|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 18:06:08 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.
I think it extraordinary that an amendment that passes its procedural posture could be held up because it may contradict another aspect of the OrgLaw. Offhand, do we know of any other countries that have blocked a constitutional amendment that followed proper procedure but contradicted other aspects of that country's constitution? In fact, I see an analogous issue to Marbury v. Madison here, but a bit askew. To explain - this isn't a question of parliamentary v. constitutional supremacy, but one of judicial v. constitutional supremacy. Put another way, the Cort derives its power from the Organic Law - does the Organic Law provide the power to overturn a properly passed amendment because it may think it would contradict another area of the Org Law (rather, is that not exceeding its authority)? If there is not clearly a enumerated power reserved for the Cort, under what clause in the Organic Law will the Cort claim this authority?
Few other questions (I decided to provide some analogies to the U.S. experience for clarity; these are not perfect analogies but I think they work to an extent):
(1) Could it not be argued that the more recent amendment would take some type of precedent, as it provides a better indication of the preference of the populace?
(2) Would it simply not be the case that the Cort may accept the amendment, but its ultimate goal is to balance the Amendment against the Covenant and provide some guidance on how far the Amendment goes? (e.g, the U.S. Supreme Court balancing the 5th/14th Amendment protections of contraceptive rights for women against the 1st Amendment's religious protections via Hobby Lobby.)
(3) Is it certainly not the case that an amendment may carve out an exception to another aspect of the country's constitution? (E.g., the US Supreme Court found income tax was unconstitutional under the apportionment clause; in response, Congress and the states ratified the 16th Amendment, which allowed for income tax)
(4) Keeping with that - is it not also the case that where a statute may not be appropriate under one part of a country's constitution, it may be appropriate elsewhere? (e.g., the US Supreme Court held that congress could not use the commerce clause for the individual mandate found in the ACA, but it could use tax and spend)
This is merely academic for me. I'm neutral on the merits of the case.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 17:39:12 GMT -6
I do not care about your request to recount votes in Vuode. Votes will be confirmed by the EC, anyway, and scrutiny is always welcome when it comes to matters of State. However, I do not appreciate your passive-aggressive tone, and I will call you to order, S:reu Marcianüs. You may also want to stop being so patronising and condescending, generally. You know, if you wish to prevail in Talossa. History and experience has shown that bullies generally find themselves isolated from the community, because -- as much as we may fight and argue with one another -- we always remember that the person on the other side is a human being with feelings. And if you cannot respect this fact, then I am afraid you will find that Talossa may not be the right fit for you. Eh, you'll call me to nothing. I do, however, chuckle at your premise, that if an individual does not adhere to your arbitrary standards of civic engagement, then Talossa may not be the right fit for them. Nothing in my posts indicates that I don't think MFP and you are, in fact, people on the other side of a computer. On the contrary, this entire disagreement can be reduced to the fact that those who engaged in the debate are human. Your response, however, does not consider that I am, in fact, also human, or if it does, it implies that my feelings are less than your or MFP's feelings (i.e., he can be insulted that I called him condescending, but I can't be insulted for his condescension). But eh, who cares honestly? I'm certainly not concerned with adhering to your concepts of appropriate civic engagement. And you certainly aren't concerned with mine.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 17:20:34 GMT -6
Emphasis added to original. You can see from the election results page that 4 public ballots were cast in Vuode. Three of them were cast in the Witt voting thread: you can see for yourself the time and date they were cast and that the voters explicitly stated their chosen candidatr's name. M-P already answered your questions with respect to the public ballot (Sir Trotxâ's) not cast on Witt. What are you still looking for with respect to the emphasized question? *sigh* The re-post with emphasis was a direct response to the assertions made in the the post that immediately preceded it. See below. When a person doesn't answer properly to your questions, you have two choices: Consider they didn't understand them properly and repeat them. Or... consider they attacked you, are being condescending and put them on the defensive. You chose the second option, so instead of rereading your questions you kept pointing me to my own answers.You put the focus on my answers and my behavior instead of on your own questions. Y ou never thought it possible that I might have misunderstood your questions.To explain - MPF asserted that I failed to consider that he misunderstood the question (see above-italicized text); he then asserted that I did no focus on my questions, but on his answer (see above-bold text). However, my initial response demonstrates the following: (1) I told him to cease the condescension; (2) the questions in my original post presumed the scenario he gave, hence my response that the "(s)cenario didn't really explain anything" followed shortly after by "[m]y question remains - of the public votes..." indicates that I did, in fact, consider he misunderstood the question, and that I acknowledged it; and (3) I did, in fact, ask for the exact information I sought (i.e., or as he put it - I was "rereading [my] questions" and was not merely putting the "focus on [his] answers"). I want to be clear about the post you now reference - that was not done to illicit answers to the questions, but to demonstrate that I did, in fact, consider that he misunderstood the question and did, in fact, repose my questions. The post merely disproves his assertions. Now, to your other question - yes, he answered them ages ago. I acknowledged that and stated that I would wait for the EC to confirm. The debate, however, shifted to two issues, with the latter issue dominating: (1) whether there is a problem that one method allows a certain type of vote but another method does not [to which we both agreed early on, but he felt it necessary to keep bringing up]; and (2) whether his initial response was condescending. Hence, the debate stopped being substantive hours ago as its focus really became whether his initial response was condescending. Does this answer your question(s)?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 16:33:17 GMT -6
I think the only one being condescending (or rather patronising) is you, Viteu. You may want to recall that this is a person, a fellow Talossan, sitting on the other end of your posts, probably with little intention of antagonising you, yet you go on, and accuse him of just doing that, when he has stated on multiple occasions that he had not intended to do so. Get a grip. Cool story, bro.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 15:17:38 GMT -6
For the record, I don't agree with my party leader's stance on the party-lists thing, for reasons I've explained to him in private and will explain to anyone else if they're really interested. But his question on the EC brings up one of my huge bugbears - and the main reason I took a six-month break from Talossa. The OrgLaw is buggy as all hell. This is due to rushed Amendments which weren't read properly (because too complex, or due to rampant apathy). In the last Cosa I convened the RCOR to try to fix this on a non-party basis. This was deliberately sabotaged by members of the RUMP (with ModRad help) out of sheer partisan spite. Meanwhile, their alternative also crashed and burned because, surprise surprise, it produced amendments which were buggy as all hell and not read properly. We need root-and-branch OrgLaw reform, and probably someone to go through El Lexhátx with a fine-tooth comb as well. We need laws which are less "lawyeristic" - by which I mean, if a law is not comprehensible at first sight by a fluent non-native English speaker, it is not appropriate for Talossa. These will be my priorities in the 50th Cosa. This is where I may disagree with Miestra. I agree that the laws tend to be too "lawyeristic," but the problem is two-fold: (1) non-lawyers are trying to lawyer; and (2) when someone doesn't understand a statute/Org Law, they make an issue about it in the Ziu and pass more legislation, compounding the issue. In that sense, we're using the Ziu as both a legislature and a court. To the second point - Talossa has two options: (1) either completely transition to a civil law system, where everything is codified; or (2) develop an independent judiciary that will clarify how the law should be interpreted (when a suit has been brought, that is).
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 15:12:05 GMT -6
To clarify, I did not mean Hool, I meant Aladna la Mha-Coca (you'll excuse the confusion). You will cease your condescension; your little scenario didn't really explain anything, as it does not much differ from the point I'm making. My question remains - of the public votes, on which date were they received and did they explicitly state Grischun? Of the private votes, the EC will need to confirm that they are appropriate. And I'm not apologizing for this, but the fact that you concede that there is a significant difference between private and public votes (i.e., you can vote party in one but not the other), then I'm not putting much stock into your other claims. Emphasis added to original.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 14:05:48 GMT -6
Was that so hard?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 13:39:41 GMT -6
Because you were. It baffles my mind that you think your behavior is/was proper, or that you can't handle the citizens of Talossa rightfully questioning you. In case you forgot, you're a public servant not a delicate flower. The nature of your position renders you ripe for public scrutiny, in all of its form. The scrutiny includes a citizen identifying your condescension. The fact that this baffles you speaks volumes. As I stated in another post, learn the difference between impact and intention. What the fuck? You questionned the process, I explained the process and you claim that by explaining it I was being condecending??? And after that you question my duty to answer, but I did answer and when I did, you claimed I was being an asshole for the way I answered you??? Public scrutity, I am 100% fine with it. Ask me any question and I will explain my reasoning. In fact, I did so to you, and you decided that my answer was condecending for explaining something which in your opinion isn't an answer to your question. But your question was about Hool's vote. I answered about his vote. When you mentionned Trotxa, I answered about him. Shame on you for rejecting the answers you clearly asked, and for implying that I am rejecting scrutiny when I answered EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. YOUR. QUESTIONS. Just because YOU think I was being condecending toward you doesn't mean I was. JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK I WAS BEING AN ASSHOLE TO YOu doesn't mean that I was. For the record, I think that you are being and asshole toward me and am I constantly attacking you on that? NO, I am doing my duty and answering EVERY ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS. If you don't want me to answer to the fullest my answers, STOP ASKING ME QUESTIONS. Because when you ask me a question, I tend to provide examples and try to make my point clear to make sure I am not misquoted, especially after I am being SUED for not explaing clearly enough that these had to be validated by the EC. Meh, keep misrepresenting the facts. You can think I'm an asshole. I've been called worse by better.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 13:33:47 GMT -6
Let us also be clear, "I am sorry if you think that explaining the situation makes you think I was being condecensing." is not an apology. It's assholish. WHAT? What is unclear? Then stop. But don't expect to say you're dropping something and then provide some tedious screed without a response. But it was unnecessary. Had you read my post closer, you would have understood I wasn't questioning anything your scenario brought up. Instead, it came off as, "oh gee, this again, okay, let me explain it to you." Irrelevant. Again, it was unnecessary. Your explanation actually supported what I was saying. Your explanation tried to say, "you're wrong; let me explain it to you" when you didn't even bother to consider what the issue is. I didn't need you to explain the process to me; I needed you to answer my questions. Again, read my post closer. I didn't say you were acting like an asshole, I said your "apology" was assholish. I questioned the integrity of the process. Which is my right to do. Call me out on it. "V QUESTIONED THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS!" Yes, great job! Because you got nothing wrong in this election. Nope, let's just ignore the stuff you did. (That's sarcasm by the way) <- That was me being condescending <-That was me being condescending about being condescending, how meta. Again, I said your apology was assholish. You're not being an asshole right now, you're just being daft. That's not really relevant. After I protested, you corrected it. Good for you! But this entire disagreement is about you not answering the questions I posed, and getting insulted because I called you out for your condescending non-response. Okay, Talossa is a country that when you question the process, you're attacking it. Got it. We've gone over this. I had already publicly stated I wasn't putting much stock into what you say. Why was this a shock? Cool story, bro. Nice try at gaslighting. Let's just note that you've taken a cue out of Mr. Trump's handbook and decided that those who question you are attacking you. Yeah, no, that's not what happened. But I get it - you're infallible; you can't be questioned. On that note, Mr. Trump, go ahead and respond and I'll read it and laugh. But I'm done with this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 13:06:02 GMT -6
Because you were. It baffles my mind that you think your behavior is/was proper, or that you can't handle the citizens of Talossa rightfully questioning you. In case you forgot, you're a public servant not a delicate flower. The nature of your position renders you ripe for public scrutiny, in all of its form. The scrutiny includes a citizen identifying your condescension. The fact that this baffles you speaks volumes. As I stated in another post, learn the difference between impact and intention.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 12:57:09 GMT -6
Let us also be clear, "I am sorry if you think that explaining the situation makes you think I was being condecensing." is not an apology. It's assholish.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 12:28:32 GMT -6
Putting everything else aside, you don't think that it's an issue that voting with one method gives you more options than voting with another method?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 12:17:57 GMT -6
Way to gaslight.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 12:08:20 GMT -6
I appreciate the change in tone of your last post. But that's the thing!!! I was NOT being agressive in my first post either! At least, if I was perceived as being agressive, it was entirely involuntary in my part! In forums it's hard to guess the tone of a person, but my desired tone was NOT condescending, it was NOT agreessive toward you, and it was NOT defensive. I am not disputing that you perceived it at much, but I certainly didn't intend them! Impact versus intent. Look into it. Your tone was aggressive and your post was condescending. I didn't need you to "explain" to me how it works, when that explanation supported my point. I'll let the EC confirm that. I'm making note of this statement, " t makes NO difference legally speaking."
[/quote] Nobody is asking for that. Only that the information that would be available had a public vote been made on the forum be equally available when done via the database but marked public. You're adding labels where they don't need to be. There are either public or private votes. If a vote is public, then all aspects of that vote is public (of course IP and PSC would not be included as those are not provided on the Witt ballot). But, as you stated, there is no legal basis for the distinction you are making. What you're arguing is that method of voting implies how much information should be given to the public when addressing public votes. There's no need for this argument. The same information I can see on a that is made via Witt should be available from a vote that was made by email, on the database, via voicemail, or whatever method you can construct, and that includes the date and time and what was entered for specific fields. I can't fathom why you continue to invent new categories where there needn't be.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 11:52:52 GMT -6
Actually, I'm fairly confident in what the end result would be. But accuracy is key. At the moment, I think the count is inaccurate. The idea that not taking steps to ensure a count is accurate and done according to the law simply because it won't change the result is absurd. If we're complacent here, then we set a precedent that will lead to uncontested discrepancies in the future, which could impact that potential race. It is, quite clearly, a black and white issue - either you support taking steps to ensure an election was taken according to the law or you don't. SO yes, it's for democracy.
By your logic, we should not seek to emulate established democratic practices of ensuring votes are properly accounted for. Gotcha. We clearly have different standards, mine being based in a desire to ensure our democratic institutions are not only sound but proper. Yours... Well, civility in lieu of strong institutions is a boon.
|
|