Why We Must Oppose the Proposed Constitution

[Ian Plätschisch]

I requested that Viteu Marcianüs write this response, since he is generally more eloquent than I (and I hope he adds to these remarks), but he is not available at the moment.

• The current Organic Law is the result of twenty-two years of amendment. It is much too long and its organization at times does not make any sense. This proposal is meant to be a fresh start that is organized in a more concise and logical way.
  
  
• The current balance of power will be mostly preserved by this amendment. Of the King's powers that were removed, most are ceremonial (so he doesn't need the Organic Law's permission to do it; for example, the British Monarch has several revered ceremonial powers despite the lack of any written Constitution), and others are powers he has either never exercised or failed to exercise at crucial times. With respect to the Judiciary, requiring essentially a majority vote of the Ziu to remain a Justice every five years does not seem onerous or subject to corruption (for example, many US states require Judges to seek reelection regularly)

• This amendment will require some new statutes to address provisions that are removed from the Organic Law. However, given that the point of this amendment is to remove many provisions of the Organic Law to statute, this is to be expected and is not a problem. It is also worth noting that the current Organic Law has quite a few ambiguities of its own that this amendment tries to fix.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Problem is that any response that V would feel capable of giving to AD right now would be mostly anatomically-impossible suggestions.

This is how trolling is not debate; trolling DESTROYS debate. The idea of political trolling in Talossa is not to raise point-counterpoint; it is to introduce insinuations and wild worst-case scenarios to suggest that what your political opponent is doing is in bad faith and actually part of an obscene, selfish, corrupt power-grab. This may persuade onlookers, but the real purpose is to make your interlocutor so angry that they can no longer communicate with you except in rage-filled obscenities, assuming they don't have the patience of Gandhi and MLK put together. That puts an end to the debate, making it look to those who haven't figured out the scheme that you won the argument.

This is a brilliant political strategem if your only goal in politics is to make sure nothing changes, that everyone else's initiatives fail; which is why you only see it coming from the conservative wing of politics.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Feb 10, 2019 14:32:42 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I requested that Viteu Marcianüs write this response, since he is generally more eloquent than I (and I hope he adds to these remarks), but he is not available at the moment.

• The current Organic Law is the result of twenty-two years of amendment. It is much too long and its organization at times does not make any sense. This proposal is meant to be a fresh start that is organized in a more concise and logical way.
  
  
• The current balance of power will be mostly preserved by this amendment. Of the King's powers that were removed, most are ceremonial (so he doesn't need the Organic Law's permission to do it; for example, the British Monarch has several revered ceremonial powers despite the lack of any written Constitution), and others are powers he has either never exercised or failed to exercise at crucial times. With respect to the Judiciary, requiring essentially a majority vote of the Ziu to remain a Justice every five years does not seem onerous or subject to corruption (for example, many US states require Judges to seek reelection regularly)

• This amendment will require some new statutes to address provisions that are removed from the Organic Law. However, given that the point of this amendment is to remove many provisions of the Organic Law to statute, this is to be expected and is not a problem. It is also worth noting that the current Organic Law has quite a few ambiguities of its own that this amendment tries to fix.

Ian Plätschisch does a good job at summing up what the Proposed Organic Law does.  The current Organic Law is too cumbersome and wordy.  It has long been argued that we codify many aspects of governance that should be left to the statute.  But we also recognize that some statutes should be more difficult to change to prevent the institutions of government.  For instance, we remove a lot of the rigidity concerning how elections are conducted to allow the Ziu to entrench law to set procedure.  We don't need this in the Organic Law, but we should not allow changes willy-nilly.  Hence, we move election law to Entrenched Statutory Law that inheres a higher threshold to modify.  Meaning, it requires more compromise in politics.  But it also is more flexible than requiring an amendment every single time we need to change something.  What works today may not work tomorrow-we should adept when we need to adept without unnecessary hardships.  

I use the election law as a mere example.  But this is the overall gist of the new Organic Law.  The major changes do come in how Legislation is passed, and that has been thoroughly debated and discussed.  In any event, regarding the need for further legislation, this point has also been acknowledged, discussed, and understood.  We have long stated that, upon adopting, we would need to get to work updating el Lex and setting up legislation to address those parts removed from the Proposed Organic Law.  

My feelings about the monarchy are well-known and not hidden.  But I exercised great restraint in changing any powers of the monarch.  In fact, many of the powers removed came through amendments by others.  Even under the current text, the monarch retains much of its authority, but the new Organic Law merely codifies certain changes that have occurred.  

The arguments regarding the judiciary are laughable to a certain degree.  We do not, as misrepresented, make the Judiciary subservient to the Ziu.  Recall that the UC has the authority to declare any statute inOrganic, and does so without any real check.  The UC, when respected and its decisions applied, acts as the ultimate guard against a rogue Government.  The problem, however, is that it does so without a check.  The Proposed Organic Law contains a mechanism that allows for a simple vote on whether to reconfirm a sitting UC Justice every five years.  

But let us scrutinize the close text of the provision - Chapter IV, Article 3, Section 7 - "The Ziu may set forth any procedure for reconfirmation, but such procedure may not exceed that which is required for nomination and confirmation in the first instance.  Notwithstanding any act to the contrary, reconfirmation shall be deemed automatic at the end of a Justice's tenure by operation of law." 

Upon adoption, without any act of the Ziu, reconfirmation is automatic.  That is to say, the Ziu must enact enabling legislation before a Justice woudl not get automatic reconfirmation.  The Ziu can decide to make reconfirmation as rigid as nomination and confirmation and the first instance, or simply leave as is making it automatic.  The Ziu may enact legislation that says something like "If 30% of the MZs, at the end of a Justice's term, object to automatic reconfirmation, then a vote shall be taken in the next clark on whether to deny the Justice reconfirmation.  Such a vote shall require 60% of the Ziu to be adopted."  Meaning, it would require 60% of the Ziu to deny automatic reconfirmation.  I would even be open to an immediate amendment to the Proposed Organic Law that would place reconfirmation in the Entrenched Law, with an immediate statute containing something similar to that language. I am fine with doing the same for the Ziu's ability to set ethics and rules for Justices, with a preagreed upon statute that would immediately be in effect.  This scheme, in my estimation, would prevent the potential abuse that some in this body feel would happen.  So no, one MC could not prevent reconfirmation. 

Look, the reality is that the Proposed Organic Law reads easier, is more straight forward, and lacks the repetitiveness of the current Organic Law. The document offers common-sense solutions to many of the technical issues with the current Organic Law.  And those who participated in drafting, who made a good faith effort, did so respecting that it should not cure the republican-monarchist divide, but create a Talossa that we can all be proud of.  

I encourage every Talossan to scrutinize both documents.  Which one is more straightforward? Does the fear at the core of the arguments advanced by those against the Proposed Organic Law bear out? Does the Proposed Organic Law truly remove the powers of the monarch, or make the Judiciary subservient to the Ziu? 

I'd wager that a close reading and comparison will reveal that the Proposed Organic Law strikes a common sense balance by offering a straight-forward, easy-to-read document that will not require a law degree to understand.  And I submit to those very individuals that this will help heal the wounds of Talossa.  The Republic and Kingdom came together in reunision.  To finally realize the noble goal of a Talossa that is truly reflective of both sides in that conflict, it makes sense to adopt a new Organic Law that strikes a fair balance between the two sides.  It offers a fresh start for this country - a start we so desperately need if are ever to let the old wounds heal. 

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Feb 10, 2019 14:32:42 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

The current Organic Law is the result of twenty-two years of amendment. It is much too long and its organization at times does not make any sense. This proposal is meant to be a fresh start that is organized in a more concise and logical way.

The OrgLaw is organized by topic. Stuff about each topic is in each section. The sections are in sensible order. While improving on this may have been the goal, I do not think it succeeded to measurably surpass the OrgLaw.

Feb 10, 2019 14:32:42 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

The current balance of power will be mostly preserved by this amendment. Of the King's powers that were removed, most are ceremonial (so he doesn't need the Organic Law's permission to do it; for example, the British Monarch has several revered ceremonial powers despite the lack of any written Constitution), and others are powers he has either never exercised or failed to exercise at crucial times. With respect to the Judiciary, requiring essentially a majority vote of the Ziu to remain a Justice every five years does not seem onerous or subject to corruption (for example, many US states require Judges to seek reelection regularly)

We agree that the throne's powers were significantly reduced. Many of the powers taken away were ones we should hope would not be lightly exercised!

As to the judiciary, I further agree that a plebiscite might make sense. But that's election by the people. In this proposal, the legislature is exclusively choosing judges and giving them five-year performance reviews.

Feb 10, 2019 14:32:42 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

This amendment will require some new statutes to address provisions that are removed from the Organic Law. However, given that the point of this amendment is to remove many provisions of the Organic Law to statute, this is to be expected and is not a problem. It is also worth noting that the current Organic Law has quite a few ambiguities of its own that this amendment tries to fix.

This does not rebut the point that no one knows all the changes being made to our government, which means we cannot possibly judge whether they are good choices. Please give us a complete list of the changes being made.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Feb 10, 2019 15:26:06 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Problem is that any response that V would feel capable of giving to AD right now would be mostly anatomically-impossible suggestions.

This is how trolling is not debate; trolling DESTROYS debate. The idea of political trolling in Talossa is not to raise point-counterpoint; it is to introduce insinuations and wild worst-case scenarios to suggest that what your political opponent is doing is in bad faith and actually part of an obscene, selfish, corrupt power-grab. This may persuade onlookers, but the real purpose is to make your interlocutor so angry that they can no longer communicate with you except in rage-filled obscenities, assuming they don't have the patience of Gandhi and MLK put together. That puts an end to the debate, making it look to those who haven't figured out the scheme that you won the argument.

This is a brilliant political strategem if your only goal in politics is to make sure nothing changes, that everyone else's initiatives fail; which is why you only see it coming from the conservative wing of politics.

This is not responsive to any of the points that I have made. It seems almost designed to reply to some other conversation. Look back through the thread. I have consistently and courteously tried to reply exclusively on the merits, even when others have tried to distract with off-topic personal attacks. It is also bizarre to accuse me of trying to stop all change. Go to the bottom of el Lexhatx and look at the name on our legal code. Look at the pretty huge amendment I have in the Clark right now, incorporating ideas from this proposed constitution. I am not afraid of big and bold change when necessary.

If the mere suggestion that not everyone's motives are pure is enough to send the defenders of this bill into apoplectic fits of profanity, that is indeed problematic... but I don't see that the problem lies on my end.

To my view, members of a majority coalition in the legislature have rushed through a whole new constitution in the span of two months, producing a document very similar to their favored first draft. This constitution contains numerous significant changes in the balance of powers in the country, exclusively empowering the legislature that wrote the bill, and yet no one in the coalition is willing to list these changes for voters.

Given facts like these, I think it is a testament to the good name of people like the Seneschal that I don't suspect an open power grab. I just think it's unfortunate partisanship, instead. The rush was because you guys promised to do it, and so you felt like you had to. The fact that it's mostly the same is because there were by-and-large only five people involved. And the fact that you guys refuse to list the changes you're making is because you honestly don't know everything you're trying to do. I'd wager that the Seneschal is gamely trying to produce such a list at this moment, actually.

You can make me out to be the brilliant Machiavellian bad guy all you want, but that will not improve the bill.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Feb 10, 2019 20:26:15 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

You can make me out to be the brilliant Machiavellian bad guy all you want

As if I would give you so much credit.

You're just a conservative troll.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Feb 10, 2019 18:11:37 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

The current Organic Law is too cumbersome and wordy. 

Give me an example, please. There's a lot of declaring going on here, and I'd like to see some specific beyond such bare assertions.

Feb 10, 2019 18:11:37 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Even under the current text, the monarch retains much of its authority, but the new Organic Law merely codifies certain changes that have occurred.  

I will take this as an admission that one of the branches of government has its power significantly reduced. Thank you.

Feb 10, 2019 18:11:37 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Look, the reality is that the Proposed Organic Law reads easier, is more straight forward, and lacks the repetitiveness of the current Organic Law. The document offers common-sense solutions to many of the technical issues with the current Organic Law.  And those who participated in drafting, who made a good faith effort, did so respecting that it should not cure the republican-monarchist divide, but create a Talossa that we can all be proud of.  

I'd wager that a close reading and comparison will reveal that the Proposed Organic Law strikes a common sense balance by offering a straight-forward, easy-to-read document that will not require a law degree to understand.  And I submit to those very individuals that this will help heal the wounds of Talossa.  The Republic and Kingdom came together in reunision.  To finally realize the noble goal of a Talossa that is truly reflective of both sides in that conflict, it makes sense to adopt a new Organic Law that strikes a fair balance between the two sides.  It offers a fresh start for this country - a start we so desperately need if are ever to let the old wounds heal. 

I would agree that this does move away from our constitutional monarchy, yes. If this was the intention, why wasn't this put in the bill's Whereases, and why are we only now arriving at this?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Feb 10, 2019 21:32:12 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Feb 10, 2019 20:26:15 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

You can make me out to be the brilliant Machiavellian bad guy all you want

As if I would give you so much credit.

You're just a conservative troll.

An argument worthy of the bill you're defending.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

The monarchy is not and never will be a branch of government.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Our current system balances the Crown, the Ziu, and the Cort. For example, the Ziu picks nominees to the Cort with a supermajority, which choices must be seconded by the monarch (or overcome with a second supermajority). Justices can be removed by the Ziu for inactivity by a simple majority, or for any other reasons (either fictional or real) by a supermajority with Crown approval. Meanwhile, the Cort has the power of judicial review and may hold criminal and civil hearings about matters brought before them, and holds lifetime appointments otherwise, allowing them to reign in overreach by the Crown or Ziu. And of course, the same balance exists for the Ziu and Crown.

Whether we call the Crown a branch of government is immaterial to me. The important thing is that we preserve the balance of powers. And that is what was not done in this proposed constitution.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

From another thread, left here without comment.

Feb 12, 2019 20:12:22 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Feb 12, 2019 18:44:45 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Why? I can think of loads of reasons why changes might be made later. What if a law regarding the elections passes of a different procedure is adopted and then the VoC fails?

Again, this is one of the minor details that the Constitutional Convocation was supposed to sort out, but as we've previously established, some people didn't get involved in the Convocation because they didn't think the Government meant what we said about its goal; and others tried their best to sabotage/boycott the process, because they didn't want the best possible version being Clarked.

If (assuming the New Draft is adopted) there were a Joint Committee in the next Ziu to consider and propose amendments to the New Draft (such as this) before it comes into effect in 12 months, then right now we could deal with the simple question of support or opposition to the essential structural changes of the New Draft. I know I would have some suggestions that escaped everyone's eagle eye during the convocation.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Feb 12, 2019 21:03:26 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

From another thread, left here without comment.

Feb 12, 2019 20:12:22 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Again, this is one of the minor details that the Constitutional Convocation was supposed to sort out, but as we've previously established, some people didn't get involved in the Convocation because they didn't think the Government meant what we said about its goal; and others tried their best to sabotage/boycott the process, because they didn't want the best possible version being Clarked.

If (assuming the New Draft is adopted) there were a Joint Committee in the next Ziu to consider and propose amendments to the New Draft (such as this) before it comes into effect in 12 months, then right now we could deal with the simple question of support or opposition to the essential structural changes of the New Draft. I know I would have some suggestions that escaped everyone's eagle eye during the convocation.

I'm going to take this as a good sign, that you're now inclined to support the New Draft now that you know that we can have a second look over it for bugs.








... ha ha ha, sarcasm

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Honestly, I think that something big might have been possible if this whole thing hadn't been rushed. The timeline presented made it virtually impossible to produce an error-free and bug-free proposal, even if everyone involved had been on board the whole time. But with so few people working on a document in such a small time, and with so few skeptics, it was a monumental challenge.

Someday, maybe you'd be open to trying again?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

We are where we are after four years of RUMP/Davinescu sandbagging, sabotage and refusal to engage in any OrgLaw reform process not guaranteed to have an outcome satisfactory to RUMP/Davinescù. A "rushed" process - by which we mean here one with a firm deadline - is better than the fun game of trolling, obstruction and making sure nothing happens.

I have faith that this New Draft will be endorsed by both the Ziu and the people, and that any real problems will be fixed by the time it comes into action.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, hopefully the proposed constitution won't pass the Ziu. Even you agree that it has a bunch of flaws. But if it does pass the Ziu, I don't think it will pass referendum. At least one province will reject it, and it must get 2/3 within each one. But then, we're talking about like a year from now. The king will hopefully veto the proposal if it passes, after all, which sets it back to the next term. And that also again raises the question of why not set a due date months from now, rather than rushing this through in two months, only to have it sit in abeyance all of next term?