WHEREAS, in general, Talossa suffers from scarcity of warm bodies; and
WHEREAS, in times like these, we shouldn't limit our most active people from holding multiple offices, as long as it does not constitute an obvious conflict of interest; so
THEREFORE, we, the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa, hereby commend this Organic Law amendment to a popular referendum, as follows:
Article VIII, Section 3 is amended to read: "Neither a reigning King nor his Consort, nor a Regent during his regency, nor the Secretary of State, nor the Seneschal, nor any public prosecutor, nor any Member of the Cosa shall be a Justice of the Cort pü Inalt."
Ureu q'estadra sa,
Lüc da Schir (Senator-BE)
This addresses what I feel was an egregious mistake: that Justices may serve as partisan MCs, but not as Senators, a position that is generally understood to be less partisan. My amendment would reverse the situation: Justices may not serve as MCs, but may serve as Senators.
Quote from: Lüc on March 18, 2020, 05:06:00 AM
This addresses what I feel was an egregious mistake: that Justices may serve as partisan MCs, but not as Senators, a position that is generally understood to be less partisan. My amendment would reverse the situation: Justices may not serve as MCs, but may serve as Senators.
I think the reason it is like this is because Senators have more power per person than MCs
My present proposal removes MZs from the list. Can we find common ground?
Quote from: Viteu on March 19, 2020, 12:13:57 AMMy present proposal removes MZs from the list. Can we find common ground?
@Ian Plätschisch and
@Glüc (from the other bill): It's not a matter of power; it's just that at the very least some positions should probably be nonpartisan as much as practicable - Justices, the King, the SoS; sitting in the Senate does not take away from nonpartisanship, sitting in the Cosa, by definition, does. Hence why I would favor the SoS and Justices being admitted to the Senate but barred from the Cosa.
Quote from: Lüc on March 19, 2020, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: Viteu on March 19, 2020, 12:13:57 AMMy present proposal removes MZs from the list. Can we find common ground?
@Ian Plätschisch and @Glüc (from the other bill): It's not a matter of power; it's just that at the very least some positions should probably be nonpartisan as much as practicable - Justices, the King, the SoS; sitting in the Senate does not take away from nonpartisanship, sitting in the Cosa, by definition, does. Hence why I would favor the SoS and Justices being admitted to the Senate but barred from the Cosa.
I don't disagree per se. My concern is limiting participation. What if we included language that the Ziu may restrict MZs from serving as a Justice by statute (prospective only). That way there's some flexibility here. If down the line we have more active people, let's ban MZs. But if we're only a handful of people...
Also, I have no particular interest is being a Senator/MC given my role on the Cort. I'm just trying to think in terms of what can help Talossa overall.
I oppose this bill and support the status quo. I do not fetishise non-partisanship, because it does NOT mean the same as "impartial". As the recent voting record of the Senäts shows, Senators who are elected on a non-partisan basis can have far more political impact than MCs who are, in a strong party system like the one we have now, more or less "lobby fodder". Therefore I consider it more appropriate that - for example - Nordselva J votes a party line in the Cosa, which does NOT reflect on his personal judgement, than if he were in the Senäts flipping the balance of power one way or another on his own. In light of the "Sebastian Panache" disaster in the UC, the last thing we should be encouraging Justices to do is to fancy themselves independent political actors.
I should also point out that recent events have shown that I should get back on my miéida da toro of abolish the Senäts. We've got two vacant seats and a Senator who got ONE VOTE in the election holding the balance of power on Government bills. Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating called that country's Senate "unrepresentative swill" for similar reasons (until they changed the electoral system).
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on March 19, 2020, 04:53:31 PMI should also point out that recent events have shown that I should get back on my miéida da toro of abolish the Senäts. We've got two vacant seats and a Senator who got ONE VOTE in the election holding the balance of power on Government bills. Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating called that country's Senate "unrepresentative swill" for similar reasons (until they changed the electoral system).
I'm sorry, but were it not for the Senäts, a flawed and incomplete bill would have passed this month, because MCs are perfectly happy to receive their marching orders from the leadership without taking as much as half an hour of their time to read the Clark. If anything, we should abolish the Cosa as it is clearly not fulfilling its purpose, unless its purpose is being a rubberstamp.
Also, Senator del Val is doing a terrific job scrutinising bills in an objectively unbiased fashion and more Senators should follow his lead. His input in the recent hearing of Justice Marcianüs was nothing short of commendable. You can't be mad with the Senate because flawed bills are rightfully voted down; an election victory does not give a government the divine right of passing literally everything but the kitchen sink in the name of "popular mandate".
(By the way, there is only one vacant seat. Your Minister of the Interior is a Senator now, and I am adamant that he could have voted on the Clark as a Senator if he wanted to.)
Quotea flawed and incomplete bill
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/2L8hYXPpDKNry1agxHNXyJ4ByzgatqXiYlUA800RSR9MYOrKbEF-ULXbHSj6kkoJYtGdzlYQOk5BNBpWTErNU3wGQkPNro2UP8ETmC6MOINoDbx1Pe4H0fofiVrXTqtXb-PvPeaS493WFKjDFrBnblxP4J8BKH-Ff8I)
Seriously: I re-iterate that the text of the bill was partly
your own wording. If amendments are not offered in good faith - if they can be accepted, and then the proposer says "wait, I didn't really want that, CONTRA!", then political debate is worthless. I sincerely hope now you will offer amendments that
will win the bill your vote on the next Clark, when it will be reintroduced - unless you disagree with it in principle, in which case there's no point.
As the leader of the Opposition, I feel the need to weigh in here, on the side of the governmen, odd as that may seem. I find myself in agreement with D:na Schiva. So much of the Senats, at this point, is how many pocket votes an individual can squirrel away within their province, which gives a given individual an overweight of political influence.
Much of this bill strikes me as little differences with at least some distinction. But it does point to the fact that the continued existence of the Senats, or at least its composition, needs a careful examination.
I concur that under the current OrgLaw it would be (perhaps counterintuitively) better that sitting judges be allowed a seat in the Cosă instead of the Senäts. I am also not opposed to a unicameral Ziu. In any case, I oppose this bill.