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 7, 2019 15:24:56 GMT -6
Anybody here interested in the fact that the King, who wrote this law, has stated clearly that he intended a Senator "not yet qualified" to be able to wait until they were qualified and then vote, without being kicked out? No? Fine lot of monarchists you are  Anyway, all this debate between the unqualified and the semi-qualified in the law is irrelevant. The only questions are (a) what Glüc da Dhi will do, i.e, what interpretation of the law he will follow; and (b) what the UC will say if it comes to a case. I hope the SoS does not decide to act based on what randoms on Witt think, but on his own interpretation of the law, and the advice he gets from the Government's actual legal officers. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 7, 2019 16:24:42 GMT -6
The person in the Senats has a vote in the Ziu, and so they are expected to vote. That they cannot exercise their vote is a circumstance beyond their control, but it is still a failure to vote their vote. aah, but we all know the law is going to prevent him from being allowed to vote, so technically, we do not expect him to vote, thus no "failing". If you try to bench 1000 lbs, we all know you will not be able to do so -- technically, we don't expect you to be able to do it, but you still fail! I do agree the law should be clarified, though! Definitely needs to be written more the way you suggest. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 7, 2019 16:27:03 GMT -6
Anybody here interested in the fact that the King, who wrote this law, has stated clearly that he intended a Senator "not yet qualified" to be able to wait until they were qualified and then vote, without being kicked out? No? Fine lot of monarchists you are Anyway, all this debate between the unqualified and the semi-qualified in the law is irrelevant. The only questions are (a) what Glüc da Dhi will do, i.e, what interpretation of the law he will follow; and (b) what the UC will say if it comes to a case. I hope the SoS does not decide to act based on what randoms on Witt think, but on his own interpretation of the law, and the advice he gets from the Government's actual legal officers. His Majesty is the monarch and has been a legislator, but he doesn't have more say in the interpretation of the law than his personal merits and the merits of his arguments dictate. We're a constitutional monarchy! Begone, ye republican rabble-rouser! Glüc da Dhi presumably wants to see a full discussion of the merits before he makes up his mind. And probably will face a lawsuit either way he decides! Such are the rewards of service. Fortunately, he probably will be defended by the Crown, although that hasn't been certain for a few years now. |
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Dec 7, 2019 16:28:19 GMT -6
aah, but we all know the law is going to prevent him from being allowed to vote, so technically, we do not expect him to vote, thus no "failing". If you try to bench 1000 lbs, we all know you will not be able to do so -- technically, we don't expect you to be able to do it, but you still fail! I do agree the law should be clarified, though! Definitely needs to be written more the way you suggest. In lifting parlance, a failed rep is one attempted but not completed. |
|
Amada Merþedes
Citizen of Talossa
Dead-Talossan-Name: Alexandreu Regeu
Posts: 249
Talossan Since: 26th of March, 2019
|
Post by Amada Merþedes on Dec 8, 2019 5:15:03 GMT -6
Explain this to me as fast as possible please. im really confused...
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 8, 2019 6:04:45 GMT -6
Explain this to me as fast as possible please. im really confused... We're discussing whether or not you are capable of legally "failing" to vote, since you aren't capable of it. Can you fail to do something that is impossible for you? Separately, we're talking about solutions. |
|
Amada Merþedes
Citizen of Talossa
Dead-Talossan-Name: Alexandreu Regeu
Posts: 249
Talossan Since: 26th of March, 2019
|
Post by Amada Merþedes on Dec 8, 2019 7:11:46 GMT -6
Well i cant fail at something i cant do...
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 8, 2019 7:20:06 GMT -6
Well i cant fail at something i cant do... That is one side of the argument, but it doesn't make any sense to me. If you can ordinarily bench 200 lbs, and you make a try with 210 lbs, are we saying that it doesn't count as a failure? Of course not! But more interestingly, if you try to fly by flapping your arms, can you fail? Some people have suggested the answer is no, since you never had the ability to do so, but I would argue that the answer is of necessity yes. That is how the word failure is used elsewhere in the law and how we would usually use it outside of this legal discussion. If yesterday I had asked you whether you would succeed or fail if you try to fly by flapping your arms, you wouldn't have said neither... you would have said you would fail. |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Dec 8, 2019 10:40:48 GMT -6
I disagree. If you are forbidden from doing something, you cannot fail in doing that something no matter what, because even the mere attempt at doing so would be illegal. If you cannot attempt it, because you haven't the ability, you cannot fail at it. I extremely disagree with AD's interpretation of that word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Dec 8, 2019 10:51:10 GMT -6
I extremely disagree with the use of lbs in AD's silly analogy. We lift Kilos.
And, yep, exactly as Epic says. The analogy doesn't work because the failed lift (and the failed flying via arm flaps) was preceeded by an attempt. Without attempt, you cannot fail.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001 
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 8, 2019 11:17:42 GMT -6
Without attempt, you cannot fail. What? This interpretation would make it almost impossible to fail to vote, given that most MCs and Senators who do not vote also did not make an attempt to do so. Under this interpretation, the only way to fail to vote would be to, for example, lose your internet connection while attempting to vote. |
|
Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Dec 8, 2019 12:25:19 GMT -6
But he DOES have a vote and is simply not allowed to “vote his seat”. The distinction is incredibly important. It's important, yes, but from the other side. He has a seat, but he does not have a vote. She cannot have a seat without having a vote. While they're separate concepts, they're so intertwined that there cannot be one without the other. As a matter of fact, she has a vote but simply cannot "vote her seat"; or, in other words, she DOES have a vote but may not exercise it. By your interpretation, the Senator-elect is not a member at all and lacks equal standing, which is untrue and is in conflict with OrgLaw principles (and standard parliamentary procedure). The existence of members of bodies without a vote might be nonstandard, but it isn't unprecedented. For example, there are the six non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives. Bad metaphor. Unlike Amada Merþedes , those resident commissioners and delegates are NOT members of the House, at least not in a parliamentary sense. Note that the U.S. Constitution makes no allowance for them, which is why they have no vote; their entire existence is a courtesy allowed by an organic statute, and their 'membership' is a privilege allowed by standing rules of the House, not even by law. In contrast, Amada Merþedes is a duly elected MEMBER of the Senäts and DOES have a vote but may not EXERCISE it. It sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but these distinctions are fundamental and germane to the conversation. What we really should expect is the law to say "no candidate may stand for election until criteria x,y and z are met", but it doesn't. Yes, we should absolutely make an amendment to V.5. of the OrgLaw. That is the problem child of this debate. I disagree. If you are forbidden from doing something, you cannot fail in doing that something no matter what, because even the mere attempt at doing so would be illegal. If you cannot attempt it, because you haven't the ability, you cannot fail at it. I extremely disagree with AD's interpretation of that word. But Amada Merþedes is not forbidden from voting per se. The OrgLaw doesn't say "if you vote, the State will prosecute you for crimes against the public"; it says "no votes until you meet one of three criteria". Her inability to vote may not be her fault, and she may have no control over the matter, but it nonetheless constitutes nonfeasance because it deprives the province entirely of its representation in the Senäts. I'm going to reiterate an earlier concern of mine: what about Cezembre in all this? If I were a citizen of the province, whether or not I voted for the Senator-elect, I would be royally pissed that I have no representation whatsoever for what could be half the term. There is a harm, but luckily there is a remedy: King John should grant a temporary knighthood and postpone two Clarks. |
|
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 8, 2019 12:42:18 GMT -6
There is a harm, but luckily there is a remedy: King John should grant a temporary knighthood and postpone two Clarks. (I think you mean "or")
By the way, there might be a fifth way to solve this (besides ignoring it, knighthood, postponing and relay).
Standing Rule 3 states: And that way it's pretty adamant that the seat stays vacant and Amada does not have a vote in the first place. But:
1) I'm sure someone would sue;
2) I'm sure someone would sue;
3) Ineligibility is ruled upon by the Mençei without real regard to its merits, but she isn't "ineligible" per se;
4) I'm sure someone would sue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Dec 8, 2019 12:47:14 GMT -6
For the interested: "Warrant of Prorogation. At any time after elections, but before the first Clark of the new Cosâ has been published, the King may issue a Warrant of Prorogation on the advice of the incoming Seneschál. Such a Warrant quashes the publication of the first Clark of the new Cosâ and allows the Seneschál one further month in which to form a government or prepare his government's legislative agenda. If a Warrant of Prorogation is issued, the incoming government loses one month of its six-month term, and may only issue and vote on a maximum of five Clarks before new elections are called." So, King John can prorogue Parliament which would delay the first Clark until February 1st, then a month of recess can be called which further delays the first Clark to March 1st. The Senator-Elect would still miss March's vote, but could then vote in the second Clark in April. The Cosa would only contain 5 voting Clarks. In summary, the functions of Parliament would be in suspense from now (early December) until March 1st. Cezembre won't be represented until April 1st. And the legislative session is slashed to just five Clarks. A bit of a sacrifice, I would say. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 8, 2019 14:01:13 GMT -6
The easy thing to do is just reappoint her to the seat when she loses it. It'll take 5 minutes.
|
|
