Proclamation of Amendments

[Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben.]

My two bence here.



The Law is the law. The Cort's explanations or interpretations of the Law are not the law. (Nor are my explanations, or the Government's, or anyone else's.) There are ambiguities in laws that need to be authoritatively cleared up, and the courts are charged with making those clarifications. But where there's no ambiguity, the Cort has no right or power or justification if it tries to take the plain language of the law and "interpret" it to mean something that, in fact, it doesn't mean.




For instance, the Organic Law says "The Cosâ is composed of 200 seats, apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election." Now, a case might arise in which the inherent ambiguity of "based on their performance" came into question, and the Cort would have to decide whether a particular apportionment was sufficiently performance-based to meet that criterion. But there's no ambiguity at all in what "200" means, and the Cort *could not* decide that it would be better if the Cosa had 201 seats, or 20 seats, or some other number of seats. 201 is not 200. 20 is not 200. On the number of seats, there's no ambiguity in the Law, and no need for any interpretation. Everyone can interpret "200" just fine. If some Cort were to "interpret" "200" to mean 20, that wouldn't be interpretation, and it wouldn't have any legal validity at all.

There is a pretty sizable difference between the court reinterpreting the meaning of "may" versus "shall" and the court changing a number from 200 to 20. Your example is one of the worst comparisons imaginable. And the funny thing is that I think you know that. I refuse to believe that someone as educated as you are, particularly in the field of mathematics, can earnestly make such a fallacious argument. If you really cannot see the difference between "interpreting" the number 200 as 20 and clarifying the intention of the word "may" in a legal document then I suggest you draw this clock and have someone check any code you've written recently, pronto.

Alternatively, you can cease with the disingenuous "I did nothing wrong" and acknowledge that your reign exists because the people willed it to exist and the people can just as easily unwill it to exist. If that notion makes you grumpy, then that's all the more reason why we need to get you off of the throne. Perhaps your reign, as fruitful as it was in the beginning, is beginning to poison your mind and we need to oust you before you go full blown Ben. 

At this point you don't owe the people an explanation. You owe every single Talossan a sincere and heartfelt apology.

That's the kind of thing we're talking about here. I'm not being a "strict constructionist" so much as just a literate reader of plain English prose. It makes perfectly good sense to argue that I *shouldn't* have refrained from doing something the OrgLaw says I "may" do; it makes perfectly good sense to argue that the OrgLaw should have been written to say "must" instead of "may". But it makes no sense at all -- linguistic, legal, or moral -- to claim some ability to *interpret* "may" into meaning "must".



— John R

We don't really need "moral" justification for anything. If you feel that you are here to serve as a "moral" compass then you are confusing two of your jobs. It's also incredibly and astonishingly arrogant to claim that your pithy privilege gives you the right to overrule the will of the people. You have a right to veto statutory law as well. And the Ziu can override that veto. It would be nonsensical for you to be able to override an amendment after it cleared both the Ziu AND a referendum. 

Article XVI of the Organic Law states:


...The courts shall render their decisions with due regard to the original intent of any law being clarified, as defined by the law's author(s). In the event of a difference in interpretation as to the meaning of a law, the court shall render an official interpretation with full respect to the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms. If one of the judges wrote the law, he does not have to step down and designate a temporary replacement.

And it makes for a very strong argument that an interpretation of the word "may" with your definition would present a very significant 13th covenant challenge. It would likewise be a reasonable argument to state that the intention of the law was certainly not to make the King capable of preventing amendments to the Organic Law. That would make you an absolute ruler and our elected government merely a body that serves at your will.

But you know that, John. You know very well how contemptible this action was. You didn't do it to make a legal point. You say you did it because it was your legal right and you intended to preserve your power. But the underlying truth is that you're just a sad old drunk who loves staggering around bars bragging about how you're King. I've watched you do it in real time. But you're not King, John. You're an angry man on a message board trying desperately to assert your authority over people scattered all over the globe. And honestly, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we were to check those IP logins to find that "Patrick" was actually yourself trying desperately to lend legitimacy to your recent actions. I cannot possibly imagine what must be going wrong in your personal life to warrant this sort of assertion of authority but I sincerely hope it passes smoothly. 

This isn't a sign of strength, John. It's merely highlighting your true weakness. 

[King John]

Sad old drunk, roger. But at least I'm pretty.

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

Jun 5, 2015 10:05:47 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

But the underlying truth is that you're just a sad old drunk who loves staggering around bars bragging about how you're King. I've watched you do it in real time. But you're not King, John. You're an angry man on a message board trying desperately to assert your authority over people scattered all over the globe. And honestly, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we were to check those IP logins to find that "Patrick" was actually yourself trying desperately to lend legitimacy to your recent actions.

Jun 5, 2015 10:13:58 GMT -6 King John said:

Sad old drunk, roger. But at least I'm pretty.

Uh ... Time to lock this thread?

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Please don't. That picture is hilarious.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Jun 5, 2015 10:05:47 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

And honestly, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we were to check those IP logins to find that "Patrick" was actually yourself trying desperately to lend legitimacy to your recent actions. 

For the record, King John's IP shows him to be in the Denver area of Colorado and Prince Patrick's shows him to be in or near Annapolis, MD. We don't need to throw around accusations or resort to name calling.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jun 5, 2015 10:05:47 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

My two bence here.



The Law is the law. The Cort's explanations or interpretations of the Law are not the law. (Nor are my explanations, or the Government's, or anyone else's.) There are ambiguities in laws that need to be authoritatively cleared up, and the courts are charged with making those clarifications. But where there's no ambiguity, the Cort has no right or power or justification if it tries to take the plain language of the law and "interpret" it to mean something that, in fact, it doesn't mean.




For instance, the Organic Law says "The Cosâ is composed of 200 seats, apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election." Now, a case might arise in which the inherent ambiguity of "based on their performance" came into question, and the Cort would have to decide whether a particular apportionment was sufficiently performance-based to meet that criterion. But there's no ambiguity at all in what "200" means, and the Cort *could not* decide that it would be better if the Cosa had 201 seats, or 20 seats, or some other number of seats. 201 is not 200. 20 is not 200. On the number of seats, there's no ambiguity in the Law, and no need for any interpretation. Everyone can interpret "200" just fine. If some Cort were to "interpret" "200" to mean 20, that wouldn't be interpretation, and it wouldn't have any legal validity at all.

There is a pretty sizable difference between the court reinterpreting the meaning of "may" versus "shall" and the court changing a number from 200 to 20. Your example is one of the worst comparisons imaginable. And the funny thing is that I think you know that. I refuse to believe that someone as educated as you are, particularly in the field of mathematics, can earnestly make such a fallacious argument. If you really cannot see the difference between "interpreting" the number 200 as 20 and clarifying the intention of the word "may" in a legal document then I suggest you draw this clock and have someone check any code you've written recently, pronto.

Alternatively, you can cease with the disingenuous "I did nothing wrong" and acknowledge that your reign exists because the people willed it to exist and the people can just as easily unwill it to exist. If that notion makes you grumpy, then that's all the more reason why we need to get you off of the throne. Perhaps your reign, as fruitful as it was in the beginning, is beginning to poison your mind and we need to oust you before you go full blown Ben. 

At this point you don't owe the people an explanation. You owe every single Talossan a sincere and heartfelt apology.

That's the kind of thing we're talking about here. I'm not being a "strict constructionist" so much as just a literate reader of plain English prose. It makes perfectly good sense to argue that I *shouldn't* have refrained from doing something the OrgLaw says I "may" do; it makes perfectly good sense to argue that the OrgLaw should have been written to say "must" instead of "may". But it makes no sense at all -- linguistic, legal, or moral -- to claim some ability to *interpret* "may" into meaning "must".



— John R

We don't really need "moral" justification for anything. If you feel that you are here to serve as a "moral" compass then you are confusing two of your jobs. It's also incredibly and astonishingly arrogant to claim that your pithy privilege gives you the right to overrule the will of the people. You have a right to veto statutory law as well. And the Ziu can override that veto. It would be nonsensical for you to be able to override an amendment after it cleared both the Ziu AND a referendum. 

Article XVI of the Organic Law states:


...The courts shall render their decisions with due regard to the original intent of any law being clarified, as defined by the law's author(s). In the event of a difference in interpretation as to the meaning of a law, the court shall render an official interpretation with full respect to the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms. If one of the judges wrote the law, he does not have to step down and designate a temporary replacement.

And it makes for a very strong argument that an interpretation of the word "may" with your definition would present a very significant 13th covenant challenge. It would likewise be a reasonable argument to state that the intention of the law was certainly not to make the King capable of preventing amendments to the Organic Law. That would make you an absolute ruler and our elected government merely a body that serves at your will.

But you know that, John. You know very well how contemptible this action was. You didn't do it to make a legal point. You say you did it because it was your legal right and you intended to preserve your power. But the underlying truth is that you're just a sad old drunk who loves staggering around bars bragging about how you're King. I've watched you do it in real time. But you're not King, John. You're an angry man on a message board trying desperately to assert your authority over people scattered all over the globe. And honestly, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we were to check those IP logins to find that "Patrick" was actually yourself trying desperately to lend legitimacy to your recent actions. I cannot possibly imagine what must be going wrong in your personal life to warrant this sort of assertion of authority but I sincerely hope it passes smoothly. 

This isn't a sign of strength, John. It's merely highlighting your true weakness. 

Yipes.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Jun 5, 2015 10:37:48 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

Jun 5, 2015 10:05:47 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

And honestly, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we were to check those IP logins to find that "Patrick" was actually yourself trying desperately to lend legitimacy to your recent actions. 

For the record, King John's IP shows him to be in the Denver area of Colorado and Prince Patrick's shows him to be in or near Annapolis, MD. We don't need to throw around accusations or resort to name calling.

I find this information to be unduly revealed. :/

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Jun 5, 2015 10:39:27 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Jun 5, 2015 10:37:48 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

For the record, King John's IP shows him to be in the Denver area of Colorado and Prince Patrick's shows him to be in or near Annapolis, MD. We don't need to throw around accusations or resort to name calling.

I find this information to be unduly revealed. :/

Sorry, just don't like spurious accusations. Plus, their locations aren't secret so nothing revealed really.

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

I'm calling using an acoustic coupler attached to a pay phone in a booth at a strip mall in Gatineau, Quebec, if anyone was wondering why my IP had changed.

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

UPDATE: I'm learning lots of new French cuss words.

Apparantly, people get really angry if you tie up the phone booth for two hours with your laptop and acoustic coupler.

On the plus side, isn't just a little bit cool that AOL still offers dialup in 2015?

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Jun 5, 2015 11:02:07 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

UPDATE: I'm learning lots of new French cuss words.

Apparantly, people get really angry if you tie up the phone booth for two hours with your laptop and acoustic coupler.

On the plus side, isn't just a little bit cool that AOL still offers dialup in 2015?

Two things: You still have pay phones in Canada? AOL still exists? 

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

Jun 5, 2015 11:06:02 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

Jun 5, 2015 11:02:07 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

UPDATE: I'm learning lots of new French cuss words.

Apparantly, people get really angry if you tie up the phone booth for two hours with your laptop and acoustic coupler.

On the plus side, isn't just a little bit cool that AOL still offers dialup in 2015?

Two things: You still have pay phones in Canada? AOL still exists?

Beer and snow don't mix.  Well, they do, but what I mean is that it's pretty easy to lose your mobile phone in the snow, especially if you've had too many.  Pay phones are hard to lose, and pretty easy to find, even if you're a little tipsy.

Anyway, the brewing industry lobbied to keep pay phones around as a safety mechanism to protect their customers, er, the Canadian public.

And AOL is apparently doing well with dialup. It's about the only business they have that's still profitable.

qz.com/245585/aol-still-has-2-3-million-dialup-subscribers-and-theyre-very-profitable/

---

Note: The article is real and we really do have pay phones in Canada.  Some other information may be completely made up.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 5, 2015 10:05:47 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

You have a right to veto statutory law as well. And the Ziu can override that veto. It would be nonsensical for you to be able to override an amendment after it cleared both the Ziu AND a referendum. 

There may be a good argument that any blocking or delaying of an amendment by the King should come before the referendum rather than after. I see the Democratic Amendment seems to be moving in that direction. I had an idea along those lines that I've been mulling over as well.

Jun 5, 2015 10:05:47 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

Article XVI of the Organic Law states:

...The courts shall render their decisions with due regard to the original intent of any law being clarified, as defined by the law's author(s). In the event of a difference in interpretation as to the meaning of a law, the court shall render an official interpretation with full respect to the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms. If one of the judges wrote the law, he does not have to step down and designate a temporary replacement.

As long as we're quoting from Article XVI, let's not forget this bit:

Section 9

In the event that a court discovers unclear or confusing language in the Organic Law or in any law, the court may as part of its written decision call upon the Ziu, or if relevant, the Provincial legislature to revise the law. Until such confusion is resolved, the court shall rule according to the most just and equitable understanding of the law, according to the plain meaning of the words, or if such words have acquired a technical meaning at law, according to the technical meaning.

[King John]

I shudder to think what would have happened if this had all gone down two weeks ago, when I was in Arlington visiting Prince Patrick.

— John R

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Jun 5, 2015 12:04:13 GMT -6 King John said:

I shudder to think what would have happened if this had all gone down two weeks ago, when I was in Arlington visiting Prince Patrick.

— John R

I might not be your biggest fan at the moment, your Majesty, but I doubt that even Miestrâ (sorry to sully your name in such a negative way) would heed such accusations.