Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Feb 13, 2019 10:17:26 GMT -6
Interesting points being raised: At least one province will reject it, and it must get 2/3 within each one. Explain how XV:5 applies to the New Draft. I decline to do so at this time, sorry. I had considered this argument before, because it might have some merit, but came to the conclusion that Article XV, Section 5 does NOT apply. The position of the Chancery as of now is therefore that a majority in every separate provinces is NOT needed for 52RZ19 to pass.I might still decide to consult with the Electoral Commission on this matter, although I'm not sure this is strictly required. Of course, ultimately, it is up to the scribe Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h to determine whether the amendment has become law or not. HOWEVER, all this might be too late, because in the current situation, we would not see which province voted which. I could check every vote individually, including database votes, but I would strongly prefer not to, as these votes are cast privately. And then still, you would either need to trust me or have the EC sample votes as well. If we do want an official results on the referendum for every province, changes would need to be made to the database asap. If someone therefore is going to argue before the CpI that I'm wrong and XV.5 does apply, I would suggest they do so URGENTLY. Glüc da Dhi Secretary of State
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 13, 2019 10:29:20 GMT -6
If you have taken an official position, rather than asking for arguments prior to taking a position, then I suppose there is a cause of action at this time. Up to now, there was not. I will lodge such a suit immediately.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Feb 13, 2019 10:33:39 GMT -6
Why would we need each province's approval? This is technically an amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 13, 2019 10:44:00 GMT -6
My request for an emergency injunction will be before the Cort presently.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 13, 2019 12:45:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 13, 2019 12:49:46 GMT -6
By the way, Gluc, no animus is involved here. If you believe that Org.XV.5 doesn't apply and the database doesn't work to apply it anyway, then your decision is eminently reasonable and I respect it (though I disagree). As always, you act in good faith and with thoughtful consideration, and I respect you enormously.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 13, 2019 13:13:40 GMT -6
I have also petitioned the Uppermost Court for an emergency injunction on the same matter and echo Sir Davinescu's above comment directed to the Secretary of State.
|
|
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 Feb 13, 2019 14:22:15 GMT -6
I have also petitioned the Uppermost Court for an emergency injunction on the same matter and echo Sir Davinescu's above comment directed to the Secretary of State. 10. I believe there is at least a reasonable chance of success of a suit to apply the requirements of Org.XV.5 to a referendum on 52RZ19. The OrgLaw requires that any changes to its text that "affect the representation of a province in the Senäts" must be approved by that province. 52RZ19 would make significant changes to the representation of Vuode in the Senats, and so Vuode must approve the amendment before it may be allowed to pass. 11. The changes are numerous, and an exhaustive list would take some time to compile. However, a partial list must include the following prospective changes to the representation of Vuode in the Senats: 12. The eligibility and requirements to be a Senator would be changed. It would no longer required for a year to pass before a citizen is eligible to be elected to the Vuode seat. 13. The terms under which the order of elections to the Senats would be changed, allowing them to be altered with a simple majority of the Cosa rather than a 2/3 majority of the Cosa. 14. The simultaneity of Cosa and Senats election would no longer be protected, allowing them to be scheduled at different times. 15. The current method of election to the Senats when conducted by the Chancery, Ranked Choice Voting, would be eliminated. 16. The current procedure for the Chancery conducting Senatorial elections for Vuode would be altered, and no longer assured to be the demesne of my province absent an official request. 17. The method by which a Senator is replaced is altered, shifting from interim appointment to immediate plebiscite.
|
|
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 Feb 13, 2019 14:23:35 GMT -6
This list was generated by a single pass through Org.IV by a trusted colleague, RUMP/Davinescù knows perfectly well that "affect their representation in the Senäts" means changing the 1-Senator 1-Province rule, which RZ19 clearly does not. If this injunction had any merit, the move to Ranked Choice Voting in the first place would have been come under the meaning of XV.5, which no-one claimed it did.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 13, 2019 14:30:49 GMT -6
This list was generated by a single pass through Org.IV by a trusted colleague, RUMP/Davinescù knows perfectly well that "affect their representation in the Senäts" means changing the 1-Senator 1-Province rule, which RZ19 clearly does not. If this injunction had any merit, the move to Ranked Choice Voting in the first place would have been come under the meaning of XV.5, which no-one claimed it did. Quoting this for posterity. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 13, 2019 14:34:38 GMT -6
... the move to Ranked Choice Voting in the first place would have been come under the meaning of XV.5, which no-one claimed it did. Perhaps the move to IRV did fall foul of XV.5. I have been thinking about that for the past couple of hours. Just because nobody caught it or thought of it at the time doesn't mean mean XV.5 shouldn't have applied.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 13, 2019 14:37:58 GMT -6
It is possible my arguments are in error, and a full hearing will find this to be so. I decline to litigate this with you here, except to note that your interpretation would permit truly remarkable amendments to be passed over the objections of individual provinces. For example, an amendment might schedule Fiova's senatorial elections to run for only three days, at a time chosen by the King, and permit people to hold that seat only if they never belonged to the Republic of Talossa. If a temporary coalition in the Ziu passed that, and a majority of Talossans wanted it even over Fiova's objections, you'd say that was in keeping with Org.XV.5?
|
|
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 Feb 13, 2019 14:38:40 GMT -6
As we've been discussing elsewhere, precedent is very important in Talossa's legal system. The simple meaning of XV.5 is to prevent a province's representation, meaning their number of Senators in proportion to other provinces being changed without their say-so EDIT: I hit the edit button instead of the quote button on this post. I've tried to revert it back to what it originally read. If anything is missing or wrong then it is my fault and not the original poster's error. I ask Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN to review the post to ensure how it currently reads matches how it originally read before I made a mess of it with quotes. Signed: Eovart Griscun.
|
|
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 Feb 13, 2019 14:40:38 GMT -6
If you want a system where provinces have vetos, you could promote one like Australia's, which states that constitutional amendments must pass nationwide and in a majority of states. Bring that up in the Ziu next session. But I can't think of any country where unanimity among the constituents is required - except for the EU pre-Lisbon Treaty, and they fixed that, and it's not a country anyway.
|
|
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 Feb 13, 2019 14:47:27 GMT -6
Absolutely Novel Legal Arguments Discovered When They Suit Someone, Which Would Have Totally F*cked Things Up If Actually Applied Throughout History, a Short Talossan List:
"The King didn't have to proclaim all 19 years of OrgLaw Amendments for them to take effect, but he can negative- proclaim this one!" "Absolutely any change to Senatorial elections in a Province has to not only pass a referendum in that province, but with a 2/3 majority which I just made up!"
Particularly funny that the Senator from Vuode talks about protecting ranked choice voting when such would be declared invalid if this legal argument were proved valid. As would any change to Provincial elections in the last 22 years, considering we don't take province-by-province counts in referendums. Talk about not considering the consequences of one's actions.
|
|