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.
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.
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.
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".
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: