Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Dec 9, 2018 18:05:30 GMT -6
I think perhaps one issue is that V, having grown up in the US, is used to a Constitution which is VERY bare-bones. And yet, he based this draft on the Australian constitution, which is much more prescriptive.
On checking it out, I find out that there is no provision made for multiple readings of legislation in the Australian Parliament - and yet, they do it anyway, through tradition. We don't have that tradition in Talossa. We could pass a New OrgLaw which omitted that, and then try to bring it in via ordinary law, or even by Standing Orders in the Cosa and Senäts - but then I'm sure someone would jump up and say it was inOrganic. You see the double bind here.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 9, 2018 18:08:54 GMT -6
The problem with your proposal is that the organic law spells out the legislative procedure. If it just said that the legislature could determine its own procedure, that would be very different. then we could do a 3 reading system or whatever else we wanted, based on majority vote.
Of course, if this was actually something that would being a good thing to do, it could be proposed as a very simple amendment to the organic law. In fact, that was tried and it failed badly. So lo and behold, here it is again, to try to get it through anyway.
But yes, I do think you have identified one of the major flaws behind this whole proposal. this document is simultaneously overly detailed and redundant and full of weird omissions.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 9, 2018 18:17:08 GMT -6
Honestly, and on a different note, look at this forum. There is almost no one in here commenting or improving the constitution that has been proposed for the country that you want to pass in the next couple of months. How can we possibly go on like this?
Even a majority of your own government is ignoring this, not to mention a majority of your own party. A majority of every party, in fact!
Regardless of whether or not we continue with this deeply flawed proposal, and regardless of whether or not we continue with this problematic convention approach, surely you must agree that we can't just continue to operate in this way?
Am I supposed to be the only person to look critically at this document and notice the problems? Is that just supposed to be on my shoulders, even though you think I am a villain out to sabotage it? Are you comfortable with this state of affairs? What if I miss something big? Who is going to catch it?
Why aren't you and the Seneschal trying to drum up more critics and skeptics to look at this thing?
Are you supposed to be almost the only defender? Is that the position you want to be in, defending a ton of stuff that you didn't write and say is too legal for you? Even you have to admit that there are problems... who is going to write the language to fix them?
Why aren't you and the Seneschal trying to drum up more experts and supporters to look at this thing?
If not even the supporters of this bill can stomach it, what are we even doing here?
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 10, 2018 7:43:36 GMT -6
I have updated the rules and procedures. As I've previously discussed, these rules primarily concern how amendments are Clarked for consideration. To that end, I invited everyone to refer to the bill that would have legislatively authorized this convention, as the basic rules for Hoppering and pseudo-Clarking amendments were not only listed in the bill, but are fundamentally the same as putting a bill on the actual Clark.
If there are any other rules that individuals want me to consider adding, I will give them due consideration. I would remind everyone that this board is merely an extension of the Hopper.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 10, 2018 8:17:20 GMT -6
I would like to officially object to the rules. I believe that everyone should have a chance to register with you in some way and then participate in drafting and voting on the proposed FDT/MRPT constitution. Anyone may participate in the Hopper, and the informal voting procedure may be whatever we decide, so there's no actual impediment here. There's also serious ideological concerns: we are elected legislators, not elected constitutional conventionalists (indeed, only 31% of Talossans voted for that), so we cannot claim to legitimately represent the people's concerns and interests in a new constitution.
We have only a tiny handful of people willing and able to participate. Let's try to open it up a bit more so maybe we can hear from the people.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 10, 2018 8:42:13 GMT -6
As the sponsor of the draft, it is the Seneschal's prerogative whether he would like to open voting to everyone, though I will say, everyone already can participate in the drafting and discussion of any amendments here.
I would also further add that as legislators, we amend OrgLaw all the time without inviting citizens to register with the Secretary of State and cast a vote. This process is no different: The final draft must be voted on by the Ziu without any voting by the public at large, however it will go to the public at large as a referendum should it pass the Ziu.
Additionally, citizens have always had the right to participate in Hopper discussions as well as exercise their right to free speech elsewhere. The process here, being fundamentally the same as the process whereby we as legislators draft and put forward amendments to OrgLaw, does nothing to impede the right of the public to express their opinions. For such reasons, my personal opinion would be that only members of the Ziu should be allowed to vote on these draft amendments.
I will of course abide by whatever process the Seneschal chooses. Until such time as I hear otherwise, the procedure as outlined in the bill which would have legislatively authorized this convention will stand.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 10, 2018 9:40:57 GMT -6
You are arguing that it should be treated like any other bill, but we are using artificial rules within a purported convention, and those need not bend to imaginary necessities. There's nothing stopping us from letting everyone participate in this convention, and there's nothing stopping us from letting everyone have a real say in its outcome via voting on amendments.
If this convention isn't open for everyone to meaningfully participate in the process, beyond commentary that legislators might through noblesse oblige deign to hear, then it's not a convention at all, and we shouldn't pretend that it is. This has become just the Seneschal's proposed bill, and the idea of a legitimate convention may now be discarded. It was already tattered, but at least the artifice can be abandoned.
It's fine that we're taking that approach, but we should all admit to ourselves the reality, at least.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 10, 2018 12:56:30 GMT -6
You are arguing that it should be treated like any other bill, but we are using artificial rules within a purported convention, and those need not bend to imaginary necessities. There's nothing stopping us from letting everyone participate in this convention, and there's nothing stopping us from letting everyone have a real say in its outcome via voting on amendments. If this convention isn't open for everyone to meaningfully participate in the process, beyond commentary that legislators might through noblesse oblige deign to hear, then it's not a convention at all, and we shouldn't pretend that it is. This has become just the Seneschal's proposed bill, and the idea of a legitimate convention may now be discarded. It was already tattered, but at least the artifice can be abandoned. It's fine that we're taking that approach, but we should all admit to ourselves the reality, at least. You seem to think that the word "convention" itself implies extending voting privileges to non-MZs, but "convention" is a much broader term than that, and we are using it to mean that Organic reform is an important issue that we would like to direct the Ziu's attention to. I would love to hear from all Talossans (and I am thinking of ways to encourage participation), but the result of this Convocation needs to be approved by the Ziu first and then the people, so a process of having the people vote on it, then the Ziu, and then the people again doesn't make much sense. It isn't particularly important that we were not explicitly elected as members of the Convocation, since the Convocation really is a process to refine the OrgLaw reform, and recommending amendments to the OrgLaw to the People is squarely in the purview of the Ziu, to which we were all elected.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Dec 19, 2018 12:07:24 GMT -6
Can I ask the Tuischac'h S:r Munditenens Tresplet what schedule he has in mind for the Pseudo-Clarks? I would assume that they are going to take place from 1-14 and 15-28 January or something similar, based on other comments, but I'd like to get official confirmation.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 19, 2018 12:16:53 GMT -6
Can I ask the Tuischac'h S:r Munditenens Tresplet what schedule he has in mind for the Pseudo-Clarks? I would assume that they are going to take place from 1-14 and 15-28 January or something similar, based on other comments, but I'd like to get official confirmation. I haven’t heard officially from the Seneschal that he wishes to have two week Clarks, though it’s very possible I’ve overlooked a post amidst all the back and forth. For the time being, unless I hear from him or someone points me to a post I’ve overlooked, we’ll proceed on the same schedule as the actual Clarks. If he does decide to move to a two week pseudo-Clark, then I would probably suggest a two-three day interim period between the Clarks to allow for any potential conflict processes to play out. To that end, I would amend the above rules to state that two or more conflicting amendments must be worked out within two days of official passage—though both myself and the Seneschal will endeavor to “get a head start” if you will and identify ways to solve conflicts well before an official passage. For the month of January, it would look as so: 1-14, two days “off”, 17-30, nearly two days off, then the next Clark could begin at the end of the evening on February 1. (If, by chance, we’ll be able to have additional pseudo-Clarks in February and beyond, that is.) On another note, I plan to assent to any requests for expedited consideration of amendments for the first Clark, owing to the change in drafts to be amended.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 19, 2018 12:57:59 GMT -6
I suggest Clarks between January 1-14 and 16-29
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 19, 2018 15:31:14 GMT -6
I suggest Clarks between January 1-14 and 16-29 I’m not averse to this, but I’m afraid that anything less than 2 days may not be enough time to resolve conflicts. (Even though my proposed schedule gives slightly less than 2 full days after the second Clark, assuming there is a third.) Could we limit voting to 13 days and publish on day 14?
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Dec 19, 2018 16:09:35 GMT -6
I don't see how there could be a third pseudo-Clark, unless the Government decided they wanted to push the final vote to the new Cosa, which I think would screw up the schedule for adoption of the new OrgLaw, should it pass.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 19, 2018 16:55:42 GMT -6
The only reason we would have a third Clark is if the government decides we need more time to work and can’t pass it this term, which is unlikely at this point.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 19, 2018 16:56:55 GMT -6
We could do 1-13 and 16-28 I guess.
|
|