Post by Nic Casálmac'h on Jan 14, 2007 23:42:22 GMT -6
Fellow legislators:
I crave your attention for a moment. There is before us on this month’s Clark a matter of somewhat more importance (debatably) than the matters on which we are accustomed to vote. I did argue against the bill before while it was in the Hopper, but there was little discussion about it. Now that it is in the Clark, I wish to present my arguments in better form that you may consider them as you vote. (There are so many people who are better at this than I.)
There are two ways to think about this as you vote. You may think that because Talossa is such a small country and unrecognized, that it is but fun. Or you may take your vote as seriously as you would for a larger, diplomatically-recognized country.
Now where am I going with this, you may ask? (I begin to wonder myself.) Well we have before us the bill called “The Amendment Amendment (Amendment)”, and I ask that you seriously consider your vote for it. (As if the name itself weren’t enough to make you vote against it.) As some people have said, “don’t fix what ain’t broke”. The intention I believe is to prevent the king from abusing any power, which is a noble intention, but it is little more than an experiment. There are however in some cases examples to which we may look.
In this case the king’s power to veto amendments to the Organic Law may be likened to the US president’s power to veto amendments to the US constitution. Presidents have at various times used their veto power. Have they ever abused it? Why would our king be any different? Even with whatever political leanings you might have, you no doubt will agree that not all of our presidents have been of excellent caliber. Surely we do not expect our kings to be worse?
The king should use his veto power only for important reason. If there is an amendment he feels is grave enough to veto, then his veto allows all the senators and members of the Cosa time to reconsider the matter. There is a chance that they might decide it would be better not to pass the amendment. Without that veto the process for the bill to become law is hastened. Is this a good thing? As was discussed in reference to electing a king, haste is not necessarily to be desired.
I ask only that you consider this. I have taken up far longer of a moment than I intended already. Thank you.
Nic Casálmac’h, MC
I crave your attention for a moment. There is before us on this month’s Clark a matter of somewhat more importance (debatably) than the matters on which we are accustomed to vote. I did argue against the bill before while it was in the Hopper, but there was little discussion about it. Now that it is in the Clark, I wish to present my arguments in better form that you may consider them as you vote. (There are so many people who are better at this than I.)
There are two ways to think about this as you vote. You may think that because Talossa is such a small country and unrecognized, that it is but fun. Or you may take your vote as seriously as you would for a larger, diplomatically-recognized country.
Now where am I going with this, you may ask? (I begin to wonder myself.) Well we have before us the bill called “The Amendment Amendment (Amendment)”, and I ask that you seriously consider your vote for it. (As if the name itself weren’t enough to make you vote against it.) As some people have said, “don’t fix what ain’t broke”. The intention I believe is to prevent the king from abusing any power, which is a noble intention, but it is little more than an experiment. There are however in some cases examples to which we may look.
In this case the king’s power to veto amendments to the Organic Law may be likened to the US president’s power to veto amendments to the US constitution. Presidents have at various times used their veto power. Have they ever abused it? Why would our king be any different? Even with whatever political leanings you might have, you no doubt will agree that not all of our presidents have been of excellent caliber. Surely we do not expect our kings to be worse?
The king should use his veto power only for important reason. If there is an amendment he feels is grave enough to veto, then his veto allows all the senators and members of the Cosa time to reconsider the matter. There is a chance that they might decide it would be better not to pass the amendment. Without that veto the process for the bill to become law is hastened. Is this a good thing? As was discussed in reference to electing a king, haste is not necessarily to be desired.
I ask only that you consider this. I have taken up far longer of a moment than I intended already. Thank you.
Nic Casálmac’h, MC
