|
|
Post by Simone Andreoli on Jul 18, 2011 18:27:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2011 6:22:13 GMT -6
GLad to see you are jumping right in. A few thoughts, S:reu Maestro....
It seems in poor taste to me to have a provision under which our province could become a sovereign nation "if the Kingdom of Talossa ceases to exist." In my opinion, anyway.
Also, I don't see any reason for the Chancellery to do ANYTHING when the Cosa is dissolved. The Cosa is a national legislative body, the Chancellery is a provincial legislative body, the two are not really associated beyond the fact that most members hold seats in both.
I strongly oppose the firing of Chancellors over failing to vote. Unlike the Ziu, the LC does not hold monthly sessions. As a result, every month people would need to simply vote present, and that, to me, is creating busy work.
Article 17 should not require modification. THis article gave the LC blanket authority to develop a justice system. As long as said justice system does not conflict with any portion of the constitution or Organic Law, then it is fully legal. There is no need to amend this act.
So if the Vicere vetoes a bill, the VIcere must approve of the overriding of that bill? That doesn't make much sense. Furthermore, the Senator is a representative to the Ziu and has no approval authority within the Province itself. As written, this provision is unconstitutional and I would oppose any modification giving the Senator provincial approval authority.
And lastly, electing a Vicere? I have said this before and I will repeat. The Vicere is not a representative of the people. The people elect the Maestro and the Senator as representatives. The KING appoints the Vicere because the Vicere represents the KING, not the people. The people have NO right to select a Vicere. Furthermore, as such an appointment would conflict with the manner in which a Vicere is appointed in the Organic Law (namely that they are appointed by the King) this provision would have no impact insofar as it conflicts with the Organic Law.
Veto Clarification Act- I'm not actually sure what you are proposing to change here.
Judge Act Modifications - I think you may misunderstand what is meant by "Sovereign Province." The word "Sovereign" means that the Province, as permitted by the Organic Law, has a constitution which has been proclaimed by the King and now has the authority to govern itself on matter permitted by Organic Law. Provinces that do not have a constitution are ruled directly by their Constable and their legislature has no actual authority.
Furthermore, Benito does not have a King. It DOES have a vice regal representative in the Vicere who is a viceroy, or direct representative of the King, who serves the functions of a King at the Provincial level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simone Andreoli on Jul 19, 2011 13:19:12 GMT -6
Well, i know some of what i proposed may look like something ''revoluctionary'', but isn't my goal. the debates starts  It could be poor taste that provision but everything can happen and is understandable offer to our (any) province the possibility to ''save'' themselves; I misunderstanded this ''issue'', and is true as you said, Capt. Asmorescu; Effectively, this can be ''too much severe, but these charges have to ''respect'' theire job; i intended this way; fine about art 17. Sorry, i mistaken while writing this; so: Art 14- A Veto of the Viceroy must be overridden by the Senato, the Maestro and 3/5 of the Provincial Assembly Anyway i think that, for example, if the LC approve something important for the province and only the Viceroy is against, it could ''ruins'' something important; so if the veto can be extended to the LC and to Senator... I think about that due to the apparent long time His Majesty took to assign this charge letting uncovered such important charge. Veto Clarification act- what do you means? J-Act. Mod- I intended those changes due to the worldwide recognized meanings of Sovereignity:<<Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.>> So, i intended this as a really important act to made. And, yes, if sovereignity means as you said, a king is useless. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2011 19:52:35 GMT -6
Well, i know some of what i proposed may look like something ''revoluctionary'', but isn't my goal. the debates starts It could be poor taste that provision but everything can happen and is understandable offer to our (any) province the possibility to ''save'' themselves; I misunderstanded this ''issue'', and is true as you said, Capt. Asmorescu; Effectively, this can be ''too much severe, but these charges have to ''respect'' theire job; i intended this way; fine about art 17. Fair Enough My point is not that we should not be able to override a veto, but that the Senator should not be the one to do it. That just isn't the Senator's job. The LC, or preferably, a provincial referendum should be used if we need to override the Vicere, in my opinion. S:reu Maestro, I am hoping that you observed the last legislative proclamation issued by me as Maestro and countersigned by (then Vicere) Owen Edwards. This proclamation stated that if the office of Vicere is vacant, bills pass immediately to the King. If the King does not countersign within an alotted period of time, they are deemed to have been signed and have the force of law. So, we can function without a Vicere, if the King chooses to administer us personally. I just don't understand what you are proposing exactly... We are sovereign because we have more authority than a province that does not have a Constitution. That does not mean that we don't answer to the King, nor does it mean we can have our own King. It means that we have the authority to independently govern ourselves WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE ORGANIC LAW. Calling ourselves a "sovereign" province was approved by the LC, the people of Benito through Referendum and given to us by the King when he proclaimed our Constitution. I'm all about change, and I'm all about making our province more active. But these seem to be changes for the sake of making changes. |
|
|
|
Post by Simone Andreoli on Jul 21, 2011 5:14:06 GMT -6
If part one is fair enough, we can continue trough...
I am ok with your proposition to ''use'' the LC if needed to override a act.
I withdraw the clarification act modifications act to fix it.
I am sorry but what i proposed aren't unsubstantiated ideas, just to do something, but are the result of my thinking and how I thought it was right to act. However, I am willing to withdraw the whole.
PS: i apologize for some misunderstanding because, even if it cannot even remotely excuse me, i have moved here by few days and probably i mispelled some word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2011 16:45:16 GMT -6
Time out
I don't want you to think I am attacking you personally. I think you're going to do a great job as Maestro. However, I have some concerns about a few of your changes as they are currently presented. I don't want you to just withdraw your proposals, I want to discuss and debate. I simply mean to say that, as they are written, I would not support these changes.
However, I want to see a lively discussion. Let's let some other people contribute, let's bounce some new ideas around and then let's see where it takes us. I don't want to bully legislation out, I want to discuss and refine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simone Andreoli on Jul 21, 2011 17:31:20 GMT -6
Nono, i've never thought you were attacking me personally and you have not showed those intenctions; i withdraw the Clar.Vet.Act so i can see easily where and how fix before propose it.
I too wish a lively discussion, animated by others Benitians.
Don't think you bully anything: you are helping me, your province and your people so, let's discuss and refine!
|
|
