Was thinking about this some today and decided I would see what everyone thinks. Do you consider Talossa to be a unitary or federal state? The way I can see it, there are some arguments in favor of each:
Federal:- Each province retains an organic right to unilaterally veto any proposed changes to its territory and sovereignty.
- The government of each province is overseen either directly by the Crown or its personal representative in a Cunstaval (compare with each Canadian province having a lieutenant-governor, or each Australian state having a governor, in addition to each country's federal governor-general)
- Provinces are generally autonomous, insofar as they cannot pass any law or adopt any constitutional provision in violation of OrgLaw or other national statute.
- The OrgLaw itself does use the term "federal" on two occasions to refer to the national government, and likewise refers to provinces as "autonomous".
Unitary:- The provinces that exist at this time ultimately exist as creations of the Ziu, regardless of the amount of power that has been devolved to them since their creation.
- On a similar note, all current provinces were created prior to the adoption of the 1997 Organic Law, a document that itself appears to have constituted a somewhat more unitary state than its successor. It may be surmised that the 1988 Constituziun which preceded the 1997 OrgLaw, and the 1985 OrgLaw that preceded the Constituziun, would indicate a general trend of decentralization in the nature of the Talossan state. As such, provinces at their time of creation would likely have had even less autonomy than they do now. This would cast them as highly-devolved governments, but devolved governments nonetheless.
- Even now, Lex.K.1 subjects any attempt by a province to alter their internal boundaries and subdivisions to Ziu approval.
- In federal systems, sub-unit government is guaranteed constitutionally. The OrgLaw specifically states that in the absence of a provincial constitution, "a Province's Cunstavál shall serve as Military Governor and may exercise all the powers of the provincial government." This hardly sounds like a guarantee of responsible government.
- The fact that the OrgLaw uses terms like "federal" and "autonomous" is not automatically an incontrovertible indication of a federal nature. See also: Korea, Democratic People's Republic of
For my part, I would argue that Talossa was initially a unitary state (a
very unitary state in its earliest era! ;) ) that has undergone devolution to the point that it is now "semi-federal" in nature -- more federal than not, yet not completely so.
Quote from: Rt Hon. Mic'haglh Autófil on April 07, 2022, 03:12:19 PM
For my part, I would argue that Talossa was initially a unitary state (a very unitary state in its earliest era! ;) ) that has undergone devolution to the point that it is now "semi-federal" in nature -- more federal than not, yet not completely so.
I agree with your conclusion for the most part, but I think you're missing one of the biggest arguments for a federal view: the Vested clause of the OrgLaw (Org.IX.6). The provinces are vested with all the powers of government that aren't specifically assigned to other institutions. That's a big vote in favor of federalism!
The real answer is that the fundamentals of our law were drafted by people who were Americans but who liked other systems, and they created a weird mish-mash that is kind of crazy and kind of amazing. It barely fits on the spectrum, since it's bizarre to have a system where the provinces are clearly subsidiary, with their only whisper of sovereignty a few veto points on legislating their own fate, while also reserving all powers to them that aren't enumerated to others. It's magically insane, but it's never caused any problems.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 07, 2022, 03:21:05 PM
Quote from: Rt Hon. Mic'haglh Autófil on April 07, 2022, 03:12:19 PM
For my part, I would argue that Talossa was initially a unitary state (a very unitary state in its earliest era! ;) ) that has undergone devolution to the point that it is now "semi-federal" in nature -- more federal than not, yet not completely so.
I agree with your conclusion for the most part, but I think you're missing one of the biggest arguments for a federal view: the Vested clause of the OrgLaw (Org.IX.6). The provinces are vested with all the powers of government that aren't specifically assigned to other institutions. That's a big vote in favor of federalism!
Very true, though it would seem that the provinces are more constrained than, say, US states -- in the US, it would seem that (most) state laws are harder for Congress to invalidate, whereas in this case all the Ziu effectively needs to say as per Org.IX.5 is "no".
QuoteThe real answer is that the fundamentals of our law were drafted by people who were Americans but who liked other systems, and they created a weird mish-mash that is kind of crazy and kind of amazing. It barely fits on the spectrum, since it's bizarre to have a system where the provinces are clearly subsidiary, with their only whisper of sovereignty a few veto points on legislating their own fate, while also reserving all powers to them that aren't enumerated to others. It's magically insane, but it's never caused any problems.
It wouldn't be Talossa any other way. (I submit this is a specific sub-doctrine known as "constitutional particularism" ;D )
Quote from: Rt Hon. Mic'haglh Autófil on April 07, 2022, 03:32:41 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 07, 2022, 03:21:05 PM
Quote from: Rt Hon. Mic'haglh Autófil on April 07, 2022, 03:12:19 PM
For my part, I would argue that Talossa was initially a unitary state (a very unitary state in its earliest era! ;) ) that has undergone devolution to the point that it is now "semi-federal" in nature -- more federal than not, yet not completely so.
I agree with your conclusion for the most part, but I think you're missing one of the biggest arguments for a federal view: the Vested clause of the OrgLaw (Org.IX.6). The provinces are vested with all the powers of government that aren't specifically assigned to other institutions. That's a big vote in favor of federalism!
Very true, though it would seem that the provinces are more constrained than, say, US states -- in the US, it would seem that (most) state laws are harder for Congress to invalidate, whereas in this case all the Ziu effectively needs to say as per Org.IX.5 is "no".
Heh, I'm pretty sure that's just a drafting error in the OrgLaw from the last big reform. There are a few of them. The Vested clause used to be XVII.7, and when it was moved to IX.5 as other stuff was shuffled, the numbering got messed up.
Quote from: Old XVII
Section 6
The Ziu shall, subject to this Organic Law, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom with respect to:
listy listy
Section 7
Where any law of a Province, concerning an area of power outlined in 17.6, is inconsistent with a law of the Kingdom, the Provincial law shall be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.
Section 8
All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces.
Quote from: New VII and IX
VII.2 This Organic Law is the supreme law of the land. Any national, provincial or territorial laws which violate its provisions are null and void.
VII.3 The Ziu shall, subject to this Organic Law, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom with respect to:
listy list
...
IX.5 Where any law of a Province, concerning an area of power outlined in Article VII, Section 2, is inconsistent with a law of the Kingdom, the Provincial law shall be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.
IX.6 All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces.
As it stands, that bit doesn't actually make any sense. Any law of a province which violates an area of power, outlined as all laws must follow the OrgLaw, are null and void?
The incoming Government would do well to set up a cross-partisan committee tasked with finding and ironing out these kinks.
The "vested" clause has caused problems, and quite recently, as you should remember from the Criminal Law Reform bill. According to a strict reading the Ziu might not have jurisdiction over criminal law.
But the main answer against federalism is that Talossan provinces have only been active on very rare exceptional occasions. Imagine all the powers of our State vested in the Florencian House of Shepherds. Or the Fiovan General Assembly.