|
| Oh, brother. | Justice dal Navâ | February 23, 2005 - 04:07 | | Andy | February 23, 2005 - 23:34 |
|
Parent message | | Justice dal Navâ | February 23, 2005 - 04:07 |
| Brother, where art thou?(#1143), posted by Andy, [IP Hidden], February 23, 2005 - 23:34. Viewed 708 times. |
|
Andy
Group: friends
(2043 posts total)
(last post: January 29, 2008 - 18:09)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | Jeff's observations are all entirely worthy of consideration, and evidence of much work on his part. That the difficulties he points out are not necessarily constitutional problems is no reason to belittle his efforts with illogical and nonsensical rejoinders.
So, sir, I bite my thumb at you. I brush my chin towards you. I slap the underside of my arm, which supports an upraised and inturned fist, at you.
I hereby second each and every one of Jeff's proposed amendments. Let's vote.
A.
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Lowry
Minister of Immigration
|
|
| | Justice dal Navâ | February 24, 2005 - 04:08 |
|
Parent message | | Andy | February 23, 2005 - 23:34 |
| RE: Brother, where art thou?(#1151), posted by Justice dal Navâ, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 04:08. Viewed 673 times. |
|
Justice dal Navâ
Group: admins
(5222 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 13:43)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > Jeff's observations are all entirely worthy of consideration, and evidence of much work on his part. That the difficulties he points out are not necessarily constitutional problems is no reason to belittle his efforts with illogical and nonsensical rejoinders.
>
> So, sir, I bite my thumb at you. I brush my chin towards you. I slap the underside of my arm, which supports an upraised and inturned fist, at you.
>
> I hereby second each and every one of Jeff's proposed amendments. Let's vote.
Why? Because you don't like my criticism? Why do you care? Is Jeff not a big enough boy to take care of himself?
Seeing as NO AMENDMENTS DEALING WITH PUNCTUATION OR SPELLING WILL BE CONSIDERED... well... seems to me that Jeff's inserts concerning punctuation and spelling are invalid as amendments. Try to keep up.
--------------------------------------
E isc al Arendra del Bún Úr. Fáden es fóclan gleðen fer brach. El Bún Úr fólat ëtfin cún sino synt prepar. Cún þis paset, þa omin isc fólen. Es lyþ was sár. -- vól Cúliðlaþ
Chirischtôval Curt Cavéir,
Dean of the Republic of Talossa
|
|
| | la garçâ malpadert | February 23, 2005 - 23:38 |
|
Parent message | | Andy | February 23, 2005 - 23:34 |
| Too late.(#1145), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], February 23, 2005 - 23:38. Viewed 705 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | The deadline for moving and seconding amendments closed about six hours ago. And I had already indicated that I wouldn't accept any of Göd's amendments anyway for a vote, since they were excessively minor and pedantic.
All Göd's suggestions, however, will be discussed in the Constitutional Committee "tinkering" with the Final Draft, which you, Andy, will be a part of, so I look forward to discussing them then.
Miestrâ Schivâ
"The Republic's Most Articulate Spokeswhatever" - R. B. Madison
A slave begins by demanding justice, and ends by wanting to wear a crown. |
|
| | Andy | February 24, 2005 - 00:13 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | February 23, 2005 - 23:38 |
| RE: Too late.(#1146), posted by Andy, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 00:13. Viewed 673 times. |
|
Andy
Group: friends
(2043 posts total)
(last post: January 29, 2008 - 18:09)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > The deadline for moving and seconding amendments closed about six hours ago.
By whose clock? In what time zone?
> And I had already indicated that I wouldn't accept any of Göd's amendments anyway for a vote, since they were excessively minor and pedantic.
That's nice, but I seconded them, so your acceptance or non-acceptance is moot.
>
> All Göd's suggestions, however, will be discussed in the Constitutional Committee "tinkering" with the Final Draft, which you, Andy, will be a part of, so I look forward to discussing them then.
Better yet, let's vote now.
A.
|
|
| | la garçâ malpadert | February 24, 2005 - 03:43 |
|
Parent message | | Andy | February 24, 2005 - 00:13 |
| Back me or sack me.(#1148), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 03:43. Viewed 698 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > > The deadline for moving and seconding amendments closed about six hours ago.
>
> By whose clock? In what time zone?
I announced the following on February 16, 15:21 according to the datestamp on the post on this forum:
I am going to allow one week for anyone who really thinks we need a Third Round of amendments.
Therefore, the deadline closed at February 23, 15:21. Your post where you second Göd's amendments (just because you disapproved of Grubi's tone of voice?) is datestamped February 23, 2005 - 23:34. Therefore, you were eight hours and thirteen minutes late. You also registered your vote on the two amendments which *were* moved and seconded, so you obviously *knew* that the voting period had begun, so I'm not sure what your problem is now.
> > And I had already indicated that I wouldn't accept any of Göd's amendments anyway for a vote, since they were excessively minor and pedantic.
>
> That's nice, but I seconded them, so your acceptance or non-acceptance is moot.
I repeat again from my post referenced above: I will not accept amendments which concern typos, wording and other non-substantive matters. All Göd's amendments fall into this category, in my judgement. Again, if you had a problem with this, the time to tell me so was at any time before February 23, 15:21, at whatever time this forum datestamps things.
> > All Göd's suggestions, however, will be discussed in the Constitutional Committee "tinkering" with the Final Draft, which you, Andy, will be a part of, so I look forward to discussing them then.
>
> Better yet, let's vote now.
I advertised the rules well in advance, in a post titled "OFFICIAL from the Chairwoman". You didn't challenge them at the time. I am not changing the rules now that the vote has already started. If you want to kick me out of the Chair and restart the voting period, then I will accept a petition of any five citizens requesting my resignation.
Miestrâ Schivâ
"The Republic's Most Articulate Spokeswhatever" - R. B. Madison
A slave begins by demanding justice, and ends by wanting to wear a crown. |
|
| | Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h | February 24, 2005 - 16:24 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | February 24, 2005 - 03:43 |
| I back you!(#1168), posted by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 16:24. Viewed 690 times. |
|
Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h
Group: admins
(3164 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 15:24)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > I announced the following on February 16, 15:21 according to the datestamp on the post on this forum:
>
> I am going to allow one week for anyone who really thinks we need a Third Round of amendments.
>
> Therefore, the deadline closed at February 23, 15:21. Your post where you second Göd's amendments (just because you disapproved of Grubi's tone of voice?) is datestamped February 23, 2005 - 23:34. Therefore, you were eight hours and thirteen minutes late. You also registered your vote on the two amendments which *were* moved and seconded, so you obviously *knew* that the voting period had begun, so I'm not sure what your problem is now.
Andy, you missed the deadline.
> I repeat again from my post referenced above: I will not accept amendments which concern typos, wording and other non-substantive matters. All Göd's amendments fall into this category, in my judgement. Again, if you had a problem with this, the time to tell me so was at any time before February 23, 15:21, at whatever time this forum datestamps things.
While I disagree with Miestra's opinions of my amendments and typos (those typos were never meant to be considered as amendments, but my post was confusing on that point).
>
> > > All Göd's suggestions, however, will be discussed in the Constitutional Committee "tinkering" with the Final Draft, which you, Andy, will be a part of, so I look forward to discussing them then.
> >
> > Better yet, let's vote now.
>
> I advertised the rules well in advance, in a post titled "OFFICIAL from the Chairwoman". You didn't challenge them at the time. I am not changing the rules now that the vote has already started. If you want to kick me out of the Chair and restart the voting period, then I will accept a petition of any five citizens requesting my resignation.
I would sign no such petition.
G. V.
www.icantbelieveitsnottonal.com
The Talossan Wiki at www.talossapedia.com |
|
| | JKK | February 24, 2005 - 04:40 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | February 24, 2005 - 03:43 |
| I back.(#1155), posted by JKK, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 04:40. Viewed 734 times. |
|
JKK
Group: citizens
(738 posts total)
(last post: August 11, 2005 - 01:39)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | This is getting unnecessarily contentious. Miestra, you've done a great job of keeping it moving. You've set sensible rules and given plenty of opportunity for input. I respect Andy and Godafreiu's input, but without firm timelines we'd be a lot further from what we all want: to let our political process take shape. I believe that many Friends and watchers are waiting to see how that will go: how will our system work, would they have a voice if they joined, would this be a reasonably fun place to do such things?
If there's something wrong with the document (and such will be found approximately five minutes after it enters force of fundamental law, despite all our efforts), necessary clarifications will surely be apparent and result either in Court interpretations (and that's what we have them for) or amendments (something to do!). I really think it'll be all right. Let's moderate our tones, remember how far we've come, and support Miestra in keeping the process going forward.
jkk
AIM: jkkandalex
E-mail: apostate at gte dot net |
|
| | Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h | February 24, 2005 - 16:26 |
|
Parent message | | JKK | February 24, 2005 - 04:40 |
| 100% agreement!(#1169), posted by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 16:26. Viewed 709 times. |
|
Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h
Group: admins
(3164 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 15:24)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > This is getting unnecessarily contentious. Miestra, you've done a great job of keeping it moving. You've set sensible rules and given plenty of opportunity for input. I respect Andy and Godafreiu's input, but without firm timelines we'd be a lot further from what we all want: to let our political process take shape. I believe that many Friends and watchers are waiting to see how that will go: how will our system work, would they have a voice if they joined, would this be a reasonably fun place to do such things?
100% agreement on all counts.
>
> If there's something wrong with the document (and such will be found approximately five minutes after it enters force of fundamental law, despite all our efforts), necessary clarifications will surely be apparent and result either in Court interpretations (and that's what we have them for) or amendments (something to do!). I really think it'll be all right. Let's moderate our tones, remember how far we've come, and support Miestra in keeping the process going forward.
Indeed. Andy, chill out. :-)
G. V.
www.icantbelieveitsnottonal.com
The Talossan Wiki at www.talossapedia.com |
|
| | President Anglatzarâ | February 24, 2005 - 08:25 |
|
Parent message | | JKK | February 24, 2005 - 04:40 |
| RE: I back.(#1158), posted by President Anglatzarâ, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 08:25. Viewed 741 times. |
|
President Anglatzarâ
Group: admins
(3194 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 07:21)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > Let's moderate our tones, remember how far we've come, and support Miestra in keeping the process going forward.
Indeed. I'm behind you, Miestrâ. (And not too far behind you either.) Let's keep the behemoth on the roll. As soon as we get it into place, the nation's life can start for real. And as JKK says, I'm sure amendments to the constitution will be heard during the very first parlamînt session.
--
 |
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | February 24, 2005 - 13:50 |
|
Parent message | | President Anglatzarâ | February 24, 2005 - 08:25 |
| RE: I back.(#1164), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 13:50. Viewed 743 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber |
> And as JKK says, I'm sure amendments to the constitution will be heard during the very first parlamînt session.
You bet! Some possible plans for amendments might even be written into the programs of political parties. ;-)
- D. N. Vercáriâ |
|
| | Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h | February 23, 2005 - 23:03 |
|
Parent message | | Justice dal Navâ | February 23, 2005 - 04:07 |
| G. Voldemort goes 1 for 10!(#1141), posted by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h, [IP Hidden], February 23, 2005 - 23:03. Viewed 590 times. |
|
Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h
Group: admins
(3164 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 15:24)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | First of all, if putting typos in this post was inappropriate, I apologize.
> > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 1
> >
> > Currently, §1.1.3a says, "The population, by means of elections, exercises this authority".
> >
> > This line conflicts with §2.2.19 that says "...shall present that bill to the people in a referendum"
> >
> > Therefore, §1.1.3a shall be stricken from the Draft Constitution.
>
> Wha--? How is this a conflict?
§1.1.3 says the population exercises its authority by means of elections, assuming an election means when a person is elected. §2.2.19 refers to the people having referendums, that is, PGC-style votes on pieces of legislation or other matters not related to electing humans to office.
§1.1.3 does not allow for referendums. The sentence I cited is redundant because elsewhere in the Constitution, the ways in which the people effect their authority are already spelled-out. Why should this sentence be in the Constitution.
>
> > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 3
> >
> > The capitol of the Republic needs to be an actual city, not just a building.
> >
> > Therefore, §1.1.8 shall be stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following:
> >
> > §1.1.8a: The capital of the Republic of Talossa shall be Cüf City, named after Republic Citizen Bill Cooper.
> >
> > §1.1.8b: The boundaries of Cüf City shall be defined in a future version of the Law of Territory.
> >
> > §1.1.8b: The capitol building of the Republic of Talossa shall be the Mitchell Building in the province of Port Maxhestic.
>
> ABsolutely not. 1) It's creepy to name something after someone who is still alive and 2) No offense to Coop, but what has he done so significantly in the Republic?
I can see where you are coming from in regard to the name. Coop's renunciation inspired a lot of the impetus towards the Republic, and yes, using his name is creepy, now that you mention it. Good call. :-(
Unfortunately, my unfortunate naming convention has overshadowed the fact that our capital city is no more than a single building, even if that building is very beautiful and dignified. Let's make it the whole city block or section of the city in which it stands, and have done with it. This part you have not addressed.
>
> > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 4
> >
> > Currently, §1.1.9 reads in italics as follows, with my comments interspersed throughout:
> >
> > §1.1.9: The political parties of the Republic participate in the formation of the political spirit of the people.
> >
> > This sentence is redundant. Who is the government to define what a political party says and does so long as that party conforms to the rule of law?
>
> How is it redundant?
Because it is already obvious what a political party does. While obvious things should be spelled-out anyway at times, this is not one of those times.
>
> > Their internal organization must conform to democratic ethics.
> >
> > Who gets to define "democratic ethics"? This section is a breeding ground for Ben-esque abuses.
>
> How? Is every passage that is not explicitly defined a problem for you?
What if a second Ben Madison comes forth with a vendetta? Imagine Talossa in early 2004 and the damage Ben could have done with the gigantic loophole created by being able to give the Uppermost Cort a new definition of "democratic ethics"!
>
> > They must openly report their finances."
> >
> > To whom?
>
> Take a wild guess. To the same creature that allows them to exist: the government.
The government or the people??
>
> > §1.1.9 is intended to foster democratic behavior in political parties, but this section, as it currently stands, could be abused by people with less-than-honorable intentions to shut down opposition parties.
> >
> > Therefore, §1.1.9 is stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following:
> >
> > §1.1.9: Political parties shall openly report their finances to the people. The frequency and manner of such reporting shall be determined by law.
>
> Someone's being a little too anal retentive here.
I don't think I am out-of-line here. :-)
>
> > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 5
> >
> > §1.1.11 is vague. Therefore, it shall be stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following:
> >
> > §1.1.11: All officials and civil servants, elected or otherwise, of this Republic, be they federal-level or otherwise, are, in spirit if not in letter, servants of the entire community. To all these persons, freedom of political opinion and association are assured.
>
> How is it vague?
"servants" in spirit or in letter? To whom do officials and civil servants report then? All of the people or just the PM or whomever is spelled out in the constitution?
> And are you proposing that everything YOU find vague be stricken and replaced?
Yes.
>
> > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 6
> >
> > In §1.4.13, the phrase "with the criminal laws" is vague in that the word "the" does not clearly state what legal jurisdictions are at play.
> >
> > Therefore, the entirety of §1.4.13 shall be replaced with the following:
> >
> > §1.4.13: Associations, the objects or activities of which conflict with the criminal laws of the home country of the person in question or of the Republic of Talossa, the former taking precedence over the latter, or which are directed against the constitutional order or the concept of international relations, are prohibited.
>
> Yeah, that's WAAAAAAAAAY clearer. Not.
Hmmm... Let me think on what you have said... I agree with you!! lol
>
> > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 7
> >
> > The last sentence of §1.4.18 invites abuse and trouble: who gets to define "common danger"? And let's define "common danger".
>
> No. Common danger pretty much defines itself. And if they're any question down the line, it gives the High Court something to interpret. Name a constitution in which every term is defined IN the constitution. I'll wait.
Ben Madison would have defined "common danger" as "Chris Gruber". Yes, the Uppermost Cort of that time would have struck him down, but what if the Cort was populated by Ken Oplinger (who voted MN in the last Kingdom election), Mark Hamilton, and, say, Dan Lorentz?
>
> > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 8
> >
> > The final dependent clause of §1.4.19 is ambiguous. What are the implied "duties"?
> >
> > Therefore the phrase "but implies duties" shall be stricken from §1.4.19, which shall now read thusly: "The right to ownership of and the protection of property shall be guaranteed."
>
> Why? "Vague" is not a reason to strike or redefine passages.
Yes, it is when necessary. What are the "implied duties"?
> > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 10
> >
> > §2.1.1 shall be stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following:
> >
> > §2.1.1a: The President of the Republic (in the national language: el Prüm Citaxhien) is the Head of State of the Republic and the defender of the Constitution.
> >
> > §2.1.1b: The Deans of the Provisional Governing Council shall be recognized as having been Heads of State.
>
> Fine. No problem there.
Well, at least I got one second. :-)
>
> > * * *
> >
> > Typo in §1.4.30: Capitalizing the word "Courts" implies the existence of an particular organization or body bearing the name "Courts". Not capitalizing this word solves this problem and lets the whole of the judiciary of the Republic in on the fun.
>
> What part of "no nitpicking on spelling and punctuation" in Daph's instructions did you not understand?
I felt this was substantial enough to warrant its inclusion with these amendments. I just wish I had put it in as an amendment.
G. V.
www.icantbelieveitsnottonal.com
The Talossan Wiki at www.talossapedia.com |
|
| | la garçâ malpadert | February 23, 2005 - 23:35 |
|
Parent message | | Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h | February 23, 2005 - 23:03 |
| RE: G. Voldemort goes 1 for 10!(#1144), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], February 23, 2005 - 23:35. Viewed 650 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > > > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 7
> > >
> > > The last sentence of §1.4.18 invites abuse and trouble: who gets to define "common danger"? And let's define "common danger".
> >
> > No. Common danger pretty much defines itself. And if they're any question down the line, it gives the High Court something to interpret. Name a constitution in which every term is defined IN the constitution. I'll wait.
>
> Ben Madison would have defined "common danger" as "Chris Gruber". Yes, the Uppermost Cort of that time would have struck him down, but what if the Cort was populated by Ken Oplinger (who voted MN in the last Kingdom election), Mark Hamilton, and, say, Dan Lorentz?
Let's put it this way, Göd - if all the branches of government are stacked with crooks and power-hungry tyrants, then it doesn't matter what's in the text of the Constitution anyway since they'll just ignore it. :) Check out the USSR constitution of 1936 - that was watertight-democratic, on paper anyway.
> > > The final dependent clause of §1.4.19 is ambiguous. What are the implied "duties"?
> > >
> > > Therefore the phrase "but implies duties" shall be stricken from §1.4.19, which shall now read thusly: "The right to ownership of and the protection of property shall be guaranteed."
> >
> > Why? "Vague" is not a reason to strike or redefine passages.
>
> Yes, it is when necessary. What are the "implied duties"?
If we take all the ambiguity out of the Constitution, whatever will our High Court do for its living? :)
> > > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 10
> > >
> > > §2.1.1 shall be stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following:
> > >
> > > §2.1.1a: The President of the Republic (in the national language: el Prüm Citaxhien) is the Head of State of the Republic and the defender of the Constitution.
> > >
> > > §2.1.1b: The Deans of the Provisional Governing Council shall be recognized as having been Heads of State.
> >
> > Fine. No problem there.
>
> Well, at least I got one second. :-)
Firstly, this is an exceedingly minor amendment, so it was not put to a vote. Secondly, I don't think it's worth putting in the Constitution at all - surely this is just a question of "convention", that will be decided by historical usage. The Committee will decide in the "final tidy" phase whether this is worth putting in the Final Draft or not. I will vote "no", but I will continue to regard the Deans as being our first Heads of State whatever happens.
Miestrâ Schivâ
"The Republic's Most Articulate Spokeswhatever" - R. B. Madison
A slave begins by demanding justice, and ends by wanting to wear a crown. |
|
|
|
