the people. AD, you really don't need to take everything literally, we're not arguing before a judge.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2009 8:08:23 GMT -6
Not all provinces have the same constitution ... there is no reason for the Zui to interfere with the way a province does something ... IF the province chooses to have a recall done by the assembly then great. If they choose to have it decided by the will of the people then great. Bottom line this is a provincial issue and further reform should come from there. You are mandating something that a province should have a choice on. Honestly, I am now against this bill more than before. I strongly encourage my fellow senators to vote against it and allow our own provinces to introduce further reform... IF it is actually needed. JP...what you are saying does not make sense. A Province cannot initiate a recall at present. Such a constitutional measure at the provincial level would be inorganic and thus unenforceable. So, with one breathe you are saying you support an individual province's right to recall a Senator if their Constitution will allow it, then you vehemently oppose a bill that would permit the provinces to choose for themselves whether a Senator can legally be removed. If you don't want to vote for it, don't, but try to make a valid argument when you argue against it. JP's Argument in syllogistic form: P1: I support the province's right to recall a senator P2: I do not support legally enabling provinces to recall senators Even if both premises were absolutely, positively true, your conclusion cannot be true, because the premises conflict. Don't ya hate it when logicians become legislators?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 4, 2009 9:33:31 GMT -6
"Recall votes may be conducted a maximum of 3 times per term, per Senator."
Might I suggest this becomes "per province"? To clarify what one means. Or do you mean that the province can attempt to recall any Senator a maximum of 3 times per term? Even if it has already recalled a Senator.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2009 12:15:31 GMT -6
"Recall votes may be conducted a maximum of 3 times per term, per Senator." Might I suggest this becomes "per province"? To clarify what one means. Or do you mean that the province can attempt to recall any Senator a maximum of 3 times per term? Even if it has already recalled a Senator. Let me see if I understand properly... So Benito recalls Senator X. Then Senator Y takes office, and the people of Benito try two times to oust Senator Y. Should the people of Benito be permitted to try once more? I would say yes. Limiting the recall vote to 3 per province per term would only really prevent very limited situations of abuse. If I try two times to recall a Senator and it fails to pass the Ziu each time, then it is unlikely the third attempt will be successful. In the event it did, what if the next Senator did something warranting removal? The present wording limits the practice so that a provincial assembly cannot simply attempt to recall a Senator every Clark, but so that a Senator who actually is deserving of removal can be ousted.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 4, 2009 12:24:42 GMT -6
Okay, sounds good.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2009 18:22:09 GMT -6
Not all provinces have the same constitution ... there is no reason for the Zui to interfere with the way a province does something ... IF the province chooses to have a recall done by the assembly then great. If they choose to have it decided by the will of the people then great. Bottom line this is a provincial issue and further reform should come from there. You are mandating something that a province should have a choice on. Honestly, I am now against this bill more than before. I strongly encourage my fellow senators to vote against it and allow our own provinces to introduce further reform... IF it is actually needed. This imposes NOTHING on the province but permits them to recall a senator IF THE PROVINCE SO CHOOSES. Regardless of the constitution, such a constitutional provision would be INORGANIC: Article V Section 5. A Senator vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or if he resigns from office, loses his citizenship or dies. There is no provision to remove a Senator by any other means, thus the purpose of this amendment. JP, your statement insults the intelligence of all of us. I charge that your incoherent arguments against this bill are not out of any sense of public service but out of a desire to preserve your own power. You should be allowing the citizens to decide this rather than fanning your feathers and proclaiming the matter closed. But that might require a sense of service to your constituents. We wouldn't want that now, would we?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 4, 2009 18:26:00 GMT -6
Tim, your comments are inappropriate and unfair. As it happens, after long discussion with the Seneschal, he has agreed that something must be done, perhaps to the lengths this Amendment would go, perhaps a little shorter, but certainly he agrees the OrgLaw is inadequate on the matter and there must be a system of recall.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 4, 2009 18:34:45 GMT -6
JP, your statement insults the intelligence of all of us. I charge that your incoherent arguments against this bill are not out of any sense of public service but out of a desire to preserve your own power. You should be allowing the citizens to decide this rather than fanning your feathers and proclaiming the matter closed. But that might require a sense of service to your constituents. We wouldn't want that now, would we? This is completely out of order! A personal attack on the Seneschal and a fellow legislator?!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2009 18:44:24 GMT -6
Oh you betcha I'm out of order. I acknowledge it and accept responsibility for my actions. After this bill you won't be seeing any legislation out of me. I'm resigning myself to more administrative functions.
Owen, while I appreciate your help in tweaking and reworking, your private conversations with a Senator are refreshing, but not terribly after he posted a very public and hardly coherent denunciation of this bill, not only pledging his lack of a vote but urging fellow Senators to shoot it down as well.
AD, I admit my comments are/were out of order. And they would have been much less caustic if directed merely at a fellow legislator. I hold the Seneschal to a higher standard of public service.
All the more reason why this will be my last piece of legislation for quite some time.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 4, 2009 18:52:03 GMT -6
Well, I hope the Seneschal posts here soon outlining the conversations that have been had (which occurred after his latest criticism of the Amendment).
|
|
Ieremiac'h Ventrutx
Former Senator of Florencia ~ Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 990
Talossan Since: 3-1-1997
|
Post by Ieremiac'h Ventrutx on Mar 4, 2009 21:29:45 GMT -6
Tim thats great ... I oppose something and get told I "desire to preserve your own power" ... I am not the power hungry lad you accuse me of being.
Your bill is not the best solution to a problem that is not actually happening but admittedly after discussion with Owen it "COULD" be a problem.
There are better ways to win your argument rather than stomp your feet and going away. Owen reached out and actually talked to me about what I objected to and where I would change the bill ONCE he convinced me that there was a problem.
How about instead of blaming the Senate for your failed bills you put your shoulder to the wheel and start getting in to your politics. We can't all be "yes men" if you want to take it to the personal then I guess I can't stop you.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2009 8:02:52 GMT -6
Believe me, JP. No one will ever accuse the Senats of being "Yes Men." Of being self-serving "No men" perhaps. Bills have passed unanimously the Cosa, only to be struck down without cause by the Senats. This, of course would be the Senators prerogative. However, there have also been instances where the Senator's constituents contacted the Senator ahead of time detailing their support for the bill, only to be ignored.
This isn't my "stomping my feet and walking away" this is my assuming duties as the DSoS and feeling that if I have to endure one more illogical denunciation I might well say something I regret.
And I have reached out to you before, I did, in fact, the very first time this bill was clarked. You ignored me and simply voted CONTRA. Great service to the people, GW...errr...JP!
|
|
Ieremiac'h Ventrutx
Former Senator of Florencia ~ Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 990
Talossan Since: 3-1-1997
|
Post by Ieremiac'h Ventrutx on Mar 5, 2009 16:58:35 GMT -6
Believe me, JP. No one will ever accuse the Senats of being "Yes Men." Of being self-serving "No men" perhaps. great ... now I am power hungry & self serving. What's next in the flurry of personal attacks, dare you call me fat too? Bills have passed unanimously the Cosa, only to be struck down without cause by the Senats. This, of course would be the Senators prerogative. And it is! As it should be! Elect and a representative of the people to do as a Senator see fit at the request of his constituents. However, there have also been instances where the Senator's constituents contacted the Senator ahead of time detailing their support for the bill, only to be ignored. And the "yes men" of the Zui that neither answer to the people nor attempt to read a bill... what about them? This isn't my "stomping my feet and walking away" this is my assuming duties as the DSoS and feeling that if I have to endure one more illogical denunciation I might well say something I regret. And you have not already? Come now use the reason that you claim I lack and convince me, convince the Senate, convince the Zui that your bill solves a problem or creates more? Or are you saying you have quenched your thirst for power with the DSoS position? If so then perhaps the wrong man has been chosen for such a humbling servants position. And I have reached out to you before, I did, in fact, the very first time this bill was clarked. You ignored me and simply voted CONTRA. And when did I cast my vote? The very day the clark was announced, did you talk to me to ask why I voted against it? No. Did you ask me to change my vote? No. Did you attempt to speak to the Senate and seek their approval? No. Great service to the people, GW...errr...JP! Compare me to a great leader, insult me please.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 5, 2009 17:16:53 GMT -6
...I'm becoming Acting Speaker of the Cosa here. The moment someone mentions Dubya as a great leader in any thread, the thread has gone beyoned redundancy.
I'd advise that any recommendations or alternatives from any quarters be given now, and this awful debate about rubbish ends 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 Mar 5, 2009 17:24:23 GMT -6
The Bill under consideration says, in part: WHEREAS because the Senats is comprised of only one senator from each province, the body is rather small and
WHEREAS this means a group of a few can override the will of the people as a whole and
WHEREAS that is not the sign of a vibrant democracy To which I have two objections, one linguistic and one political. First, "is comprised of" should be either "comprises" or "is composed of". "Comprise" and "compose" are complementary. The parts compose, and are comprised by, the whole. The whole is composed of, and comprises, the parts. Second, *any* representative system allows a small group, potentially, to "override the will of the people as a whole". In Talossa, a majority of the Senate is four Senators, or roughly 3% of the national population. In the United States, a majority of the Senate is 51 Senators, or roughly .00002% of the population. This observation doesn't mean that either Talossa or the United States falls short of being a "vibrant democracy". It just means that both countries have *representative* systems. Our Senate was *intended* to act as a "brake" on the popular will, to assure that momentary majorities and the passions of the hour have a hard time enacting laws. Whether that kind of brake is a good thing, I don't know. But it seems to be working (kind of) how it was meant to work. Possibly the sponsors of legislation should plan to do a bit more spadework, horse-trading, political maneuvering, and what not, than they now do, so as to line up sufficient numbers of Senators to assure passage of their bills. — John R
|
|