Aurentine Constitutional Convention [NSG Senate]

[Great Nepal]

Absolutely, which is why I am suggesting entirety of judicial body remain in hands of the federal government and provinces have nothing to do with it, alongside law enforcement.
Those two are sector that should be managed at national level because last thing we want is two bodies fighting against each other for jurisdiction and pride.

Hey, I don't like federalism, but the problem is that we're a federal nation, necessitating that provinces have control over all three branches.

There are also local constabularies, and it has been agreed that they should come under local government.

Fine, the provinces have right to maintain federal judiciary establishments.

[Jetan]

I agree.

See above.

Being federation in no way necessitates the provinces having control of all three branches.

[Wolfmanne]

See above.

Being federation in no way necessitates the provinces having control of all three branches.

Then give me a case study that proves that.

[Jetan]

Being federation in no way necessitates the provinces having control of all three branches.

Then give me a case study that proves that.

You are the one who made a positive claim, so the burden of proof lies with you.

[Wolfmanne]

Then give me a case study that proves that.

You are the one who made a positive claim, so the burden of proof lies with you.

Err, look at every single fricking federal nation in the world.

[Great Nepal]

You are the one who made a positive claim, so the burden of proof lies with you.

Err, look at every single fricking federal nation in the world.

Nepal.

[Wolfmanne]

Err, look at every single fricking federal nation in the world.

Nepal.

I'm now totally convinced.

[Distruzio]

I'd rather something more along the lines of a nationally appointed regent who, with a 2/3 majority approval of the provincial parliament or a 2/3 approval of provincial noble houses (or similar) can request national intervention and nullification of the monarchs authority for a specified time period authored by the national judiciary. Would that be satisfactory?

See, this is ironic, because in the Coffee Shop I'm arguing for a supermajority on another issue, but personally, I'd be more inclined to support a system where a majority of the Parliament or legislature could remove the monarch, although perhaps require a large quorum of MPs voting. But to remove the monarchy permanently, there'd have to be a supermajority.

I think my key is that the monarch never be allowed for reign where the people don't want him/her.

Of course. Our position, however, is that the monarch would only reign where the monarchists currently exist. Their existence alone suggests that the people desire him/her.

Oversight of a monarch is acceptable, but only upon difficult, but reasonable, terms. Removal of the monarchy, permanently could (possibly) be acceptable upon a supermajority of the entities I described.

Am I to infer that my suggestion is acceptable to you? If so... I believe that I could sell it among the other monarchists.

[Great Nepal]

Nepal.

I'm now totally convinced.

Your statement saying every single fricking federal nation in the world has shared control over all three branches with sub national territories is false.

[Wolfmanne]

I'm now totally convinced.

Your statement saying every single fricking federal nation in the world has shared control over all three branches with sub national territories is false.

I said I'm totally convinced.

[Battlion]

I will go with whatever the convention decides on this, but frankly the CMP representatives have pissed me off big time with their lies and deceit.

[Distruzio]

I will go with whatever the convention decides on this, but frankly the CMP representatives have pissed me off big time with their lies and deceit.

The lies flow from your lips, not ours. You are well practiced at such art, I recall.

[Jetan]

I will go with whatever the convention decides on this, but frankly the CMP representatives have pissed me off big time with their lies and deceit.

I have to say that while I disagree with CMP on many things, I have yet to see them lie here. So, please cut it.

[Battlion]

I will go with whatever the convention decides on this, but frankly the CMP representatives have pissed me off big time with their lies and deceit.

I have to say that while I disagree with CMP on many things, I have yet to see them lie here. So, please cut it.

Claiming I'm anti-democratic just because I don't support their monarchy idea, I wanted simplicity for the sake of the RP not for political reasons. Am I the only one looking at this OOCly as well as ICly.

Enough has been said on the issue.

Any further comments will be ignored and an attempt for provocation

[Welsh Cowboy]

See, this is ironic, because in the Coffee Shop I'm arguing for a supermajority on another issue, but personally, I'd be more inclined to support a system where a majority of the Parliament or legislature could remove the monarch, although perhaps require a large quorum of MPs voting. But to remove the monarchy permanently, there'd have to be a supermajority.

I think my key is that the monarch never be allowed for reign where the people don't want him/her.

Of course. Our position, however, is that the monarch would only reign where the monarchists currently exist. Their existence alone suggests that the people desire him/her.

Oversight of a monarch is acceptable, but only upon difficult, but reasonable, terms. Removal of the monarchy, permanently could (possibly) be acceptable upon a supermajority of the entities I described.

Am I to infer that my suggestion is acceptable to you? If so... I believe that I could sell it among the other monarchists.

I don't know... Honestly, I'm sorry for being somewhat indecisive this, but monarchy without a way for a popularly elected body to simply remove the monarchy just seems, to me, irreconcilable with my views...

Although Battlion does raise an interesting point: the OOC aspect of this. It might be very, very complicated to RP.

[Distruzio]

I have to say that while I disagree with CMP on many things, I have yet to see them lie here. So, please cut it.

Claiming I'm anti-democratic just because I don't support their monarchy idea, I wanted simplicity for the sake of the RP not for political reasons. Am I the only one looking at this OOCly as well as ICly.

Enough has been said on the issue.

Any further comments will be ignored and an attempt for provocation

We claimed nothing. You said it all. It isn't that you don't support our "monarchy idea" we wonder why you oppose it... you cannot explain yourself. And you are quite correct, Senator, further discussion on the matter of your inconsistency is useless.

OOC: In what way is promoting a federal form of republican government "simplicity" for the sake of RP? If we wanted such, wouldn't we have adopted a unitary model of democracy?

[Distruzio]

Of course. Our position, however, is that the monarch would only reign where the monarchists currently exist. Their existence alone suggests that the people desire him/her.

Oversight of a monarch is acceptable, but only upon difficult, but reasonable, terms. Removal of the monarchy, permanently could (possibly) be acceptable upon a supermajority of the entities I described.

Am I to infer that my suggestion is acceptable to you? If so... I believe that I could sell it among the other monarchists.

I don't know... Honestly, I'm sorry for being somewhat indecisive this, but monarchy without a way for a popularly elected body to simply remove the monarchy just seems, to me, irreconcilable with my views...

Indecision is no vice until it is revealed as sourced from a drive for power. You do not, here (or elsewhere that I've seen), possess that drive. Furthermore, how has my suggestion of oversight by both National and Provincial entities not catering to your desire for popularly elected considerations?

Although Battlion does raise an interesting point: the OOC aspect of this. It might be very, very complicated to RP.

I'll ask you the same question then: if simplicity was desired then why did the senate opt for a federal republic instead of a unitary democracy?

[Battlion]

Although Battlion does raise an interesting point: the OOC aspect of this. It might be very, very complicated to RP.

I'll ask you the same question then: if simplicity was desired then why did the senate opt for a federal republic instead of a unitary democracy?

I voted against federalism for that very reason, seems like some people aren't looking at OOC aspects.

IRL I support Federalism, but for the sake of RP simplicity I voted No.

[Distruzio]

I'll ask you the same question then: if simplicity was desired then why did the senate opt for a federal republic instead of a unitary democracy?

I voted against federalism for that very reason, seems like some people aren't looking at OOC aspects.

IRL I support Federalism, but for the sake of RP simplicity I voted No.

Then, it should be obvious, that the majority of players are interested in playing the roleplay instead of whining about not getting their way. If one wants the unitary democratic aspect of NS then one should stick with the WA. If one wants to actually play a political game, then one shouldn't whine about others enjoying it too.

As an aside, I counseled against federalism for much the same OOC reason. But now that federalism is here, then I make the most of it.

[Welsh Cowboy]

I don't know... Honestly, I'm sorry for being somewhat indecisive this, but monarchy without a way for a popularly elected body to simply remove the monarchy just seems, to me, irreconcilable with my views...

Indecision is no vice until it is revealed as sourced from a drive for power. You do not, here (or elsewhere that I've seen), possess that drive. Furthermore, how has my suggestion of oversight by both National and Provincial entities not catering to your desire for popularly elected considerations?

Although Battlion does raise an interesting point: the OOC aspect of this. It might be very, very complicated to RP.

I'll ask you the same question then: if simplicity was desired then why did the senate opt for a federal republic instead of a unitary democracy?

I didn't vote on the federal issue...

I think your proposal for a "regent" is not acceptable to me, because I believe the decision to remove the monarch should be a simple vote in the Parliament/legislature. Maybe a higher threshold than the simple majority should be required; although I'd prefer it be a simple majority for this matter.

[Jetan]

So, my proposal for the division of Provinces:

http://i42.tinypic.com/33krxxv.png

Now, I realise it's just a bad paint job but I think it gets the point accross. I followed the borders Hippo had already included when drawing land borders of the provinces. It doesn't show in the map but Leishaagen is federal city.

[Wolfmanne]

Looks good. I have a proposal with the National Capital Region inside:

http://i.imgur.com/447EEyB.png

[Belmaria]

Your statement saying every single fricking federal nation in the world has shared control over all three branches with sub national territories is false.

I said I'm totally convinced.

We must allow provinces to have some independence from federal rule. Provincial rights must be protected in our nation.

[Great Nepal]

I said I'm totally convinced.

We must allow provinces to have some independence from federal rule. Provincial rights must be protected in our nation.

Of course, those rights however must not include law enforcement or judiciary. We need to ensure there is one law enforcement and judiciary body with one job: to combat crime and put criminals behind bars. Having provincial law enforcement or judiciary goes against this and creates strife within the law enforcement or judiciary bodies.

[Belmaria]

Looks good. I have a proposal with the National Capital Region inside:

http://i.imgur.com/447EEyB.png

Is that divided based on party preference? And if so, are those two islands up at the top ours? BTW, the outline kind of looks like a gentleman's sausage