|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2009 8:12:49 GMT -6
Gentlemen,
I replied to the first "Questions to the Executive" as a statement from the PP was warranted.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 15, 2009 10:53:38 GMT -6
I hereby resign all of my offices, effective immediately.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Nov 15, 2009 14:33:56 GMT -6
Since everyone is misconstruing what I said, let me reexplain it to all of you:
What I said was that I do think the SOS should be a totally apolitical office, but until that becomes the case, the SOS has the legal right to be partisan. I don't think that ought to be the case, and so will work to change that. However, until codification on the matter is achieved, the right of any SOS to be partisan cannot be infringed upon.
This is not a 360 or even a 180 or 90. It was and still is clarification on my position.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Nov 15, 2009 14:56:25 GMT -6
I say let us get to legislative discussion here or off of Witt. We always [myself included] get so damned heated we forget what we are supposed to be doing. Let's fix this hole in the Organic Law and move on.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Nov 15, 2009 17:55:36 GMT -6
Hey, Flip, I agree with you. And I think that even the SoS having the right to act in a partisan way, he should ethically avoid doing so. Let's work hard to change that!
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Nov 15, 2009 19:05:03 GMT -6
I suggest everyone read the existing laws, both OrgLaw and Statutory Laws...to see what needs to be fixed.
and see what laws the Chancery must already follow.
How can the SoS abuse his office, by having an opinion? No one has explained that to me.
Once the SoS gets the job, he can be fired by the King, or removed by the Ziu if he is not doing his job properly.
What if you get a SoS and (s)he vows to be completely apolitical ... but the very next day exposes an Opinion.
What do you do then?
What I am failing to see is WHY a SoS should not have an opinion ?
|
|
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 Nov 17, 2009 12:26:57 GMT -6
It seems to me
1) that any attempt to prevent the Secretary of State's holding or expressing political opinions is likely to run foul of the free speech guarantees in the Covenants.
2) that there has never been a Talossan Secretary of State who wasn't politically active.
3) that if the Secretary of State seems to be using the powers of his office to favour one party over another, the people can stop that by complaining until he straightens out, or (if that fails) agitating that the Ziu or the Prime Minister remove him, or finally (that failing) electing a Ziu or PM who *will* remove him.
4) that if the Secretary of State were to do something overtly wrong, like deliberately miscounting votes or failing to issue grants of citizenship to people whose politics he didn't like, the Cort would enjoin him to fly right, and has plenty of power to insist on his doing so.
All that being true, I don't really think we have a problem.
— John R
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Nov 17, 2009 14:24:31 GMT -6
Your Majesty, I respectfully disagree and hope that you will be a part of the process in reforming Article IX.
|
|
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 Nov 17, 2009 16:10:48 GMT -6
Perhaps, as an apolitical monarch, I shouldn't have said even what I did; but having been Secretary of State myself through a not uneventful period in the nation's life, and having always been very active in politics, I thought I might make a contribution. I'm not sure, S:reu Tzaracomprada, what part(s) of what I wrote you disagree with, or why; but I'll certainly be interested to see your proposals, and to comment on them if I can do so without myself "taking sides".
— John R
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Nov 17, 2009 16:52:44 GMT -6
Just so we are all on the same page, I'd like to offer the following definitions: po·lit·i·cal (p-lt-kl) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state. 2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: "Calling a meeting is a political act in itself" (Daniel Goleman). 3. Interested or active in politics: I'm not a very political person. a·po·lit·i·cal (p-lt-kl) adj. 1. Having no interest in or association with politics. 2. Having no political relevance or importance 3. politically neutral; without political attitudes, content, or bias par·ti·san (pärt-zn) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans. 2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause non·par·ti·san (nn-pärt-zn, -sn) adj. Based on, influenced by, affiliated with, or supporting the interests or policies of no single political party The comments being discussed are the ones I made on this thread: talossa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ziu&action=display&thread=4529&page=2Re: Questions to the Executive « Reply #17 on Nov 12, 2009, 11:36pm »
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Nov 17, 2009 18:21:43 GMT -6
Thank you both to His Highness and the good Captain and Secretary. Hmmm, I really like the third part of the apolitical definition but I understand the point that is being made generally.
|
|