|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Nov 3, 2015 15:04:44 GMT -6
In principle, I'd prefer for it to be gone, but in practice I'd like for the Kingdom to have some income every year, even if largely that isn't a fixed amount. I'm also worried about cutting it too much - sure, the immediate shortfall after one election wouldn't be huge but over the years it would accumulate. Our opposition would then throw up "mint coins, sell stamps" argument. Our record on this sadly hasn't been great so far. |
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Nov 30, 2015 15:47:14 GMT -6
... well, shall we restart this discussion?
I propose the following extra plank:
16. Reduction of the King's influence on the democratic process. A removal of the Royal veto over OrgLaw reforms. The Seneschál to be appointed by the King on the advice of a majority of Cosa seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adm. Asmourescu on Dec 1, 2015 5:40:03 GMT -6
If I may, a key problem with an OrgLaw amendment is that, even if it passes, John will simply veto it. He has us by the constitutional short and curlies.
Idea: let's pass a statute that severely limits the conditions under which the king "may not" promulgate an amendment. Our objective is not to try to override OrgLaw but to clarify its ambiguities. By going this route we can make the king's noncompliance a felony which would subject him to impeachment if he pulls that crap again.
this sets the stage for actually making it so the amendments might actually come into force.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Dec 1, 2015 14:24:02 GMT -6
Well, the whole question of constitutional reforms is going to be taken up by the Royal Commission. Sure, it's half-full of crusted on RUMP conservatives, but they're not partisan hacks, so they might be convinced to come to a reasonable compromise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Dec 1, 2015 17:40:17 GMT -6
Welcome to all our new forum members by the way, and please have your say!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dien on Dec 6, 2015 20:56:13 GMT -6
To start bringing this conversation back around to a vote, it seems we are all in general agreement to re-affirm the policies of the Liberal Congress, with objections being heard as to Planks 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12. We've also had a proposed 16 that we will hold a vote on. For plank 4, which is my objection, I'd just like a full party vote on it outside of the other planks. For planks 6 and 7, Miestrâ Schivâ, you noted that you aren't in favor of allowing the public ballot at all. I'm assuming you would like a separate vote on these planks? For plank 9, Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă, you wanted some further discussion in what a more accessible judicial system would look like. Would you like a separate vote on the plank to discuss specifics more in depth? For plank 10, Miestrâ Schivâ, do you have a suggested proposal or change to the specific wording? For plank 12, we've noted that AD's bill lowered the registration fee, would we like to change around the wording of this one as well? |
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Dec 7, 2015 2:21:36 GMT -6
Yes, I'd like a separate vote on 6&7, taken together as a unit.
For 10, I would like a separate vote on that as well. I just don't see a reason for that apart from ideology. We all agree, for example, that the Database needs nationalisation, and of course that's the bill I brought on the current Clark, with SoS AND RUMP support.
For 12, I just say we substitute $10 for $15.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dien on Dec 10, 2015 19:39:26 GMT -6
Sounds good. To the extent any of the above needs to be seconded, consider this my second. I say we give it until Saturday at 7 Talossan time, then we'll move to the official vote. Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă, do you have anything to add on judicial systems? |
|
|
|
Post by Dien on Dec 13, 2015 2:38:27 GMT -6
I'll be starting a new thread for the vote tomorrow morning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Dec 13, 2015 16:34:31 GMT -6
Can I suggest - sorry if it´s a bit late - one more plank?
17. Removal of Wisconsin law from El Lexhátx, and replacement of relevant sections with indigenous Talossan equivalents drafted with the input of top members of the Bar.
REASON: Talossan law should be understandable by Talossans. Bringing Wisconsin law into Talossan law means that you need to be qualified to understand Wisconsin law to understand Talossan law - which means that only trained lawyers in extra-Talossan life can adequately use and understand Talossan law. This was brought home to me by Cresti's brief on the Hool case, which relied heavily on judicial precedent from Wisconsin law which I had no idea even existed. This means that a tiny little clique of professional lawyers can completely dominate Talossan jurisprudence. Kick that out. Let's have our own laws, made by Talossan amateurs and therefore able to be parsed and debated by Talossan amateurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Dec 13, 2015 18:03:52 GMT -6
If I may, a key problem with an OrgLaw amendment is that, even if it passes, John will simply veto it. He has us by the constitutional short and curlies. Idea: let's pass a statute that severely limits the conditions under which the king "may not" promulgate an amendment. Our objective is not to try to override OrgLaw but to clarify its ambiguities. By going this route we can make the king's noncompliance a felony which would subject him to impeachment if he pulls that crap again. this sets the stage for actually making it so the amendments might actually come into force. I'm not sure how a statute in El.Lex. could ever be seen to directly influence anything related to the OrgLaw. I like the idea, however. I also would be in favor of simply attempting to change the OrgLaw so that instead of "may" it will say "shall." |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Dec 13, 2015 18:06:05 GMT -6
Sounds good. To the extent any of the above needs to be seconded, consider this my second. I say we give it until Saturday at 7 Talossan time, then we'll move to the official vote. Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă , do you have anything to add on judicial systems? I pretty much reformed the judicial system to the best of my ability during the previous Cosa. Other than a more effective method of removing inactive justices (BenArd, for example), I'm not sure what else can be done right now. We have so few lawyers and even fewer willing to sit on the Cort. Add to that only 1 active justice... |
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Dec 13, 2015 19:54:48 GMT -6
Let's remember to take that up in the Royal Commission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dien on Dec 14, 2015 13:05:33 GMT -6
Can I suggest - sorry if it´s a bit late - one more plank? 17. Removal of Wisconsin law from El Lexhátx, and replacement of relevant sections with indigenous Talossan equivalents drafted with the input of top members of the Bar.REASON: Talossan law should be understandable by Talossans. Bringing Wisconsin law into Talossan law means that you need to be qualified to understand Wisconsin law to understand Talossan law - which means that only trained lawyers in extra-Talossan life can adequately use and understand Talossan law. This was brought home to me by Cresti's brief on the Hool case, which relied heavily on judicial precedent from Wisconsin law which I had no idea even existed. This means that a tiny little clique of professional lawyers can completely dominate Talossan jurisprudence. Kick that out. Let's have our own laws, made by Talossan amateurs and therefore able to be parsed and debated by Talossan amateurs. Never too late, I'll add it to the list! |
|
|
|
Post by Dien on Dec 14, 2015 16:11:19 GMT -6
Sounds good. To the extent any of the above needs to be seconded, consider this my second. I say we give it until Saturday at 7 Talossan time, then we'll move to the official vote. Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă , do you have anything to add on judicial systems? I pretty much reformed the judicial system to the best of my ability during the previous Cosa. Other than a more effective method of removing inactive justices (BenArd, for example), I'm not sure what else can be done right now. We have so few lawyers and even fewer willing to sit on the Cort. Add to that only 1 active justice... We could always keep it as part of our platform, and refer to it as a success for our members, like the Age Minimum for Citizenship Applicants. Nonetheless, I'll go ahead and take it out to be voted on separately. |
|
