[Talossa.com portal]
[Citizens Toolbox]
[Immigration]
No Running elections
Parent message
  • Voting on Amendments to Third Draft Constitution OPENS
    		• la garçâ malpadertFebruary 23, 2005 - 16:26
    RE: Voting on Amendments to Third Draft Constitution OPENS(#1136), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], February 23, 2005 - 16:52. Viewed 662 times.
    User InfoText
    D. N. Vercáriâ
    Group: citizens
    (4498 posts total)
    (last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
    Citizen #26:
    Dieter N Vercáriâ
    > (Deet, I changed your amendment slightly to mandate a minimum of six people to force the creation of a new province. Please tell me if this is a problem - I didn't think we wanted a dozen one-person provinces cluttering up the landscape!)

    The idea behind my proposed amendment has been that it's not about creating one-person provinces (which would be avoided by a withheld assent of either local government or Parlamint in my proposal). The scenarios on my mind were

    a) tiny provinces merging into larger provinces
    b) *huge* provinces breaking apart, peacefully

    following a motion of citizens. Especially scenario a) seemed to be important to me, and indeed in this case there ain't no minimum of six people to get the ball rolling. So no, your change of the amendment is not appropriate.

    - D. N. Vercáriâ
    RE: Voting on Amendments to Third Draft Constitution OPENSD. N. VercáriâFebruary 23, 2005 - 16:52
    la garçâ malpadertFebruary 23, 2005 - 17:21
    Parent message
    D. N. VercáriâFebruary 23, 2005 - 16:52
    RE: Voting on Amendments to Third Draft Constitution OPENS(#1137), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], February 23, 2005 - 17:21. Viewed 659 times.
    User InfoText
    la garçâ malpadert
    Group: admins
    (4379 posts total)
    (last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
    Citizen #26:
    Dieter N Vercáriâ
    > The idea behind my proposed amendment has been that it's not about creating one-person provinces (which would be avoided by a withheld assent of either local government or Parlamint in my proposal).

    Oh, your "legalese" wasn't clear that you wanted local government to approve any new provinces. Is the this amended text more like what you suggested?




    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.
    D. N. VercáriâFebruary 24, 2005 - 03:39
    Parent message
    la garçâ malpadertFebruary 23, 2005 - 17:21
    RE: Voting on Amendments to Third Draft Constitution OPENS(#1147), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 03:39. Viewed 674 times.
    User InfoText
    D. N. Vercáriâ
    Group: citizens
    (4498 posts total)
    (last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
    Citizen #26:
    Dieter N Vercáriâ
    > Oh, your "legalese" wasn't clear that you wanted local government to approve any new provinces. Is the this amended text more like what you suggested?

    Yes, whereas there should have been a 3rd clause which applies if there is no local legislation; in this case the petition would need the consent of the Parlamînt. But possibly in small provinces it will be enough if the few citizens consent on what they want to do; a possible wish to join an other province will already need the consent of this province, too. On the other hand, the Parlamînt might wish to take care that no 1-person-provinces will be created...

    - D. N. Vercáriâ
    la garçâ malpadertFebruary 24, 2005 - 03:47
    Parent message
    D. N. VercáriâFebruary 24, 2005 - 03:39
    RE: Voting on Amendments to Third Draft Constitution OPENS(#1150), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 03:47. Viewed 672 times.
    User InfoText
    la garçâ malpadert
    Group: admins
    (4379 posts total)
    (last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
    Citizen #26:
    Dieter N Vercáriâ
    > > Is the this amended text more like what you suggested?
    >
    > Yes, whereas there should have been a 3rd clause which applies if there is no local legislation; in this case the petition would need the consent of the Parlamînt.

    I think that's covered by "Parlamint may create a new province, etc". I.e. it doesn't *have* to.


    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.
    D. N. VercáriâFebruary 24, 2005 - 04:11
    Parent message
    la garçâ malpadertFebruary 24, 2005 - 03:47
    RE: Voting on Amendments to Third Draft Constitution OPENS(#1152), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 04:11. Viewed 705 times.
    User InfoText
    D. N. Vercáriâ
    Group: citizens
    (4498 posts total)
    (last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
    Citizen #26:
    Dieter N Vercáriâ    		>
    > > > Is the this amended text more like what you suggested?
    > >
    > > Yes, whereas there should have been a 3rd clause which applies if there is no local legislation; in this case the petition would need the consent of the Parlamînt.
    >
    > I think that's covered by "Parlamint may create a new province, etc". I.e. it doesn't *have* to.

    Ugh. I didn't see this, because I kind of didn't want to see this. It has been my intention to express that the Parliament must not be involved in structuring or restructuring provinces, except if a province doesn't have means to get the neccessary actions done in a legal way.

    - D. N. Vercáriâ
    President AnglatzarâFebruary 24, 2005 - 08:29
    Parent message
    D. N. VercáriâFebruary 24, 2005 - 04:11
    RE: Voting on Amendments to Third Draft Constitution OPENS(#1159), posted by President Anglatzarâ, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 08:29. Viewed 717 times.
    User InfoText
    President Anglatzarâ
    Group: admins
    (3194 posts total)
    (last post: March 14, 2008 - 07:21)
    Citizen #26:
    Dieter N Vercáriâ    		> >
    > > > > Is the this amended text more like what you suggested?
    > > >
    > > > Yes, whereas there should have been a 3rd clause which applies if there is no local legislation; in this case the petition would need the consent of the Parlamînt.
    > >
    > > I think that's covered by "Parlamint may create a new province, etc". I.e. it doesn't *have* to.
    >
    > Ugh. I didn't see this, because I kind of didn't want to see this. It has been my intention to express that the Parliament must not be involved in structuring or restructuring provinces, except if a province doesn't have means to get the neccessary actions done in a legal way.

    I hope you don't mean to leave the Parlamînt out altogether. The Parlamînt is the legislative body of the Republic. Even if we're just talking of rubberstamping, all law-making should pass the House before coming into force. Or else it hasn't happened.
    --
    Less is more - say no to fat books
    D. N. VercáriâFebruary 24, 2005 - 13:47
    Parent message
    President AnglatzarâFebruary 24, 2005 - 08:29
    RE: Voting on Amendments to Third Draft Constitution OPENS(#1163), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 13:47. Viewed 734 times.
    User InfoText
    D. N. Vercáriâ
    Group: citizens
    (4498 posts total)
    (last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
    Citizen #26:
    Dieter N Vercáriâ    		> > >
    > > > > > Is the this amended text more like what you suggested?
    > > > >
    > > > > Yes, whereas there should have been a 3rd clause which applies if there is no local legislation; in this case the petition would need the consent of the Parlamînt.
    > > >
    > > > I think that's covered by "Parlamint may create a new province, etc". I.e. it doesn't *have* to.
    > >
    > > Ugh. I didn't see this, because I kind of didn't want to see this. It has been my intention to express that the Parliament must not be involved in structuring or restructuring provinces, except if a province doesn't have means to get the neccessary actions done in a legal way.
    >
    > I hope you don't mean to leave the Parlamînt out altogether. The Parlamînt is the legislative body of the Republic. Even if we're just talking of rubberstamping, all law-making should pass the House before coming into force. Or else it hasn't happened.

    Though I have to admit that I've been pondering a completely parliament-less grassroot movement for changes in the provincial structures, I'm now seeing the light. A "rubberstamping" parliament might as well pull the emergency break, if something inappropriate or even unconstitutional is happening when provinces are reforming their borders. So this is a welcome balance of powers.

    - D. N. Vercáriâ
    la garçâ malpadertFebruary 24, 2005 - 04:19
    Parent message
    D. N. VercáriâFebruary 24, 2005 - 04:11
    RE: Voting on Amendments to Third Draft Constitution OPENS(#1154), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 04:19. Viewed 708 times.
    User InfoText
    la garçâ malpadert
    Group: admins
    (4379 posts total)
    (last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
    Citizen #26:
    Dieter N Vercáriâ    		> >
    > > > > Is the this amended text more like what you suggested?
    > > >
    > > > Yes, whereas there should have been a 3rd clause which applies if there is no local legislation; in this case the petition would need the consent of the Parlamînt.
    > >
    > > I think that's covered by "Parlamint may create a new province, etc". I.e. it doesn't *have* to.
    >
    > Ugh. I didn't see this, because I kind of didn't want to see this. It has been my intention to express that the Parliament must not be involved in structuring or restructuring provinces, except if a province doesn't have means to get the neccessary actions done in a legal way.

    Yes, that's exactly what my revised draft does. It says that Parlamînt may create a new province on the motion of a petition of citizens and consent of any provincial legislature - that is, it can't take the initiative itself.

    Sorry about the overemphases, but, as you can probably see elsewhere, I am getting a hell of a lot of grief over this constitutional process at the moment. I really think that my drafting expresses exactly what you wanted, in tighter, more legal language. If you don't agree, then I fear I may have to go and bang my head on the wall a few times. :)


    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.
    D. N. VercáriâFebruary 24, 2005 - 05:05
    Parent message
    la garçâ malpadertFebruary 24, 2005 - 04:19
    RE: Voting on Amendments to Third Draft Constitution OPENS(#1157), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], February 24, 2005 - 05:05. Viewed 741 times.
    User InfoText
    D. N. Vercáriâ
    Group: citizens
    (4498 posts total)
    (last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
    Citizen #26:
    Dieter N Vercáriâ
    > If you don't agree, then I fear I may have to go and bang my head on the wall a few times. :)

    Even though it might be interesting to watch this, please don't do it. ;-)

    - D. N. Vercáriâ
    Back to the forum | Forums Overview| Deactivate Thread View
    Forums Overview | Login | Register | Lost your password? Cyphor (Release: 0.19, PHP 5.2.5)