|
Post by Martì Prevuost on Nov 30, 2013 17:02:13 GMT -6
With regard to the AG question - thank you. I misread the year.
|
|
|
Post by Martì Prevuost on Nov 30, 2013 17:27:08 GMT -6
As to whether this PD is duly delivered ... since only a few select pages are "accountable for pure accuracy", I would suggest that unless and until it is posted to a governmental page under the category of "Law" on the Wiki, it can not be assumed to be duly delivered.
But ... that's just my opinion.
mag
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 30, 2013 18:17:13 GMT -6
Not really... if it is proclaimed by the authority that has the power to proclaim it, then it's done. A PD is a PD once it's made, even if someone (like myself or another member of the Scribery) hasn't popped it up on the wiki yet. Same with a Cort decision or a law passed by the Ziu or whatever. They're real when they happen.
|
|
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 Nov 30, 2013 18:50:23 GMT -6
6. Why and how was he replaced as Maestro of Benito? Well, I assume now's my turn, right? The Arvitieir Prima (that's a bit of a Provincial SoS) Don Istefan Perþonest, O.Be., has presented a motion to the Legislative Chancellery the 19th of July. And this was the "why" part. And this was the "how" part. The motion passed once there was an absolute majority of votes (6/11) in favour of, well, me. That was on July 22nd. Anyway, to put it simple: if a Txec (the Admiral) renounces his citizenship, under Benitian law there'd be a Iustì or a Carlüs (Istefan) that make sure a new PM (Maestro) is elected to fill the vacant seat. In Benito it's legal to pass resolutions to appoint a new Maestro even assuming that the substituted Maestro is still a citizen, or hasn't officially resigned, from the Constitution of Benito:
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Dec 1, 2013 3:01:27 GMT -6
Not really... if it is proclaimed by the authority that has the power to proclaim it, then it's done. A PD is a PD once it's made, even if someone (like myself or another member of the Scribery) hasn't popped it up on the wiki yet. Same with a Cort decision or a law passed by the Ziu or whatever. They're real when they happen. Absolutely correct.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Dec 1, 2013 5:59:55 GMT -6
Well, according to Organic Law, PD's have the power of law. Until such time as this PD, then, is struck down by the Cort Pü Înalt as inorganic, or the Ziu introduces the same PD as a bill to become law and when it passes, the Admiral is a citizen of the Kingdom. This is my humble view of the things.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 1, 2013 7:14:34 GMT -6
The Admiral has written me to assure me he is back, and just waiting on his Witt to be restored. He also reminds me that the PD has to be counter-signed by His Majesty - who may decide (after this discussion) that he can't do so. Which would make it the first vetoed PD in... ever? Anyone know of another?
|
|
|
Post by Martì Prevuost on Dec 1, 2013 7:46:44 GMT -6
Actually, I know the PD is in effect pending Royal assent upon issuance, or as more often happens, Royal silence is assumed to be consent. My comment was mostly a tongue-in-cheek response to the fact that we still have no official (meaning governmentally managed/controlled) web presence upon which one may rely.
Now I wonder if the Attorney General ought to consider charges against the SecState for dereliction of duty for failing to execute his office. Hmmmm.
Glad to have helped stir things up a bit. Time to nap again ...
mag
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 1, 2013 7:57:55 GMT -6
Well, it is, frankly, an unrewarding and taxing job to be SoS. You have serious and unrelenting responsibilities, and big shoes to fill. Minor oversights like this should be cheerfully overlooked, unless they become major ones, and Iusti has done a fantastic job and doesn't deserve menace like that.
|
|
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 1, 2013 10:38:10 GMT -6
Well, IMHO Hooligan is still acting as the Regent (I assume that his Majesty didn't come back from Italy yet and hasn't resumed his royal duties) so it's Hooligan that could possibly veto this PD or give it the royal assent.
|
|
|
Post by Martì Prevuost on Dec 1, 2013 17:57:09 GMT -6
Well, it is, frankly, an unrewarding and taxing job to be SoS. You have serious and unrelenting responsibilities, and big shoes to fill. Minor oversights like this should be cheerfully overlooked, unless they become major ones, and Iusti has done a fantastic job and doesn't deserve menace like that. Yes. It is an unrewarding and taxing job. All governmental jobs are but the SoS is more so. And yes, Iusti has done a fantastic job and I applaud his efforts. However, how you can suggest that this is a minor oversight is beyond me. We all believe, or rather, I thought we all believed that renouncing one's citizenship was as drastic a measure as could be taken by a citizen. To say that the SoS's failure to recognize and affirm said renunciation in accordance with his obligation to do so - thereby allowing a renounced citizen to waltz back into the wonderfulness that is Talossa without any requirement other than an email saying "I'm back" is a "MINOR OVERSIGHT" is, in my opinion, unbelievable. I wonder how well this would be accepted if the RUMP was not the government in power. I wonder how well this would be accepted if the returning citizen was anyone other than Tim. For what it's worth, mag **Edit: And this is not about Tim, nor is it about Iusti. I do not envy Iusti his considerable responsibilities, nor to I begrudge Tim's return. What I take exception to is the seeming elasticity of the process.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Dec 1, 2013 19:13:54 GMT -6
Yes, the RUMP is very benevolent toward its supporters and very petty-minded towards the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 1, 2013 20:48:54 GMT -6
Yes, S:reu Prevoust, it's a weird loophole we should fix. You can renounce and if it isn't recognized, unrenounce. Maybe. It's not clear, because it's a muddy grey area that wasn't intended. We talked about that earlier in the thread.
But Iusti isn't responsible for that oddity in law, is he? He is responsible for the minor oversight of failing to acknowledge a renunciation with an official statement, something that is done inconsistently and has never been taken that seriously - indeed, we had to pass a law only a couple of years ago requiring that it be done at all!
It's unfair to then blame him for a messy area of law that hasn't come up before, as if his role in the situation (forgetting to put a seal on someone's renunciation) caused the whole thing. Renunciation is serious, but the fault is not Iusti's except in the smallest sense. It's like there's a manufacturing flaw in your car's transmission, and when you accidentally grind the gears once the whole thing bursts into flames: was it your fault? No, you did one minor thing that exposed a larger structural flaw!
And it is a very ugly and even more serious implication when you venture forth the idea that this is partisan. Disgusting.
You both need to seriously think about what you say, before you say it.
|
|
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 1, 2013 23:46:11 GMT -6
Alex, it ill-behooves you to be telling opposition politicians what they can and can't think about the muck-ups and legal legerdemain of your administration. Perhaps, if things look dodgy, even if they aren't, it's not the opposition's "dirty minds" that is the problem, but the appearance that the RUMP's vaunted administrative team have dropped the ball in such a comprehensive manner that it reflects malice rather than base incompetence.
If you don't want "RUMP intolerance of any opposition criticism" to be an election theme, perhaps it is you who must weigh your words.
|
|
|
Post by Martì Prevuost on Dec 2, 2013 7:03:19 GMT -6
Yes, S:reu Prevoust, it's a weird loophole we should fix. You can renounce and if it isn't recognized, unrenounce. Maybe. It's not clear, because it's a muddy grey area that wasn't intended. We talked about that earlier in the thread. But Iusti isn't responsible for that oddity in law, is he? He is responsible for the minor oversight of failing to acknowledge a renunciation with an official statement, something that is done inconsistently and has never been taken that seriously - indeed, we had to pass a law only a couple of years ago requiring that it be done at all! It's unfair to then blame him for a messy area of law that hasn't come up before, as if his role in the situation (forgetting to put a seal on someone's renunciation) caused the whole thing. Renunciation is serious, but the fault is not Iusti's except in the smallest sense. It's like there's a manufacturing flaw in your car's transmission, and when you accidentally grind the gears once the whole thing bursts into flames: was it your fault? No, you did one minor thing that exposed a larger structural flaw! And it is a very ugly and even more serious implication when you venture forth the idea that this is partisan. Disgusting. You both need to seriously think about what you say, before you say it. No, Iusti isn't responsible for the oddity in the law. He IS responsible for failing to execute the duties of his office. I recall an earlier renunciation which was intentionally overlooked for a few days so that the individual might have sufficient opportunity to reconsider his decision. That was a tactical decision on the part of that SoS (not Iusti as I recall) to provide the citizen the opportunity to do exactly what Tim has done in this case, but ultimately, the SoS did what he is required to do and acknowledged the renunciation making it official. Now, IF Iusti was not aware that Tim renounced, then no, he bears no guilt. But if he was aware and simply ignored his duties, then that is another matter. As to the partisan nature of this issue - you misinterpret my comment. I make no implication that this was done intentionally because of political affiliation. I suggest that IF Tim were not a supporter of the current government, would the SoS's failure to make his renunciation official be considered a "minor oversight"? I suggest that if the returning citizen were someone not as well thought of as Tim - someone who had not done so much for the Kingdom - someone who had fomented more discord than dedication ... I suggest that in such a case, the SoS's "minor oversight" MIGHT be overlooked therefore requiring the former citizen to go through the immigration process outlined in law. And THAT, my dear Alex, WAS thought about before it was written. mag
|
|