|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Feb 2, 2019 23:32:07 GMT -6
Wait- did Alex, who tried to explain away the unabashed homophobic attacks by Ben-Ard actually say that racist attacks warrant removal? Wow, Alex. Wow. You don't think it does? Weird. Vinnie, I think that an opinion by a justice filled with racial slurs would merit removal. That doesn't seem controversial to me. I also don't blame you for trying to change the subject. This proposed constitution is a hard thing to defend, eh? The moral bankruptcy of Alex: homophobic attacks do not warrant removal; racist attacks do warrant removal. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 2, 2019 23:32:28 GMT -6
What? No, Vin, I'm pretty sure homophobic attacks also warrant removal.
...is that what you think the discussion was about? Did you not understand the issue?
|
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Feb 2, 2019 23:40:27 GMT -6
Ah yes, and now the moonwalking of Alex. He'll, of course, ignore that he condoned the homophobic attacks made by Ben-Ard. But now he claims such attacks warrant removal. Is Alex even capable of telling yhe truth?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 2, 2019 23:48:19 GMT -6
Ah yes, and now the moonwalking of Alex. He'll, of course, ignore that he condoned the homophobic attacks made by Ben-Ard. But now he claims such attacks warrant removal. Is Alex even capable of telling yhe truth? The weird thing about this line of distraction is that truth is a pretty invulnerable defense. Folks should just read the thread: talossa.proboards.com/thread/12899/act-remove-neditsch-ardpresteir-uc?page=1 I return to the topic at hand: This proposed constitution has too many problems, and should not be permitted to pass. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 4, 2019 9:16:25 GMT -6
I am indebted to the Seneschal, as always, for his eloquence and good faith. I have always and ever found him to be honourable quite apart from his title of Most Honourable, and this instance is no different. I am reposting this to return the thread to its topic, after an attempted derail. "No Balance of Powers"This is perhaps the most overblown of the accusations. Five years is so long in Talossa that not only would most cases have nothing to do with a Justice being reconfirmed; I can't even think of a time a Justice actually served for five years. Yes, it is important to keep the temporary will of the people from affecting Justices (which is why a Justice can only be not-renominated once every five years, not whenever the Ziu feels like it), but it is also important that Justices don't become too detached from the people. If anything, the Ziu would probably be most upset about Justices not showing up, so it might provide some incentive for Justices to do their job in a timely manner. Respectfully, the Honourable Seneschal is mistaken in some ways on this matter. First of all, there is a clear contradiction at work. Even the Seneschal must agree in part, I think, if he stops to imagine. Picture some case you might have before a justice. You can pick your own scenario, but suffice to say that the truth of the matter is plain. Indeed, it's so plain that it's insulting that you even have to go to law over it. And yet that justice rules against you, and does so with a heaping of racial slurs and no scintilla of logic. Does the Seneschal wish to argue that he will have forgotten this miscarriage of justice in a year? Or five? If that is so, then why would the process exist? If not, then will not your judgment be impaired in all such cases? To be sure, a racist justice must go, and we'll cry no tears. But just as memorable to each MZ would be a perceived injustice in some case that matters greatly to them and in which they believe themselves to be in the right. We can't have it both ways. Either MZs will remember the behavior of a justice and review their performance accordingly, or they will not, and the whole thing serves no purpose but to endanger us!The Seneschal is also mistaken about whether this performance review would ever arrive. Ián M.T. Tamorán was appointed 31 May 2012/XXXIII. He would have already endured one review, at which point any single MZ who disagreed with one of his decisions could force a supermajority vote to retain Justice Tamoran. Again, just to emphasize: any single MZ could kick out a justice during their performance review, forcing them to be removed from office unless a 2/3 majority retains them! It cannot be overstated how poor such a system would work. Further, Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN was appointed 1 Mar 2014/XXXV. Her performance review would be next month. Owen Edwards was appointed 22 Apr 2015/XXXVI. His performance review would be next year. Txec Róibeard Nordselva was appointed 22 Apr 2015/XXXVI, and his would occur at the same time (and indeed, under the proposed system, what a golden opportunity for a government to install friends in those positions!) "It Immediately Will Need Work"
If by "need work" it is meant "need accompanying statute law," then obviously yes, but one of the goals of the reform was to cut the fluff out of the Organic Law. Most of the Secretary of State's concerns, and most of these, can be sorted out in statute. I would say that since a law itself does not have a political affiliation, vetoing one would not supporting political activity. In this construction, then, His Majesty may veto all RUMP bills but no FDT ones, and would not thereby be engaging in political activity? I would suggest that this interpretation is unlikely to rule the day. I would also suggest that I think it is unlikely we would not be returning to amend this constitution within months, since while some of these matters might go to statute, many of them are serious. Is the Seneschal suggesting we leave the electoral process up to statute? Of course not! If anything needs to be solidly defined in Organic Law, it has to be the basics of how we choose our representatives! "Sneaky Changes"Thanks for reminding me. In fact, I was there! Fighting against FreeDem efforts to turn the Monarchy into a figurehead or eliminate it entirely. I wish I could say I was fighting alongside the RUMP, but alas the RUMP was nowhere to be found in the public space for most of the referendum. So, this complaint does not make any sense, because I have an equal if not better record when it comes to preserving the Monarchy. To accuse me of supporting a pseudo-Republican Constitution is absurd. Here is a list of things that the King can do without needing the explicit permission of the Organic Law; -Declare National Holidays -Grant titles of nobility -Make the annual Speech From the Throne on the 26th of December (or at other times when events warrant) -Confer awards and decorations So, taking them out of the Organic Law doesn't trim his power back at all. I confess I do not understand this. His Majesty can confers awards, declare holidays, etc by right of law. The Ziu could not pass a law saying, for example, that the Secretary of State is the only official allowed to grant titles, for example. This proposed constitution would strip him of that power. Does the Seneschal honestly not see this? Constitutional guarantees are not just a lack of negation: they are affirmations of a positive power. I will cede that the speech bit can probably go in entrenched law, but such matters are why I wrote my own (marginally more modest) bill. To address where we did remove the King's powers; -We have trimmed the King's power to veto Judicial nominees. This is because the typical process of overcoming the King's veto (something along the lines of the 3/4th Majority Amendment) has the potential to leave the seat open for quite a while and that would not be great. -The concept that the head of state should be able to arbitrarily excuse people from their sentences has never made sense to me, and a lot of FreeDems would agree. That is why we removed the pardon power. -The King's power over territories (which, to be clear, was not taken away entirely) can be granted to him in statute. -The King would no longer issue Writs of Prorogation and Dissolution. However, I hope you can see why we did this, as the King does not exactly have a stellar record when it comes to this responsibility. You appear to be ceding the point, then? Yes, numerous powers were stripped from one of the branches of our government. But while we can argue over any one of these points, the problem is that these things had to be discovered! The bill does not announce in its opening phrases, and it was not presented to the Ziu or to the people, as a vehicle to reduce the powers of the throne. These changes are just one of numerous major alterations to our system of government that are being made unannounced and without numeration. Tell me honestly, S:reu Seneschal: do you think that anyone would have even noticed this if I, personally, did not bring it up? Maybe Cresti would have noticed, if he had time to review this in sufficient detail. Maybe the king himself? I think with these and many other problems, the answer is no. And we were not told. And so these things, and many others, would just slip past like ships in the night. That is the issue. And that is my worry. Too few people have looked at this with a skeptical eye, and I am only one person (and quite bad at this, to boot!) I worry about what I have yet missed. The "AD Armorial," on the other hand, would almost certainly not be taken seriously by any citizen. Are you kidding? If I had a few friends and some fancy editing, I could create the Superior College of Arms in a week. With zero backing in law, then what is the armorial but a simple Talossan tradition? And we can see their fate, these days. I might be a fan of Adam Smith, but unfortunately that does not make my hand turn invisible. The proposed Organic Law reform has public for a solid four months now, and we allowed legislators and citizens alike to propose changes, many of which were accepted. We are not hiding anything and we are trying our best to tell the citizens all about it. I do not presume to try to judge anyone's motives, and I certainly do not think you are up to anything corrupt. To be perfectly frank, I believe that the real problem is that none of the sponsors, not even you yourself, actually knows everything that has been changed. If you wrote such a list, it would have to be categorical and broad, since no one has the specifics. And that is my worry. Your assurances that my fears are overblown... well, how can you give me such assurances? You are an honest man, and so I know you will admit that in these speeches I have brought things to light that you didn't notice or know about this constitution. You might think them unimportant, easily fixed, or fine, but they were new to you. Don't you yourself wonder what else might lie in this constitution that neither of us have yet noticed? After all, the simple and definitive answer to my charge here would be to say, "S:reu, here is the list of specific changes." My fellow Members of the Ziu, there is much to worry about in what we know about this proposal. Worry, too, about all that we know not. |
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001 
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Feb 4, 2019 22:08:29 GMT -6
To respond to a few of the points raised by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: A Justice that behaved in such a racist manner could be and would be removed immediately under the provisions of the Judicial reform. However, if a Justice simply issued an opinion that a particular MZ did not agree with, I think that would be much more likely to be forgiven or forgotten by the time renomination became an issue. This is actually a point of minor disagreement I have with the statute component of the Judicial reform; it is in practice not possible to set a threshold for renomination higher than a simple majority, because the renomination process is set by statute, which can be changed by simple majority. If the awards, holidays, and speeches (and arms) granted by the King need the power of law to back them up, then might I suggest that they aren't particularly legitimate in the first place. The King can do all of these things with no law, because his authority to do them derives from respect for the Throne, not a law. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 4, 2019 22:55:45 GMT -6
However, if a Justice simply issued an opinion that a particular MZ did not agree with, I think that would be much more likely to be forgiven or forgotten by the time renomination became an issue.
If bad decisions are not forgiven or forgotten, then the process will be corrupt, since each judge is at the mercy of any single annoyed MZ.If the awards, holidays, and speeches (and arms) granted by the King need the power of law to back them up, then might I suggest that they aren't particularly legitimate in the first place. The King can do all of these things with no law, because his authority to do them derives from respect for the Throne, not a law. I guess I see why you'd pick the more ceremonial aspects of the monarch's powers, but again, my point stands, unaltered and unassailed: this bill makes major changes to the power of the monarch. In many cases they are huge, such as stripping away the power of clemency. You didn't tell us. If I wasn't here, making this speech, persisting in the point alone, then no one would know. The claim can be made that it's the job of every MZ to participate in the convention or to thoroughly read the bill, but that's hokum. Most people can't understand all the twisty bits, and vanishingly few have the wherewithal or time to scour and compare two long, complicated, drastically different documents. Even you don't know all the changes you're trying to make. |
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Feb 5, 2019 16:00:56 GMT -6
However, if a Justice simply issued an opinion that a particular MZ did not agree with, I think that would be much more likely to be forgiven or forgotten by the time renomination became an issue.
If bad decisions are not forgiven or forgotten, then the process will be corrupt, since each judge is at the mercy of any single annoyed MZ.An impasse. By the Law of Excluded Middle (and here is not the place to give a lecture upon formal logic) a single thing either is or is not. Thus either we have " forgiven and forgotten" or we have " not forgiven or forgotten". In the statements being, apparently made here, there is no good result either way. Only in Hades does every road lead downwards. Talossa is odd - unique, even - but not so odd or so horrible that every path descends to the unwelcome and unknown. I trust we are not here discussing the beard of the King of France? (and, again, this is not the place to give a lecture upon formal logic). If the awards, holidays, and speeches (and arms) granted by the King need the power of law to back them up, then might I suggest that they aren't particularly legitimate in the first place. The King can do all of these things with no law, because his authority to do them derives from respect for the Throne, not a law. I guess I see why you'd pick the more ceremonial aspects of the monarch's powers, but again, my point stands, unaltered and unassailed: this bill makes major changes to the power of the monarch. In many cases they are huge, such as stripping away the power of clemency. You didn't tell us. If I wasn't here, making this speech, persisting in the point alone, then no one would know. I believe that last statement is incorrect. The information was posted, and readable - else there could be no reaction to it. Presumably the discussion here come from those who have read published statements? The claim can be made that it's the job of every MZ to participate in the convention or to thoroughly read the bill, but that's hokum. Most people can't understand all the twisty bits, and vanishingly few have the wherewithal or time to scour and compare two long, complicated, drastically different documents. Alas, you get what you pay for. If the individual citizen does not read each proposal with care, then that citizen is granting to others that part of his or her power of decision. No one says that this is easy - the preservation of freedom and the avoidance of unwelcome regulations or social norms can be guarded only by assiduous care. The dictum has long been "silence gives assent". Yes, even though the documents may be long and twisty, the committed citizens who will (all) be affected by this documents have a duty to either read them with care, and understand them - or to forgo negative comment of the "oh, I wish I had known" variety. At the very least, a concerned citizen could - and should - ask for clarification of obscure text. But, as I have said before, nothing said or no comment made grants acquiescence. Even you don't know all the changes you're trying to make. (Ahem) Insulting the other party does not advance the argument. |
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Feb 5, 2019 16:03:30 GMT -6
Yes. The Court cannot be immunized from the People. By spacing out reappointment, we minimize the potential that a judge will be kicked off because of their decision, but we also prevent the Court from being used to prevent change and overpowering the democratically-elected Ziu. I understand that the RUMP hates pretty much anything that even remotely would make Talossa more democratic, but your argument, much like most of what you post, is bullshit. (Ahem) Insulting the opponent does not advance the argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 5, 2019 17:36:23 GMT -6
If bad decisions will be forgiven or forgotten, then the performance review serves no purpose. You cannot consider the merits of a judge without reviewing or remembering their decisions.
If bad decisions are not forgiven or forgotten, then the process will be corrupt, since each judge is at the mercy of any single annoyed MZ. An impasse. By the Law of Excluded Middle (and here is not the place to give a lecture upon formal logic) a single thing either is or is not. Thus either we have " forgiven and forgotten" or we have " not forgiven or forgotten". In the statements being, apparently made here, there is no good result either way. Indeed. If this proposed constitution passes, there is no good result either way. This is why it would be a bad idea to subordinate the judiciary to the legislature, as this bill proposes with its regular performance reviews for judges. I guess I see why you'd pick the more ceremonial aspects of the monarch's powers, but again, my point stands, unaltered and unassailed: this bill makes major changes to the power of the monarch. In many cases they are huge, such as stripping away the power of clemency. You didn't tell us. If I wasn't here, making this speech, persisting in the point alone, then no one would know. I believe that last statement is incorrect. The information was posted, and readable - else there could be no reaction to it. Presumably the discussion here come from those who have read published statements? No, they made no published statements about these changes until I discovered them on my own. It's surprising, right? There were a lot of similar unpleasant surprises. And I know that I have not yet discovered everything that has been changed. Again, there is no list or announcement or published statement. These sorts of changes were made without notice or remark. The claim can be made that it's the job of every MZ to participate in the convention or to thoroughly read the bill, but that's hokum. Most people can't understand all the twisty bits, and vanishingly few have the wherewithal or time to scour and compare two long, complicated, drastically different documents. Alas, you get what you pay for. If the individual citizen does not read each proposal with care, then that citizen is granting to others that part of his or her power of decision. No one says that this is easy - the preservation of freedom and the avoidance of unwelcome regulations or social norms can be guarded only by assiduous care. The dictum has long been "silence gives assent". Yes, even though the documents may be long and twisty, the committed citizens who will (all) be affected by this documents have a duty to either read them with care, and understand them - or to forgo negative comment of the "oh, I wish I had known" variety. I sharply disagree. Qui tacet consentit is not a universal maxim in those terms. If I write a bill so cleverly that I create a loophole to enable me to assume dictatorial power, is that a moral thing to do? Is that a responsible thing to do? Of course not. Yes, my fellow legislators and/or citizens should ideally have noticed and voted it down, but I had a responsibility to try to present my proposed changes clearly and honestly. It might have been legal, but it was still wrong. In the same way, this bill should be prefaced by at least a vague, general list of things it is changing about our system of government. And a more specific list should follow, for legislators. I do not hold with a philosophy of "it's okay if you can sneak it past them." Even you don't know all the changes you're trying to make. (Ahem) Insulting the other party does not advance the argument. It is not an insult. If it was taken as one, I apologize. It is my sincere belief and sincere fear. |
|
|
|
Post by Colonel Mximo Carbonèl on Feb 7, 2019 16:01:20 GMT -6
It cool be nice for both part the per and the contra to be able to send a short text about 500 words to be joint with the next referendum ballot on the issue.
Mximo
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 7, 2019 16:39:15 GMT -6
My speech is pretty long. I will write a much shorter summary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colonel Mximo Carbonèl on Feb 7, 2019 18:13:10 GMT -6
Yes because you're a lot better then me in reading law and may be the population in general need some short text to better understand your point.
Mximo
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 7, 2019 19:14:36 GMT -6
Ok, here we go. So basically the problems are these: - We currently have three branches of government, which balance each other and stop anyone from getting too powerful. This proposal makes two branches much weaker. All judges would be appointed solely by the Ziu, and the Ziu would give them regular performance reviews. That will lead to judges trying to please people in the Ziu.
- The proposed constitution is supposed to be cleaner and better-written than the Organic Law, but it actually has a bunch of important flaws that would need to be fixed immediately, making it much worse than the OrgLaw. For example, the proposed constitution is missing a bunch of stuff for conducting elections, like how marginal seats get assigned, and that's really important to a democracy!
- The proposal changes a ton of stuff about Talossa, but we aren't really sure what. The sponsors will not give us a list of all the changes. Or they may just not have such a list, which is even scarier, since it means they don't know what they're changing.
I also hope that someone like the Seneschal or Distain will similarly summarize their points, since you shouldn't rely on my opinion alone. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 10, 2019 14:13:04 GMT -6
I again call on the Seneschal or Distain to summarize their rebuttals for those Talossans who are not Anglophones.
|
|
