|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 28, 2009 18:46:06 GMT -6
Yes, we did. Check Witt, about page 3 or so?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 28, 2009 16:54:05 GMT -6
Well, as the Progressive Party has elsewhere suggested, the sort of system adopted in most proportional systems of our type actually include a list of candidates who will be awarded seats - so at least the public know who they're voting for.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 26, 2009 9:33:00 GMT -6
Oh, bravo.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 25, 2009 6:18:27 GMT -6
Dreu, as a member of the PP-CRO caucus, has adopted the party for local causes there too - which I think is great, remembering Cézembre's role at the forefront of efforts to bring Talossans closer together.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 25, 2009 5:53:17 GMT -6
As if "raging ass" (true description of someone who'd been acting ridiculously) is comparable to "raghead".
Months ago, I was challenged to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. You were right, I was resting on laurels and having been active behind the scenes. I said so at the time. So I followed your advice.
Attacking records? You mean, in response to being attacked on my record as MinImm (attacks categorically debunked), I noted that the ZPT could hardly talk? Or that I've critiqued the government for not accomplishing as much as it should have?
As for XA - a man who was pro-Republic and pro-reform of the monarchy to join a party that anti both those things is baffling. It's all about the fancy title. Also a man who promised to restrain the negative politics and keep it about the issue - and was baffled that I was furious and personally hurt when, inevitably, he broke that promise and joined in.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 24, 2009 9:05:16 GMT -6
How would one prove "mis-, mal-, or non-feasance"? And even it such could somehow be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, why should courts judge political competence, rather than the electorate concerned?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 23, 2009 18:17:01 GMT -6
I'm quite happy for my own name to be dragged through the muck. I won't see others attacked in the same base, ridiculous manner.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 23, 2009 17:52:13 GMT -6
In a campaign of ridiculous, hyperbolic attacks by certain politicians, that may be about the most ridiculous and hyperbolic. Well done, you win a prize.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 23, 2009 13:04:36 GMT -6
The concept of double jeopardy relates to the idea of being tried twice. The Weckstrom case has not been tried by the Cort, nor even accepted to be tried; his basic right against double jeopardy has not been infringed.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 23, 2009 13:01:37 GMT -6
The Cort can hold Senators accountable for criminal behaviour; what about spending 2 years refusing to answer emails from your constituents?
And the review process in the Amendment would allow for reflection on the nature of the democratic will behind a recall.
If Patch, who thoroughly opposes the whole concept of recalls, has a better idea as to how to ensure Senators can not get away with gross incompetence, I'm sure he would be heard out. His critiques would have been appreciated when the Amendment first came up (though perhaps not the strange comparisons to Liberia). But seeking to dismiss it now out of fear that incompetent Senators may find themselves being cut off, without offering an alternative - no, no, no.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 23, 2009 8:26:02 GMT -6
I do not believe the Prince had properly understood the provisions of the Amendment to ensure that there weren't nuisance recall attempts, to ensure that it truly reflected the will of the people, and to ensure that any such decision could be reviewed to ensure it was not an undemocratic minority manipulating the system. How can one respond to such a misunderstanding except by saying "no, that simply isn't the case"?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 23, 2009 8:21:50 GMT -6
I am sorry you did not hear of the option presented by the Magistracy - perhaps it should have been given directly to you too.
Insomuch as the Cort hadn't officially responded in any way, I'd say there was no undertaking whereby they would hear it; in that case, the government was well within its rights to petition another court, of whatever description. No miscarriage of justice whatsoever there. It would have been different had the Cort started to consider the case.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 23, 2009 8:05:04 GMT -6
I'm slightly baffled by the idea that presenting someone with criminal charges and then refusing to follow them up is still not a really poor showing by the government. As for chasing - as I say, the government was informed, upon the creation of the Magistracy, that the Magistracy was ready to hear the case. The Magistracy was not informed it was not considered an appropriate avenue for trying the case; was the Cort pu Inalt chased after that point?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 23, 2009 7:54:57 GMT -6
I notice that the same folk who now argue "don't do this, it's caused by specific circumstances, the system's not broken" are the same who say "don't do this, there's not been an example of this behaviour as yet, the system's not broken". Those folk have got to decide which way they want it. In this case there are two provinces where I know significant portions of the electorate who are sick of their Senators behaviour, and have been for a long, long time.
If you require cause to amend laws, and not potential cause, then there is very strong cause to amend this law - unless it is made a lot harder for lazy incompetents hang on to the incredibly influential Senate seats, they will continue to slip through the cracks and get into those seats and stay there for up to 36 months without possibility of recall.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 23, 2009 7:41:55 GMT -6
I stand (partially) corrected. I'd still argue it's entirely appropriate, and no miscarriage of justice, to move the case to the Magistracy - insomuch as it sounds like an informal brief to me. No-one had gone to Cort to determine exactly what was going to happen.
I'd still say, even if it were the case that government, upon hearing that the Magistracy was ready to hear the case, decided it was inappropriate to forward it to them, that it was their responsibility to chase the Cort pu Inalt. It was their case, and their decisions that have helped damage the reputation of S:reu Weckstrom. However much many of us may have no sympathy with Tony and have our own suspicions about various matters, as for instance including New Texas, it is the basis of a free country that those who have been accused of crimes be charged for them and a just decision come to - not that their reputation lies tarnished with no chance of self-defence.
|
|