|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 22, 2019 21:47:34 GMT -6
OK, a bunch of smallish points. The Official Holidays Act, 6RC15, predates the OrgLaw. I believe I did err in assenting to 41RZ6. I'm not trying to test anything here, but rather to be careful to do things correctly. (For instance, I'd have no problem at all with a resolution of the Ziu requesting that I declare or suppress a holiday; and I'd almost certainly comply, unless there were something seriously objectionable about it.) I vetoed a bill once, many years ago, on exactly this ground, that it was attempting to establish a national holiday by statute. I'm not sure this grab bag of mixed-up examples constitute "settled Talossan tradition". I respectfully disagree with the Seneschal's idea that if the OrgLaw gives one person or body "the right" to do something, that others can do it too. And I'm very glad we have no uncharitable people among us. — John R Not exactly. The exact provision reads, "The nation democratically grants the King and his successors certain Royal Powers: The right to declare national holidays," (1) "democratically grants" means "democratically grants." This means it's not an inherent organic royal prerogative. It means, by default, you have the power to declare *national holidays*, which the people can democratically withdraw (i.e., we don't need an organic amendment). You have it until the nation democratically says otherwise. (2) Even if you have the "sole right" to declare national holidays, a plain reading of the provision is to declare *national holidays.* It does not preclude the Ziu from establishing *government holidays* or *public holidays*. Taking a textualist interpretation, national is not synonymous with either government or public. A government holiday or public holiday is distinct from a national holiday. To put another way, you can choose to make something a national holiday, but you don't have any right to declare a government holiday or public holiday. You can't just expand your rights by interpreting three distinct words as synonymous. Also, the Organic Law doesn't really define what a holiday entails. Like, have we ever rolled over State or Government business because of a *national holiday*? So okay, you want to disagree with 1 and 2, fine. Well the Ziu can pass "Days of National Celebration" then. Those aren't *national holidays.* And we can colloquially call them 'holidays' and that will be that. John, you don't have sole authority to enact holidays. You're expanding your authority here. As to whether this can be brought to the UC, Talossa does not explicitly bar advisory opinions. This was left unresolved with the Ben-Ard suo moto controversy. What I did submit to the Cort is that, among common-law countries, the ability varies. The US and Australia prohibit (although Florida and Arizona and some other states allow them but limited to how others do). Canada allows referrals from the PM, the UK from the Government, India from the President, etc. The US has adopted a form of this with "certified questions." That's the ability of a federal court to refer a question to a State's highest court to offer an advisory opinion on a State law. Ultimately, because the issue of advisory opinions and certified questions is unresolved in Talossan law, as the request of the PM, I will ask the Cort for review. John, I will send you the petition before filing for you to review and decide if you'd like to retain counsel. Any lawyer of your choosing will rightfully be appointed Deputy A-G to defend the Crown. Or you can defend the Crown. I think I'm being fair. (I did a number of edits from my phone last night to this post, but Proboards crashed when I hit update. I'm trying to add them now.) John, my question to you--there seems to be a lot of workarounds here even if you disagree with the foregoing. I honestly don't know where the Cort would come out on whether this is a live case or controversy and, if not, whether it will issue an advisory opinion/certified question. My proposition to you, however, is simple--even if you maintain that only you can declare national holidays, do you really take that to mean "public holidays" and "government holidays" even though we never really define what either of those mean by law? To the extent that the Ziu can simply make up a new name and pass it anyway, is this really a battle we want to play out in Cort and potentially provoke what some would frame as a constitutional crisis? I'm not trying to dissuade you from your overall opinion or use a Cort battle to relinquish your authority, what I'm saying is, given that it's potentially so easy for the Ziu to get around the *national holiday* thing, is this really a hill you want to fight on?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 22, 2019 12:29:26 GMT -6
With respect to 53RZ2, I have a serious concern with paragraph 3.1, which reads "The Secretary of State is appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Seneschál, and removed by the King on the recommendation of the Seneschál, the Túischac’h or the Mençei for professional misconduct, inability to perform their duties due to incapacitation or failure to perform their required duties." I can easily picture a situation in which a Mençei and Seneschal cannot agree on the appointment of a Secretary of State, and start going around in circles with the Seneschal recommending a candidate (and the King necessarily appointing him), then the Mencei alleging his inability (and the King necessarily dismissing him), and so on and so on. This would be ugly and frustrating, and impede the work of the government. I think we should allow the Seneschal and nobody else to dismiss a Secretary of State, and not require any allegation of misconduct, disability, or nonfeasance to do so. That said, I will not veto the Bill. I will strongly recommend that this clause be fixed by a further Bill, either by giving the Seneschal full power to recommend appointment and dismissal of the Secretary, or by permitting the King the discretion not to dismiss a Secretary of State when the Mencei or Tuischac’h recommends dismissal. El Regeu niac'hatnéumint en volt, — John R I partially agree with John here. Such a scenario that he describes requires the monarch to agree with the Mencei. Does this bill not provide for the requisite discretion of the monarch to decline to dismiss? I would hope that a Senechal recommends someone appropriate for the position that wouldn't warrant an immediate allegation of some type of misconduct or other reason for removal. I can see an instance where a person who is qualified suddenly does something that would disqualify them. Even if that did happen, I would hope the monarch would decline to appoint or the Senechal would withdraw the nomination. In a sense, I think John's scenario a bit remote but plausible and warrants some discussion. Perhaps we should accept his invitation to clarify the Monarch's discretion. I partially disagree with John here. I do think some type of allegation of misconduct should be given. If we do not require a reason given, then it would forestall the ability of the citizens to recognize an overtly political dismissal. That's not to say that there would not be circumstantial evidence of same, but requiring a reason provides additional information for Talossan to make a judgment call. On the other hand, these are very broad and subjective reasons. It would help if we defined them (or, as I've said elsewhere, perhaps we can start including some type of legislative intent in bills (not published to el Lex but provided in a separate wiki entry) for guidance if these questions arose).
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 21, 2019 15:16:22 GMT -6
We just had a MC voting on the Senate board without a VoC, and a Senator voting on the Cosa thread with a VoC. Glüc da Dhi on suicide watch. I may have laughed a little too outloud to this. But I do believe, notwithstanding the VOC vote, a Senate vote here counts. The instructions state either thread is appropriate for a Senator. (Unless I'm missing a distinct cosa thread from this one.)
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 20, 2019 15:32:15 GMT -6
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 20, 2019 9:22:23 GMT -6
Would the Secretary of State, Ian Plätschisch , address my question of whether the fantastic fusion bill actually requires 2/3 Senate support, or should I make a terp? The Secretary of State is Glüc da Dhi . And the Royal Civil Service isn't subject to terps, just fyi. Congrats, AD, you are completely right on this. Good for you. Would the Secretary of State Glüc da Dhi mind commenting on whether the fantastic fusion bill requires 2/3 Senate support, or do I have to do something odd like Terp myself as A-G?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 20, 2019 8:24:53 GMT -6
Would the Secretary of State, Ian Plätschisch, address my question of whether the fantastic fusion bill actually requires 2/3 Senate support, or should I make a terp?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 19, 2019 19:24:34 GMT -6
I'm not taking the bate. I said my piece. I'm not against this proposal per se because I don't really see the danger you claim. Of course, it's kinda funny that you're concerned with "one" person having an a potential undue amount of power given your advocacy for the King maintaining exclusive control in other arena. But that's that. No reason to continue debating a bill that has no intention of being Clarked.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 19, 2019 18:58:08 GMT -6
Nice innuendo there. Vuode has a unique way of doing things. Not only was my proposal passed, those in other parties offered amendments that were accepted. The procedure for the Senate election adopted how we join our Estats Xhenerais. It was never contentious.
Here, a provincial merger must receive 2/3rd support of the Senate because it changes the composition.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 19, 2019 18:23:51 GMT -6
I don't really see how the 2 people theory really plays out. At the end of the day, all this would do is allow the provinces to "trade" cantons if they saw fit. It couldn't actually abolish or create new provinces without 2/3 majority of the Senate.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 19, 2019 16:08:30 GMT -6
I can get behind this. Should this also amend Section 1, which reads:
"The metropolitan territory of Talossa is subdivided into Cantons (els Cantons) and Provinces. Cantons are defined according to historical borders, but Provinces may, subject to approval by the Ziu, alter these borders, including to create new Cantons. Provinces may also establish such internal subdivisions as they find necessary or convenient for local government. The Canton is the smallest possible territorial subdivision which can be transferred from one Provincial jurisdiction to another."
Also, perhaps already discussed, but doesn't The Fantastic Fusion of Fiova and Florencia Bill require 2/3s Senate support under Org.L.V.10 ("Bills creating new provinces or changing the number of provinces in any way require two-thirds of the Senäts.")?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 19, 2019 12:15:49 GMT -6
53RZ1 - Për: With all due respect to the Senator immediately preceding my vote--recognize that you, a senator representing an entirely different constituency, are holding hostage the ability of two provinces to determine their own destinies, either by making that one destiny or keeping them separate. This really isn't your place. Respectfully, of course. If nobody is supposed to vote anything but Për on this issue, why does it even have to come before the Ziu at all? I must assume there is good reason for it; otherwise someone probably would have proposed an amendment to remove the Ziu's authority over mergers by now. I would be happy to engage in that debate (and I might even support such a change), but until that happens I am going to exercise the power Organically vested in the Ziu the way I think is proper. The legality and authority to engage in conduct does not always inform the propriety of that action. For instance, as as a sitting MZ, I have the Organic authority to engage in debate in any way I see fit, including use of language that some of our Victorian and puritanical fellow members would call "vulgar." Does my Organic right to do so inform the propriety of doing so? That is the ongoing question. And, as has been expressed to me, simply because you can doesn't mean you should. Notice, I never said you did not have the Organic authority to vote as you did, or to hold the opinion that you did. I called into question, however, the propriety of your rationale, as you have done when I choose to engage in my organically protected speech as an MZ to engage in debate within the Ziu and Hopper in a manner that you find vulgar. Applying your logic to the foregoing, one can extrapolate support for a position by the lack of Organic authority speaking to the contrary. Thus, the Organic Law clearly supports (and it must be the intent of) my ability to use so-called vulgarities when engaging debate in the Ziu and Hopper simply because it does not prohibit or contain a mechanism to enforce punishment against that conduct. I trust you can see the problem with your logic. Turning back to my point--I did not say "this really isn't your place" to mean you must vote Për, I said it isn't your place because I find your rationale wonky, something I have expressed elsewhere. For the most part, your entire premise in opposing the merger is not opposition to merger per se, which I would not agree with but would, in my estimation, be appropriate, but simply because it would create a province that lacks geographic continuity. You do this ignoring that the elected officials of those provinces really take no issue with not having geography continuity. But, as stated, I find that position to be nonsensical. Nevertheless, you propose that a third province, Maricopa, engage in some activity (trade cantons) for the sole purpose of geographic continuity. So now the choice of two provinces to merge would become subject to the whim of a third province, who then must vote on whether to approve the land trade. So again, what you are proposing to do is to hold hostage the ability of two provinces to decide their own fates merely because you don't like the idea that they wouldn't be connected, and in so doing, would hold them further hostage to decide their fate by allowing another province to dictate whether they can even decide their fate in the first place. Yes, Senator, you have the ability to vote Contra. I do not question your authority to do so. Yes, you can do so for any reasons you deem appropriate. I do not question your authority to do so. Just as you have that authority, I have the same authority to say that I think your reasoning to cast that vote is meritless and improper as it relates to respecting the will of the people of those provinces to decide for themselves. I do note, however, that ever single MZ from Fiova has voted in the affirmative. There is support for the measure from Florencia Governor Carbonel. So, as it stands, there seems to be support from the two impacted provinces. I said that this would inform my decision, and absent anything to the contrary two days before the final vote, I believe that it is proper to respect the ability of a sophisticated citizenry (i.e. Fiova and Florencia) to make the best choice for themselves when their elected leaders seem to support the measures. I waited until two days before the Clark closes to change my mind. It hasn't. Who are we, as outsiders, to push our agenda on them? Who are we, as outsiders, to hold hostage their right to self-determination? That is what I call improper, Senator. Not, as you purport, your ability to vote contra. (As an aside, I note my astonishment that there is not a single MC from Florenica at the moment.)
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 19, 2019 10:28:05 GMT -6
Now that this sessions is convened, I would like to propose the following:
(1) Although we have a national digest of laws, I propose listing each in a "thread" on this forum that have been adopted. This would function as an unofficial reporter for quick reference and searching through just that subthread to find byelaws in an easy fashion.
(2) I intend to propose an amendment to the Claim Our Autonomy Byelaw to extend the period of a prospective Senator's intent to run to five days after the last Clark, whether that be upon the loss of a VOC.
(3) I intend to propose a Byelaw giving our Premier and Presiding Officer authority to request contact information from the SOS assuming 53RZ5 passes and is promulgated.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 19, 2019 10:18:02 GMT -6
My fellow citizens of the United Provinces: Please excuse my lack of diligence in timely convening this Estats Xhenerais. As some of you may be aware, the United Provinces has not adopted a formal procedure by which these sessions are called into order, but have fallen to adhering to convention. Eðo Grischun and I recently proposed and concurred that member of the preceding Estats Xhenerais call into order the newly formed Estats Xhenerais. I sat as Presiding Officer of the Estats Xhenerais convened following the general elections of July 2018. Although our province is old, and our constitution enters its sixth year, we have not seen the type of activity that we once envisioned our unique approach to self-governance envision. However, I do see that as beginning to change. In the last Estats Xehenerais, we debated and passed the first (correct me if I'm wrong) substantive piece of Byelaw--the Claiming Our Autonomy Act--which was adopted, implemented, and successful in choosing a new Senator. I wish to continue this and, in so doing, to entrench into our convention a means by which our province can further develop its legal identity distinguished from our sibling provinces. We are, after all, the United Provinces, and we are, after all, unique in our history and procedure. Our legal identity should properly respect our uniqueness. With that said, that April 2019 election having concluded, I hereby convene the Grand Session of Estats Xhenerais. This is, from my count, the ninth election since adoption of our constitution in April 2013, and, notwithstanding that sessions have not always been convened, I propose identifying each period for which one could have been convened with a roman numeral, which we can keep informal, as to establish a clear continuity for reference. Accordingly, I would style this Grand Session as "IX"and the preceding "VIII". In Short, "GS-IX". Roman numerals are just prettier. In any event, in the April 2019 election, Eðo Grischun , Chirbi Scherpa-Carriedo , Gödafrïeu Airignha , and Viteu Marcianüs claimed their seats in this E-X in accord with section 5 of article III of our Constitution, and are thus recognized as members of this Grand Session. Having now been convened, I immediately declare as follows: (1) In accordance with Article III, § 9 of the Constitution of United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg, as the first order of business of this Grand Session of the Estats Xhereais ("GS-IX") for the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg, I hereby nominate Eðo Grischun as Premier; and (2) In accordance with Article III, § 10 of the Constitution of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg, as the second order of business of the Grand Session of the Estats Xhereias for the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg, I hereby nominate Chirbi Scherpa-Carriedo , as Presiding Officer of the Grand Session. The floor is now open for additional nominations or for votes confirming the foregoing nominations. While this may be obvious, please allow my nominations of the foregoing individuals to reflect my vote in support for same. I also note that we do not have established time frames in our Grand Sessions, which is not particularly a bad thing. I like the idea that we can debate legislation for as long as we want and vote on it when we feel it ready. I do not want to abandon this feature. I hope you would all agree with me. Nevertheless, we ought to be mindful that we subject our sessions to the sitting of the national Cosa, and, as such, cannot always enjoy the luxury of doing things at our own pace. Thus, I propose that, if a second for either be received by May 30, 2019 at 7:30 p.m. TDT, but a third having not, then the foregoing nominations be deemed adopted by acclamation. If, however, at any time before that period, a third vote is received in support, the measure is deemed passed. I close this long speech and note that I intend to follow-up immediately with some proposed Byelaws.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 19, 2019 9:38:20 GMT -6
53RZ1 - Për: With all due respect to the Senator immediately preceding my vote--recognize that you, a senator representing an entirely different constituency, are holding hostage the ability of two provinces to determine their own destinies, either by making that one destiny or keeping them separate. This really isn't your place. Respectfully, of course.
53RZ2 - Për
53RZ3 - Për: I see this as largely a ceremonial role, hence my support. The Speaker cannot punish or remove a sitting MC, but I do think that keeping this ceremonial for the time being, to establish convention before changing the Organic Law to allow some enforcement capability, is wise.
53RZ4 - Për
53RZ5 - Për: The United Provinces shall introduce the appropriate legislation shortly.
53RZ6 - Për: I applaud the good Senator's common sense here.
53RZ7 - Contrâ: I don't think anyone is surprised by this.
53RZ8 - Contrâ: The act rests upon shaky moral high ground. I also am not particularly a fan of setting law that is, ab initio, inorganic.
53RZ9 - Abstain: I think the MC advancing this bill is well-intentioned, but as I vote today, I cannot support this until the Government's plan, which I support, pans out. I abstain because I am not inherently opposed to this bill, and would consider it in due course in the future if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 3, 2019 19:59:13 GMT -6
So, in sum, we scoff at incremental change because it doesn't conform to the overall change we want to see?
I'm not necessarily anti or pro merger. I believe it is up to the provinces. Ugliness of map, in my estimation, is a poor excuse. The concern should always pay deference to the people at issue. I don't pretend to make windows into the minds of the voters of either province subject this act. Therefore, I shall vote per and trust in their better judgement to determine self rule. As I would hope other senators and elected officials would if this bill concerned Vuode.
Edit*- perhaps I missed it, what say the senators from those provinces? That, to correct the former, will inform my vote.
|
|