52nd Cosa, 6th Clark - February 2019 - Voting

[Glüc da Dhi]

The February 2019 Clark is now here.


www.talossa.ca/files/clark.php?cosa=52&clark=6

Or here: www.talossa.ca/files/print_clark.php (this is the printer friendly version)


In PDF Form (which was made from the print_clark.php page):

www.talossa.ca/files/clarks/February2019Clark.pdf

or can vote online here: www.talossa.ca/files/clark_vote.php

Or in this thread, until the 21st of the month, at 19h30 TST.

Senators are allowed to create a single thread in the Senate chamber to post all of the Senate Votes that are not cast in this thread. Any votes not posted either using the form above, the current thread or the Senate thread might be ignored and void. Please do not vote by email or private messages.

When you vote, do not indicate any conditions which may make it sound like this vote isn't final: you can always change your vote later.

Please do not vote by email: We've had problems with email votes being caught in the spam filter.

All Cosa Members and Senators will be emailed today

Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State

[Glüc da Dhi]

I realise 52RZ19 is also a convenant amendment, but I can only indicate either 2/3rd Senate Majority needed or Covenent Amendment (Sic) so for now I went with the first option because that is the most relevant for the current vote. If a referendum is held on the matter, 2/3rds of the vote will be needed.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Can I just point out that I'm voting CONTRÂ on the RZ20, the new Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, because it simply re-enacts the existing Covenant, which I think is extremely poorly written and includes many of the conservative political prejudices of ex-King Robert I; for example, the ban on affirmative action in the Second Covenant. It is a problematic document which needs at least the same attention in the next Ziu that the OrgLaw got in the current Ziu - hopefully more.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

As to RZ15 - The Ex Parte Corruption Act, I vote per. It seems obvious to me that we should not permit ex parte discussions between lawyers and judges who are buddies. It also seems obvious to me that people with conflicts of interest should not be deciding things without an outside view to help. Such things are open corruption.

As to RZ16 - Mega-Amendment, I vote per. I took some of the best bits of the discussions of the Organic Law and tried to make a good amendment out of them that would fix some things. Out of good faith, I have also designed the bill so that it will automatically have no effect if the Organic Law is replaced.

As to RZ17 - Judiciary Reformation Amendment, I vote contra. This bill would subject judges to regular five-year performance reviews by the legislature, essentially making the judiciary subordinate to their new bosses, the legislature. At this performance review, any single solitary MZ who wished could kick a judge off the bench and require reconfirmation. It would also grant judges the power to make new laws if they thought they were needed, importing common-law decisions and making them binding on the country. And there's other problems. This is a bad idea.

As to RZ18 - (No Need To) Fight For Your Right (To Party) Act, I vote per.

As to RZ19 - The Final Draft of the 2019 Amendment to the Organic Law, I vote contra. First and foremost, I swore an oath to support and uphold the Organic Law, not destroy it. Others might not take such things seriously, but I keep my word. Secondly, there are a lot of very specific reasons why this particular new constitution is not a good idea. I got into great detail here: talossa.proboards.com/thread/13169/why-oppose-proposed-constitution

As to RZ20 - The Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, I vote contra. I believe this bill is inorganic, since it attempts to separate the Covenants from the OrgLaw and elevate them. If someone were to try to do so, they would also need to repeal the provisions that state that "[t]he Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, being sacred and necessary to the defence of our free society, are entrenched provisions of this Organic Law" (among other such sentiments). Simply put: you cannot use a system built on the supremacy of one document to elevate another even higher. Such a process would require a real constitutional convention, not a law passed under color of the OrgLaw.

I vote no confidence in a government that has broken its oaths.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

In re: RZ16- The Mega-Amendment.  I respectfully abstain.  Ultimately, I find it difficult to follow the complete course of my colleagues proposed amendments to the Orglaw.  I cannot help but feel that an itemized list of the changes being made would have helped me in the process of making a decision here.  However, I cannot vote either for or against this, and therefor abstain.

In re: RZ17-Judiciary Reformation Amendment.  I vote per.  Given the peculiar nature of micronational politics, it must be kept in mind that 5 years may very well be a lifetime for a particular individual.  I find this a welcome remedy to a fully lifetime appointment, as it... if nothing else... allows the people, through their deputies, to check to see if any given judge or justice still has a pulse, or a will in regards to Talossa.

In re: RZ18- (No Need To) Fight For Your Right (To Party) Act.  I vote per.  Given the already bumpy nature of Senatorial elections in the Regipats, I would further encourage our resident sorciers (SoS and similar company) to turn their enegries to further clarifying the Senatorial process.

In re:  RZ19- The Final Draft of the 2019 Amendment to the Organic Law.  I vote per.  This is a necessary remedy to a number of weaknesses of our orglaw.  It further brings our legal practices and basic legal foundations into line with the living Talossan tradition.  Talossa is not what it was over 20 years ago... and continued patching and fixing gives way to the idea of the "Ship of Theseus."  If we can only retain a hold on our heritage by hook, crook, patch, and repair... I cannot help but feel that the children of Talossa's living legacy need to take a hard look at what they truly value.

In re:  RZ20- The Covenant of Rights and Freedoms.  I respectfully abstain.  Though I agree, in principle to the elevation of the Covenant as the prime document of the Talossan legal tradition, I cannot get behind the complete text to be so enshrined at this point.  Many portions reflect the reactionary nature of Talossa's founders, and although I, as an individual, have taken dings due to the changing nature of Western thought, I cannot support a code of laws containing so much in the way of inherent privilege.

In re: the Vote of Confidence.  I vote Uc.  Those who condemn the current government as oathbreakers understand neither the nature of Organicity, nor the needs of a living tradition.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

On RZ15, I vote Con. First, the Ministry of Justice in previous years has appointed special counsel to defend "the other side". Second, I think the impetus for this bill is well known history, and I don't believe that this bill would have changed much of anything with regards to those circumstances.

On RZ16, I vote Con. I appreciate the efforts of the author, and wish he had presented some of his changes to the convention.

On RZ17, I vote Për. I have no problems with a (potentially) automatic reconfirmation system that allows for an MZ to move for a vote if they choose. The MZ would have to identify a potential charge, and the Ziu would not only have to agree, but also determine that the act was so extreme as to warrant removal from office. Then, it would require the Cosa to reach a two-thirds majority in favor of removal, potential twice should the King decide to withhold his assent in the first go around.

On RZ18, I vote Con. I have always opposed this watering down of party endorsements in Senate elections, and this is no different. Senators may represent their province and not their party in principle, but generally not in practice. Granted, this bill doesn't really change or add much in this regard--we should revisit the terrible concept of refusing to allow voters to vote a straight ticket for a party by not counting their vote for that party's endorsed candidate--but it does go yet another step backwards by concealing from a voter information that might be necessary for them to cast their vote. That said, the section of this bill which allows for candidates to register themselves while not prohibiting write-ins is a great idea. It would also solve the very problem the sponsors seek to fix in the next section: allowing for all candidates for Senate to be listed in that section of the ballot, including those candidates who are independents. Finally, ballot layout is within the discretion of the Chancery making this bill unnecessary, and I disagree with the bill's statement that we should be narrowing that discretion by act of law. Ultimately, my vote on this bill sides with the voters, but realistically, the Chancery could have simply created a new ballot layout that moved the endorsed candidates for Senate to a different section, just as this bill desires.

On RZ19, I vote Për. The process by which amendments were submitted to a convention opened to all members of the Ziu, and adopted within the final draft upon passage, was conducted in a fair and transparent manner. My vote here reflects this. I'm also glad that a certain amendment concerning the monarchy failed in the convention by way of a tie, and this unsullied draft can be reviewed by the people outside of a monarchy vs republic mindset. The purpose of creating a new constitution was preserved: to fix the multiple errors and discrepancies contained within the current OrgLaw without making substantive changes to how this country functions.

On RZ20, I vote Për. I wholeheartedly agree that the covenants should be elevated above Organic Law. (And perhaps upon doing so some legislators will finally try to frame their bills around them rather than disregard them as meaningless.) While I recognize the concerns by several of my colleagues that some covenants need to be altered, passing what we have in an unaltered form also preserves the purpose of RZ19 and RZ20 which was to present relatively uncontroversial documents to the people for adoption. Whether RZ20 passes or not, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the next Cosa to update and reframe the covenants to reflect modern times.

On the VoC, I continue to vote ÜC pursuant to the coalition agreement.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

RZ15 - Austeneu
RZ16 - Për
RZ17 - Për
RZ18 - Për
RZ19 - Për
RZ20 - Austeneu

VoC - Uc

[Viteu Marcianüs]

RZ15 - Con
RZ16 - Con
RZ17 - Për
RZ18 - Për
RZ19 - Për
RZ20 - Për

VoC - Uc

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu]

RZ15 - Per

RZ16 - Per

RZ17 - Për

RZ18 - Për

RZ19 - Për

RZ20 - Për



VoC - Uc

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Feb 12, 2019 23:33:39 GMT -6 Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu said:

RZ15 - Per

RZ16 - Per

RZ17 - Për

RZ18 - Për

RZ19 - Për

RZ20 - Për



VoC - Uc

Mr SoS, I note that this vote hasn't been put into the database yet?

[Glüc da Dhi]

I usually add votes three times during a clark, just before sending reminder mails around the halfway point (10th-12th) and on the 20th and then at the end. MC Davinescu's vote was posted after the first reminder, but I will make sure to add it before the second one.

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

RZ15 : Per
RZ16 : Per
RZ17 : Contra
RZ18 : Per
RZ19 : Contra
RZ20 : Contra
VoC : Non

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

EDIT: Ooops: One day too soon and no RAssent yet - my bad

EDIT #2: I've answered my own question, as it turns out. Thanks, all!

SoS: Question re 52RZ18

The now-law states "Therefore the following sub-sections shall be added to Lex.B.2. between Lex.B.2.3. and the current Lex.B.2.4:"

The law goes on to say ""2.4 Any eligible candidates for a seat in the senate will be given the opportunity to register themselves with the Secretary of State before the start of the elections. Registered candidates will be listed as a candidate on the ballot for that province, not limiting voters ability to vote for write-in candidates."

However, we already have a B.2.4 - How should I number the new texts for El Lex?

GV, Scribe