|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 4, 2016 4:55:25 GMT -6
I need a Deputy SoS with a single goal: to answer any requests from V and to respond to them after coordinating with me. My goal is to block V in Wittenberg, but since I have official duties, I cannot do so until I have a deputy willing to relay messages between him and I if he needs to contact the chancery. Your only qualifications required are: 1 ) Being a citizens 2 ) Not being V himself You can be a Judge, a PM, the King, etc... in short, you can have another job. In this case, you will NOT have to replace me if I being ill, but of course, if you want to help more, I can being training you so that this might be your path toward the exciting job of SoS after I retire in a year or two. This is completely unacceptable. You don't get to pick and choose who you deal with.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 4, 2016 4:53:32 GMT -6
Lol. Silly MPF. So arrogant and defensive. Meh. I'm over this. It's okay, you've made it clear that you're beyond reproach and that you can do no wrong. You don't have time for inquiries from the public you serve. It's cool, man. I get it. You're perfection. Enjoy the rest of your night. (So... Civility crowd... Where are you?) I am hereby blocking you from my life. I am initiating a non-contact policy with you. It is obvious to me what we will not get along until you seriously change. I will begin recruiting a new more responsive Deputy SoS, you will deal with him or her for official businesses. Until then, I will try to do my official business in as neutral and bureaucratic manner as possible. Please do not try to contact me in a personal matter, or I might have to consider this harrassment. I will not contact you, unless I have to do it before I have a deputy SoS. Enjoy a good life, I hope you get help, know that if at some point, you realize what you have done, I am open to receive an apology and work toward healing whatever this is between us. I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to me in public, and I will not refer to you. Seriously dude, get help. The only time we spoke in private had to do with the citizenship and party endorsement. As Secretary of State, you must deal with all of your constituents; you don't get to assign some to a dSoS. You will deal with me in a public manner. I will refer to you as I see fit. The sheer fact that you think your behavior is even remotely appropriate speaks volumes about your character flaws. As I said earlier, get some help. Your irrational and aggressive response to being challenged is concerning. If you feel I am harassing you if I contact you for official duties, then you can report me to the proper authorities. But now you're just playing the victim and it's absolutely disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. When you are ready to apologize I will entertain the notion. And let's be clear here - you owe me an apology for your condescension, your aggression, your insults, and your meritless character attacks. You owe me an apology for trying to paint yourself as the victim. And at this point, I will say, you owe me an apology for gaslighting (all implications intended).
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 3, 2016 22:35:02 GMT -6
I chuckled.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 3, 2016 20:55:54 GMT -6
The issue then became about the individual based on the actions of the Secretary of State, specifically his condescending, nonresponsive answer, Between the moment the election ended and the moment I gave you my answer which you call condescending, here is what I had to deal with IN Talossa: 1 ) Start the review of the ballots to fix any issues ASAP. You managed to spot one error before I did (congrats on your) and then, fix it 2 ) Fix the stupid PSC problem 3 ) Exchange private messages with the leaders of several parties and with members of several parties 4 ) Handle the I EXPLICITLY VOTE... party registration 5 ) Read a trial against the Chancery 6 ) Contact 5 different people in the bar to find an attorney 7 ) Exchange messages about the Fiova Senate election 8 ) Answer why 2 people who claimed to have voted are not in the list of voters (basically, I didn't get their votes) 9 ) Scan my spam box to find one additional missed vote (Garth) 10 ) Discuss with the King on the Electoral commission and the trial 11 ) Chat with a few citizens who had questions on the election in private 12 ) Congratulate a few of the party leaders (sorry those I missed) 13 ) Explain to Mximo why his party didn't get another seat 14 ) Answer your message. So sorry, my Talossan workload was a LITTLE busy and I misread your message. Actually, that's not even what happened, I read it, answered a private chat, and then replied to it, so I ended up not replying to your actual message but to what my brain memorised. That's only in my official capacity as SoS. You've decided to bring the office holder in the subject. Because as it turns out, I operate a company and have employees. One of them was sick this week, leaving me over-busy. My daugther had TWO appointments Friday, putting me out of the office during the day. I also didn't sleep well between Thursday and Friday. Furthermore, English is my second language, when I am tired, it's a little harder for me. But hey, you've decided I was condescending, and apparently, It's me that needs to apologize because I was called out. Hum. Interesting. Interesting way to see it. Sorry,, I still don't see how the FUCK I was I condesending. I answered the wrong question. Grow up. Get over it. I answer very politely and professionally to the WRONG QUESTION. I was not NOT being FUCKING condecending. CAN YOU PUT THAT IN YOUR HEAD ONCE AND FOR ALL? If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to say. You responded to a PERCEIVED condescending toward you. I get it, Intent doesn't matter to you. Good for you! Well, YOU intended to strike back at me. I am NOT a politician, I am a civil servant. I am apolitical. I am not in the ring to play politics. Lol. Silly MPF. So arrogant and defensive. Meh. I'm over this. It's okay, you've made it clear that you're beyond reproach and that you can do no wrong. You don't have time for inquiries from the public you serve. It's cool, man. I get it. You're perfection. Enjoy the rest of your night. (So... Civility crowd... Where are you?)
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 3, 2016 18:59:08 GMT -6
We don't have to agree on every point, but I am willing to consider this resolved. As to the impact v. intent and the meaning behind unqualified apology - it's a straightforward concept that even I mess up from time to time. Here is a good link that explains it: everydayfeminism.com/2013/07/intentions-dont-really-matter/ If you have roughly eight minutes, this is a good video that explains it. There's a lot of extra in there (although possibly informative in its own right), but the concept is explained very easily understood - certain things we do that injures another person deserve an apology that has no strings attached. What that means is that the actor's intent does not really matter, because its the impact that counts (the video uses the example of accidentally stepping on someones foot and breaking their toe - did that person intend to break the other's toe? No. Is there toe still broken? Yes. The impact of that person's action is the broken toe). If I'm going to apologize for something, the apology should be sincere and acknowledge I did something wrong and that my intent doesn't matter. You were harmed by something I did and I don't get to qualify the apology with "but you did..." and "i'm sorry if..." If I mean my apology, it's an unqualified "I fucked up; I'm sorry. I'll be mindful in the future to not do that." (In our context, I accused you of gaslighting; the impact of that was that I equated you with abusive partners, which is rightfully considered an insult; and you were offended. "I'm sorry; that was wrong of me. I will make a point to be more mindful of my words in the future" is the proper apology. "I'm sorry that you were offended, if you were offended" both suck. "I'm sorry but that wasn't my intent" seeks to excuse my behavior.) Of course you can explain your intent but only insofar as it's done to acknowledge your own shortcoming; it doesn't absolve you of what you did. And that's ultimately the point. One caveat - this is obviously not for every instance when you wrong somebody. This is not a justification to say to someone, "I don't like how you're acting and your intent doesn't matter" simply because someone is challenging you. "That's wrong" does not mean one gets to accuse someone of calling another stupid. As I apply this concept, it's when my actions/words are actually offensive. Example - if I call you an asshole, okay, I called you an asshole. My intent was to call you an asshole. But that's different when I accused of you gaslighting (as discussed above). Anyway, I hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 3, 2016 17:12:33 GMT -6
Art. XV sec. 4 states, "The King shall promulgate the amendment as part of the Organic Law if it is approved by majority of voters ..." In fact,the OrgLaw says no such thing. The proposed Amendment that would have made that change was never proclaimed. It would behoove the Scribe to make sure the text in the Wiki is complete and correct. — John R John, what proof do you have that this the Org. Law is not properly reflected here? If it is because of a disagreement in a Cort case you lost, and it concerned an Amendment the Cort found procedurally sufficient, then I have no reason to think my citation is inaccurate. My question to you, and I completely understand why you may not want to answer this, but assume, arguendo, that this wording is proper, do you disagree with my analysis and the meaning of shall? (I would be eager to see if the travaux could shed any light onto the meaning of shall.)
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 3, 2016 17:06:55 GMT -6
Okay, I can see why/how you found the comment offensive. The intent behind the use of gaslight was not to equate you to an abusive partner, but it is entirely reasonable for you to interpret it as such. I should have better considered the impact of term. You found offense to it, and that offense, being reasonable in nature, should not be questioned. For that, I offer you an unqualified apologize. I will be more mindful in the future to better describe my feeling, or what the impact of my actions/words are.
To your other points – I’m not dragging around angry shit. I truly am quite neutral on many individuals here, including you. It is reasonable to question this as I do have a history here and did not leave on particularly good terms. But I meant what I said when I came back that there is a clean slate. Nevertheless, your actions and their impact suggests that you still have unresolved issues with me. I needn’t restate the events that make me view this as we’ve discussed it already. You have stated your position, and I feel that it is a bit revisionist and convenient on your part. (That is what I meant by gaslighting – your description of events I perceived as you saying “no, you’re remembering it all wrong, this is what really happen, and now you’re attacking me,” so I was disagreeing with your retelling of events and that I was not remembering things as they existed; the disagreement was implicit behind the use of the term.) We won’t agree on how the events should be interpreted. But our issue is current with overtures of shared historical events, but from my perspective, based entirely on recent events. (Also, my challenge about the votes was never about you, personally, as a Senator, but truly concerns a desire for accuracy.)
(This paragraph has nothing really to do with you, but I thought it might be fair to explain why the events are generally unrelated, and it does address the allegation that I’m dragging “angry shit” around.). In regards to MFP, my previous encounters with him, pre-departure, were generally positive. There are some things post-return that I raised an eyebrow to, but nothing that makes me particularly angry at him. My initial issue concerned the Secretary of State, not the individual. The issue then became about the individual based on the actions of the Secretary of State, specifically his condescending, nonresponsive answer, and then his choice to mock me because I felt his answer was condescending. I responded-in-kind. My current issue with the other two boils down to their one-sided analysis and their rather Victorian notions of civility. It includes their premise that their standards should be imputed on others and those who do not adhere are unwelcomed in Talossa. Considering the lack of history between them and me, there current disagreement with them is based entirely on current events, at least from my perspective. Also, particularly with those two, the way I responded to them was related to how they initiated discourse and then subsequently responded to me.
As to the concept of civility. I think people misuse the word, or use it any time someone challenges them. Civility can mean “I respectfully disagree with your premise” but it can also mean “no, you’re wrong here;” it can mean “you’re being condescending;” and it can also mean “oh come on, you’re entirely engaging in revisionism here.” Further, I don’t think conflict is inherently bad, and I think at times it is good (hey, look how much shit we just got out on the table?). So yes, I think your comment about a couple of loud New York and Glasgow bad tempers may be apt to a degree, but I am loath say calling a trough a trough, instead of calling a trough a shared urinal, somehow crosses the line of civility. I'm also very uncomfortable with premise that actions are excusable merely because of the absence of malicious intent - I think this leads to the breakdown of democracy (I point to Trump as an example).
To conclude – I do not hate you, but I don’t particularly like you either. I think this is shared. You will be my Senator, and you must deal with me as a constituent. And that will be that. I will work with you when appropriate and criticize you when appropriate - and yes, I will use fiery rhetoric. I will also apologize if I go too far. That is my style. But to prevent another public flame-war, I am willing to say that next time there is an issue, I will PM you. That doesn’t mean I won’t call you a douchebag if you’re acting like it; it just means that I’ll try to give you the benefit of the doubt before calling you a douchebag. Fair?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 3, 2016 12:17:38 GMT -6
Heh. There's actually no "angry shit [I'm] dragging all around the place." I'm also unsure where I've been "uncivil" with you. Is it because I said I think you'll make a lousy senator (which you said about me)? Is it because I said I'm not accepting your retelling of events?
Just so I know where we stand - if I state, "well this is how I feel," then this is an attack and lacks civility? That's the standard?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 3, 2016 12:06:59 GMT -6
In no way did I say I was concerned with my personal reputation. What I am saying is that the manner in which I engaged is not unfamiliar in Talossa.
As to the rest of your comments. That's nice. I'm uninterested in your gaslighting. I will work with you on shared ideas, or you won't work with me, but I'm not going to be lectured by some victorian on propriety. You can choose to favor intent over impact, but that's a position I view as misguided. I'm not going to sit here and reevaluate the posts, but I do make note that you're laughably one-sided in your analysis.
I will not take a hard look at myself, or reassess how I want to play here, as I don't think you're way is "more correct" or "more proper."
Anyway, this back and forth isn't going anywhere. I'm done debating this issue. If you choose to not work with me - fine.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 20:32:29 GMT -6
Firstly, I would like to refer you to Article XVI Section 13 of the Organic Law: This Judge is of the opinion that Section 13, clearly provides this Cort with the full authority to "...order a party to perform his legal duty, or may prevent the enforcement of a law which may be Inorganic (unconstitutional)." Therefore, in my opinion, this Cort does have the right to order a party, be it the Crown or Prime Minister or Cosa/Senate or other bodies, state or otherwise to perform his/her/their legal duties. This Cort has very limited power in preventing a party from performing his/her/their lawful duties, one such case is the enforcement of a law which is inorganic. My own interpretation is that the Crown, by promulgating the Amendment in question, will be, at least in definition, enforcing a law which "may" be inorganic. Therefore, a injunction against this action is Organic and it is my opinion that the injunction issued by this Cort under Section 13, preventing the enforcement of a law by promulgation is Organic. I am open to correction by my fellow judges, should they feel otherwise and would welcome their decision as final arbiter of the organicity of injunctions. The Cort cannot compel the Crown to make a decision as to when or when not to promulgate a amendment, however in the interest of justice, this Cort can enquire as to the Crown's thoughts on a matter, this is what the Cort was doing in order to best decide how to deal with this case and again in exercise of Section 13 above. This Cort will need time to consider the rest of your response and decide how best to approach in what is a developing situation. Until such a time a decision is made, this Cort stands in recess and injunctions remain in place. So Ordered, Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN tl;dr - the Cort and Crown got it wrong: the Crown can't pocket veto amendments and the Cort can't force the Crown not to promulgate an amendment but it can force it to promulgate an amendment. -- With all due deference, I think the Cort misapplied Section 13. The Crown is correct insofar that the Cort cannot tell it not to promulgate the amendment. And to be clear, the Org Law speaks to enforcement of a law, not an amendment. The Crown, however, is incorrect in that the Cort can require it to perform its legal duty, or to promulgate the law (i.e., the King can't pocket veto the amendment). To put this in context, Art. XV sec. 4 states, "The King shall promulgate the amendment as part of the Organic Law if it is approved by majority of voters ..." In US Common Law, "shall" means "must". "In common, or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary signification, the term 'shall' is a word of command, and one which has always, or which must be given a compulsory meaning; as denoting obligation. It has a peremptory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intent appears; but the context ought to be very strongly persuasive before it is softened into a mere permission." People v. O'Rourke, 124 Cal. App. 752, 759 (Cal. App. 1932), see also Independent School Dist. v. Independent School Dist., 170 N.W.2d 433, 440 (Minn. 1969). Sections of the Org. Law do not exist in a vacuum of each other. The Cort must read them in conjunction with one another. Hence, the Crown has an organic duty to promulgate an amendment that was passed, as required by Org Law Art XV sec. 4. The Cort may force the Crown to promulgate the law if the Crown refuses, as required by Org Law Art. XVI sec. 13. The Cort may, in turn, issue an injunction against enforcement of that law, pursuant to Art. XVI sec. 13. The Cort may not, however, issue an injunction preventing the Crown from performing its duties, pursuant to Art XVI sect 13.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 20:09:10 GMT -6
I'm certainly not concerned with adhering to your concepts of appropriate civic engagement. Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun may be right about one thing. Perhaps you aren't a great fit here. It's not that you don't have a valid perspective... but when it's delivered with shameless antagonism—is anyone going to accept it? You're both acting like the manner in which I have responded is something abnormal from my reputation. Go back and look at some of the fiery rhetoric Miestra and I used to throw at each other. Get back to me on how I'm not a fit. But yeah, next you'll be telling me that if an American burns the US flag, they should be jailed or have their citizenship revoked.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 20:03:10 GMT -6
Harris v. McLaughlin is distinguishable from the current issue. First, the proposed initiative was not a constitutional amendment, but sought to amend the California Penal Code; here, the question before the Cort concerns a constitutional amendment. Second, as a statute cannot violate the constitution, in Harris, the issue was whether an initiative can be promulgated that would be declared unconstitutional; I'm not speaking to the statutes here, I'm speaking to the amendment to the Organic Law. True, but Harris also apparently blocked McLaughlin from submitting a proposed constitutional amendment following the court order in Harris v. McLaughlin, citing the same court order. McLaughlin sued over this, and Harris filed an anti-SLAAP motion, stating that her decision to block the proposal was not only covered by Harris v. McLaughlin, but the decision was protected speech and a discretionary act. (This is despite the Supreme Court ruling in 1979 that the California Elections Code requires the AG to issue a title and summary.) This second case is still ongoing. Okay, but let's assume, arguendo, that the constitutional amendment is blocked, the only points I make still stand - it was done early on, prior to going over a number of procedural hurdles.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 19:57:11 GMT -6
Threshold - I really like this case, but not for the obvious reason of whether the amendment itself is organic, but for the idea that it forces the Cort to address the extent of its authority. Some interesting thoughts here. The higher amendment threshold for the Covenants in the OrgLaw is an example of an entrenched clause. An example from the United States Constitution is the guarantee that no state can be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without its consent. So, for example, an amendment stating that Wyoming shall henceforth only have one senator would be invalid unless ratified by Wyoming, even if ratified by all 49 other states. That's a great point! Does the OrgLaw have an analogous clause?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 19:55:12 GMT -6
Harris v. McLaughlin is distinguishable from the current issue. First, the proposed initiative was not a constitutional amendment, but sought to amend the California Penal Code; here, the question before the Cort concerns a constitutional amendment. Second, as a statute cannot violate the constitution, in Harris, the issue was whether an initiative can be promulgated that would be declared unconstitutional; I'm not speaking to the statutes here, I'm speaking to the amendment to the Organic Law. Third, the California Attorney General challenged the initiative at an extremely early stage; here, the challenge comes at the end-stages of the Amendment process, as outlined by Art. XV of the Org Law. Has this Amendment not already met the procedure outlined OrgLaw Art. XV?
Now, all of that being said, I think the strongest argument against the amendment is Art. XV § 6, which requires an Amendment that would contradict the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms pass by a 2/3 margin of the participating voters. If the EC verifies 49RZ23 as having received 61 votes out of 116 vote, and if the Cort finds that this does contradict the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, then under § 6, it received roughly 52.6% of the vote, not the necessary 67% (or 78 votes). BUT, this section speaks only about amendments to the Covenants themselves. I think an amendment to the OrgLaw that contravenes the Covenants could be see as a per se amendment to the Covenants. I may be stretching here.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 19:05:15 GMT -6
To follow up on my initial question as to whether there is an instance of a constitutional amendment being permissive even though it would contradict other aspects of the constitution.
I can only think of Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009), which was a state level challenge to the recently passed Proposition 8, which revoked the right to marry previously found in California Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. From my preliminary reading of the decision, the issue in that case was, "the scope of the right of the people, under provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process so as to incorporate such a limitation [banning same-sex marriage] as an explicit section of the State constitution." The California Supreme Court ultimately held that Proposition 8 did not contradict the Constitution, but created a narrow exception to the state Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
I think if the Cort decides that it has authority to hear this case, then the amendment should be viewed as an exception and not a contradiction. Nevertheless, I continue to think that the case may be suffer from a jurisdictional defect, as explained in my previous post.
|
|