Post by viteu on Jan 28, 2019 18:03:43 GMT -6
Free Democrats of Talossa,
As many of you are aware, I practice law outside of Talossa. One of the things that lawyers do is study rules. We live our lives by scrutinizing rules. Naturally, this has resulted in some issues with me and other Talossans. I do not ignore, and fully appreciate, that rules should not be so strict to curtail development. But if a rule ceases to work, then we need to change it.
Now, the law is slightly different, and rival schools of thought inform how one approaches the law. Strict compliance advocates encourage following the letter of the law regardless of its impact. Others, such as myself, believe that when the reason for the law ceases, the law ceases. This was recently explained in a landmarks ruling from the Indian Supreme Court and Caribbean Court of Justice. Nevertheless, this should not mean that we cherry pick which laws should be followed. Rather, it should inform how we apply laws. This is why a lot of my posts, when it concerns rules or law, references authority. We must know the rules of the game to play the game.
I say this to explain a decision I made to withdraw Proposed Amendment 9 from the voting rolls. I described this action as an implied privilege. I do not read our Party Constitution to forbid it. Nor do I read that every Proposed Amendment must be put up for a vote. But I felt it necessary to explain why I did this but to caution against doing this in the future.
Our Party Constitution is, for the most part, straight forward – it is easy to follow and lacks contradictory provisions. But a significant point of debate has been the ongoing Agnostic Clause. Miestrâ Schivâ requested that I offer input as to whether certain Proposed Amendments breached the Agnostic Clause. And so I did. This left me in an awkward position – do I permit a Proposed Amendment that, if passed, would create contradictory terms of our Constitution? Would permitting it effectively negate the Agnostic Clause?
Without getting into weeds, when provisions of a constitution contradict, the general way to interpret which dominates is “last in time, first in right.” So Proposed Amendment 9 passed, it would effectively negate the Agnostic Clause. I felt this was unfair to those who support the Agnostic Clause as it did not offer a fair debate on the issue. There is not one part of me that believes this was the intent of its proponent; but it’s how I understood its impact.
On that basis, for fundamental fairness, and to maintain continuity of our Party Constitution, I removed it from voting. This was an extraordinary privilege I took and one I never want to see used again. The author of Proposed Amendment 9 has publicly stated that he understands what I made the decision and takes no offense, but I do not with to set a precedent for future Party Chairs/Party Presidents to do this without substantially good cause. So I hope that by explaining myself, we accept that this power should only be utilized when there is substantially good cause. Right now that means when we would unfairly negate a part of our Constitution without a fair debate. At our next convention, I intend to introduce an amendment for these situations.
With that said, I am pleased to announce the following results:
Officers
Per Section V of our Constitution, Officers are voted by a simple majority.
Question 1: Shall Miestrâ Schivâ serve as President of the Free Democrats of Talossa? Aye: 4: Nay: 0; Abstain: 0.
Question 2: Shall Dien serve as Secretary of the Free Democrats of Talossa? Aye 3: Nay: 0; Abstain: 1.
Let me be the first to welcome Miestrâ Schivâ as our new Party President and Dien as our new Party Secretary.
Proposed Amendments
Per Section V of our Constitution, an Proposed Amendment must receive 2/3s (67%) of the vote. Abstentions do not count towards the 2/3s threshold.
Amendment 2: Amending B1.A to remove "to 20." B1.A would therefore only read: "Reduction of Cosa seat numbers."
Result- Adopt: 4 Reject: Abstain: 1
FINAL: 100% in favor of Adoption. Proposed Amendment 2 is adopted.
Amendment 3: Removing B1.B and renumbering subsequent points.
Result- Adopt: 1 Reject: 1 Abstain: 3
FINAL: 50% in favor; 50% against. Proposed Amendment 3 is not adopted.
Amendment 4: Removing the language of B1.F that states "Reduction of the King's influence on the democratic process." B1.F would therefore only read: "The Seneschál to be appointed by the King on the advice of a majority of Cosa seats."
Result- Adopt: 2 Reject: 2 Abstain: 1
FINAL: 50% in favor; 50% against. Proposed Amendment 4 is not adopted.
Amendment 5: To add a section A3. to read "We support common sense legislation to ensure the rights of individuals to enjoy whatever cultural aspect of Talossa they wish are not hindered by laws limiting the free exercise of expression."
Result- Adopt: 4 Reject: Abstain: 1
FINAL: 100% in favor of Adoption. Proposed Amendment 5 is adopted.
Amendment 6: Create B1h- Supporting a system where the king of Talossa sits the throne securely. The throne itself is unstable and easily abolished.
Result- Adopt: 2 Reject: 1 Abstain: 2
FINAL: 67% in favor of Adoption. Proposed Amendment 6 is adopted.
Amendment 7: Create B1f2- Abolish the hereditary monarchy in favour of a lifetime elected position.
Result- Adopt: 4 Reject: 1 Abstain:
FINAL: 80% in favor of Adoption. Proposed Amendment 7 is adopted.
Amendment 8: Create B1h2- In the case that the monarchy is abolished as part of the nuclear throne, require an interregnum of at least five years during which the various monarchial powers devolve to other offices (Tuisac'h, Mencei, Seneschal, High Steward).
Result- Adopt: 1 Reject: 1 Abstain: 3
FINAL: 50% in favor; 50% against. Proposed Amendment 8 is not adopted.
Amendment 10: "Support for the Telecomuna project of a State-owned and administered national discussion forum. Our current over-reliance on privately owned and administered Wittenberg puts too much power in the hands of that site's unaccountable owners/administrators."
Result- Adopt: 5 Reject: Abstain:
FINAL: 100% in favor of Adoption. Proposed Amendment 10 is adopted.
The Constitution should be updated accordingly.
On that note, it has been a privilege and honor to serve you all. I was not the best president, and my personal life prevented me from fulfilling many of my goals. I do beg your forgiveness. Miestra truly picked up my slack, and she will serve as an excellent President. Dien has an established record of serving our party with distinction. He will serve as an excellent Secretary.
Congrats to all.
As many of you are aware, I practice law outside of Talossa. One of the things that lawyers do is study rules. We live our lives by scrutinizing rules. Naturally, this has resulted in some issues with me and other Talossans. I do not ignore, and fully appreciate, that rules should not be so strict to curtail development. But if a rule ceases to work, then we need to change it.
Now, the law is slightly different, and rival schools of thought inform how one approaches the law. Strict compliance advocates encourage following the letter of the law regardless of its impact. Others, such as myself, believe that when the reason for the law ceases, the law ceases. This was recently explained in a landmarks ruling from the Indian Supreme Court and Caribbean Court of Justice. Nevertheless, this should not mean that we cherry pick which laws should be followed. Rather, it should inform how we apply laws. This is why a lot of my posts, when it concerns rules or law, references authority. We must know the rules of the game to play the game.
I say this to explain a decision I made to withdraw Proposed Amendment 9 from the voting rolls. I described this action as an implied privilege. I do not read our Party Constitution to forbid it. Nor do I read that every Proposed Amendment must be put up for a vote. But I felt it necessary to explain why I did this but to caution against doing this in the future.
Our Party Constitution is, for the most part, straight forward – it is easy to follow and lacks contradictory provisions. But a significant point of debate has been the ongoing Agnostic Clause. Miestrâ Schivâ requested that I offer input as to whether certain Proposed Amendments breached the Agnostic Clause. And so I did. This left me in an awkward position – do I permit a Proposed Amendment that, if passed, would create contradictory terms of our Constitution? Would permitting it effectively negate the Agnostic Clause?
Without getting into weeds, when provisions of a constitution contradict, the general way to interpret which dominates is “last in time, first in right.” So Proposed Amendment 9 passed, it would effectively negate the Agnostic Clause. I felt this was unfair to those who support the Agnostic Clause as it did not offer a fair debate on the issue. There is not one part of me that believes this was the intent of its proponent; but it’s how I understood its impact.
On that basis, for fundamental fairness, and to maintain continuity of our Party Constitution, I removed it from voting. This was an extraordinary privilege I took and one I never want to see used again. The author of Proposed Amendment 9 has publicly stated that he understands what I made the decision and takes no offense, but I do not with to set a precedent for future Party Chairs/Party Presidents to do this without substantially good cause. So I hope that by explaining myself, we accept that this power should only be utilized when there is substantially good cause. Right now that means when we would unfairly negate a part of our Constitution without a fair debate. At our next convention, I intend to introduce an amendment for these situations.
With that said, I am pleased to announce the following results:
Officers
Per Section V of our Constitution, Officers are voted by a simple majority.
Question 1: Shall Miestrâ Schivâ serve as President of the Free Democrats of Talossa? Aye: 4: Nay: 0; Abstain: 0.
Question 2: Shall Dien serve as Secretary of the Free Democrats of Talossa? Aye 3: Nay: 0; Abstain: 1.
Let me be the first to welcome Miestrâ Schivâ as our new Party President and Dien as our new Party Secretary.
Proposed Amendments
Per Section V of our Constitution, an Proposed Amendment must receive 2/3s (67%) of the vote. Abstentions do not count towards the 2/3s threshold.
Amendment 2: Amending B1.A to remove "to 20." B1.A would therefore only read: "Reduction of Cosa seat numbers."
Result- Adopt: 4 Reject: Abstain: 1
FINAL: 100% in favor of Adoption. Proposed Amendment 2 is adopted.
Amendment 3: Removing B1.B and renumbering subsequent points.
Result- Adopt: 1 Reject: 1 Abstain: 3
FINAL: 50% in favor; 50% against. Proposed Amendment 3 is not adopted.
Amendment 4: Removing the language of B1.F that states "Reduction of the King's influence on the democratic process." B1.F would therefore only read: "The Seneschál to be appointed by the King on the advice of a majority of Cosa seats."
Result- Adopt: 2 Reject: 2 Abstain: 1
FINAL: 50% in favor; 50% against. Proposed Amendment 4 is not adopted.
Amendment 5: To add a section A3. to read "We support common sense legislation to ensure the rights of individuals to enjoy whatever cultural aspect of Talossa they wish are not hindered by laws limiting the free exercise of expression."
Result- Adopt: 4 Reject: Abstain: 1
FINAL: 100% in favor of Adoption. Proposed Amendment 5 is adopted.
Amendment 6: Create B1h- Supporting a system where the king of Talossa sits the throne securely. The throne itself is unstable and easily abolished.
Result- Adopt: 2 Reject: 1 Abstain: 2
FINAL: 67% in favor of Adoption. Proposed Amendment 6 is adopted.
Amendment 7: Create B1f2- Abolish the hereditary monarchy in favour of a lifetime elected position.
Result- Adopt: 4 Reject: 1 Abstain:
FINAL: 80% in favor of Adoption. Proposed Amendment 7 is adopted.
Amendment 8: Create B1h2- In the case that the monarchy is abolished as part of the nuclear throne, require an interregnum of at least five years during which the various monarchial powers devolve to other offices (Tuisac'h, Mencei, Seneschal, High Steward).
Result- Adopt: 1 Reject: 1 Abstain: 3
FINAL: 50% in favor; 50% against. Proposed Amendment 8 is not adopted.
Amendment 10: "Support for the Telecomuna project of a State-owned and administered national discussion forum. Our current over-reliance on privately owned and administered Wittenberg puts too much power in the hands of that site's unaccountable owners/administrators."
Result- Adopt: 5 Reject: Abstain:
FINAL: 100% in favor of Adoption. Proposed Amendment 10 is adopted.
The Constitution should be updated accordingly.
On that note, it has been a privilege and honor to serve you all. I was not the best president, and my personal life prevented me from fulfilling many of my goals. I do beg your forgiveness. Miestra truly picked up my slack, and she will serve as an excellent President. Dien has an established record of serving our party with distinction. He will serve as an excellent Secretary.
Congrats to all.