Aurentine Constitutional Convention [NSG Senate]

[Jetan]

In Regards to Provinces
1. Aurentina shall be divided into provinces which may not be altered unless by ammendment of this constitution, these divisions shall be in an attached document labelled "attachment 3(1)".
2. Provinces shall have powers stated in this clause, and no further unless authorised by presiding federal government for the term of the said federal government.

a) Legislation: Provinces shall have right to pass laws which shall be in effect within the said province provided the said laws do not violate federal laws, this constitution or any applicable directive issued by presiding federal government. If any new directives is issued by presiding federal government which contradicts the provincial laws, contradicting provincial laws are to be suspended for duration of effectiveness of federal governmental directive. Through new laws, provinces may create a crime however these crimes may not be over a delict offence.
b) Executive branch: Provinces shall have right to create an executive branch, lead by an elected chief executive who may be named as per provincial constitution. Chief executive must be elected either from provincial parliament or directly by electorate themselves.
c) Social security: Provinces shall have complete authority over any social security payments in accordance to federal regulations. Social security shall include any form of payment paid by the state to a citizen to assist in the said citizen's livelihood including universal credit, social housing, universal healthcare.
d) Housing: Provinces shall have complete authority over housing regulations provided they do not violate federal laws, federal executive government directives or present clear and present danger to the welfare of the entire federation.
e) Energy: Provinces shall have complete authority over energy production provided, they are able to meet energy requirements of their province. If the province fails to meet energy requirement of their province for period of two weeks continuously or ten weeks over period of a year, federal government may suspend this right and take over production of energy.
f) Amenities: Provinces shall have complete authority other amenities (fire service, public transport, libraries, leisure and recreation, waste collection and waste disposal) unless they are deemed unable to provide any of these by a federal commission in which case, the federal government may suspend this right and take over.
g) Environment: Provinces shall have complete authority over environment of the province and any beautifications carried out within it.
h) Taxation: Provinces shall have right to levy total of five forms of taxation, each one not exceeding 10%.
i) Sub division: Provinces shall have right to create further sub divisions within their province and delegate it with powers, not exceeding the powers province government has. However, provincial government shall be ultimately responsible for any actions carried out by sub divisions they created.

3. 2. Provinces shall have responsibilities stated in this clause, and no further unless authorised by the senate by amending this document.

a) All provinces are to have a elected, unicameral legislature.
b) All provinces must respect and recognise supremacy of the federal government at all times.
c) In any state owned property, whether run by federal authority or by state authority, following code must be abided by at all times:
I) If state flag is flown, a national flag must be flown at an height of 150% from the ground where 100% is the height where state flag is flown.
II) If state name is written, national name must be written above it at all times.
d) Abide by federal laws passed by senate and directives issued by federal government at all times.

Suggested text...

I assume that, per the monarchist request, the "elected" executive could be recognized as royalty and, assuming popular subnational sovereignty, enjoy a term limited by the provincial legislature alone - without national interference?

Well, elective monarchs are still monarchs, aren't they?

[Distruzio]

Thoughtfully, de Medici concedes, "hmmm.... I do believe that is quite acceptable. I admit that my suggestion for that particular national agent was to assure those hostile to subnational monarchy that the national government would not be defenseless against such an entity. But... the threat, you make clear, is to the provincial citizens rather than to the national government. Then I would suggest that, perhaps, the "placeholder" appointed hold the title of regent and that, as you appropriately suggest, the national government have no say in the matter."

I don't particularly care about specifics like that.

Then we are in agreement, sir. I'll be pleased to support your candidacy because of your willingness to, even through opposition to our suggestion, engage in actual conversation in order that you might discern our reasoning. I must note, however, that even before our arrival at agreement, I had made this decision. I like seeing such qualities in leaders.

[Welsh Cowboy]

The national flag and name requirements are silly and pointless.

I disagree.

In a provincial legislative chamber, they should be able to fly only their flag. If they have a seal in the front of the chamber, they shouldn't have to write "Aurentina" in it.

These have no business being in the constitution; they might be enacted by law, but they shouldn't be in the constitution.

[Distruzio]

I assume that, per the monarchist request, the "elected" executive could be recognized as royalty and, assuming popular subnational sovereignty, enjoy a term limited by the provincial legislature alone - without national interference?

Well, elective monarchs are still monarchs, aren't they?

Only if there is to be no national oversight of term limitations or perspective appointees.

[Great Nepal]

I assume that, per the monarchist request, the "elected" executive could be recognized as royalty and, assuming popular subnational sovereignty, enjoy a term limited by the provincial legislature alone - without national interference?

Yes, only requirement is that executive should be elected. Call him what ever the hell you want, I am personally thinking about "Emperor of Mankind" as a potential title...

[Battlion]

Well, elective monarchs are still monarchs, aren't they?

Only if there is to be no national oversight of term limitations or perspective appointees.

So you want an elected monarch for life?

Why can't it have a term limitation?

[Distruzio]

I assume that, per the monarchist request, the "elected" executive could be recognized as royalty and, assuming popular subnational sovereignty, enjoy a term limited by the provincial legislature alone - without national interference?

Yes, only requirement is that executive should be elected. Call him what ever the hell you want, I am personally thinking about "Emperor of Mankind" as a potential title...

And what of his successors? Would the province be allowed to elect a family to executive office?

[Great Nepal]

Yes, only requirement is that executive should be elected. Call him what ever the hell you want, I am personally thinking about "Emperor of Mankind" as a potential title...

And what of his successors? Would the province be allowed to elect a family to executive office?

If the people or legislature elects him, then sure. Of course, you would have to allow others to stand for elections should they wish as well.

[Britanno]

And what of his successors? Would the province be allowed to elect a family to executive office?

If the people or legislature elects him, then sure. Of course, you would have to allow others to stand for elections should they wish as well.

^

[Distruzio]

Only if there is to be no national oversight of term limitations or perspective appointees.

So you want an elected monarch for life?

No. I'm setting up parameters for discussion. First we establish principles and then we move on from there.

Why can't it have a term limitation?

Because then it would be democracy. In case you've failed to pay attention to the conversation, and have failed to consider just who it is you speak to, monarchists are not democratists. We want a subnational monarchy, Senator. Not a democratic executive called King/Queen. We want the political stability and cultural perpetuity that, we believe, only monarchy can provide while acknowledging the right of self-determination of those who disagree with us. I realize that this is a concept beyond you but adult conversations sometimes require adult considerations.

[Jetan]

Yes, only requirement is that executive should be elected. Call him what ever the hell you want, I am personally thinking about "Emperor of Mankind" as a potential title...

And what of his successors? Would the province be allowed to elect a family to executive office?

You mean like one election to give hereditary power to the monarch?

[Distruzio]

And what of his successors? Would the province be allowed to elect a family to executive office?

If the people or legislature elects him, then sure. Of course, you would have to allow others to stand for elections should they wish as well.

That is exactly what I was thinking. An initial election where the claimants to royalty or nobility convince the monarchist constituencies of their value to society and their great honor to represent that society before the national government as monarch.

[Britanno]

They can elect a family to be the monarchy, as long as another family can run.

[The Orson Empire]

Wait, is Aurentine a monarchy now?

[Battlion]

And what of his successors? Would the province be allowed to elect a family to executive office?

You mean like one election to give hereditary power to the monarch?

Yes, that is exactly what they are talking about.

If the people or legislature elects him, then sure. Of course, you would have to allow others to stand for elections should they wish as well.

That is exactly what I was thinking. An initial election where the claimants to royalty or nobility convince the monarchist constituencies of their value to society and their great honor to represent that society before the national government as monarch.

One election doesn't grant the heirs any legitimacy, they weren't given legitimacy by the people.

So you want an elected monarch for life?

No. I'm setting up parameters for discussion. First we establish principles and then we move on from there.

Why can't it have a term limitation?

Because then it would be democracy. In case you've failed to pay attention to the conversation, and have failed to consider just who it is you speak to, monarchists are not democratists. We want a subnational monarchy, Senator. Not a democratic executive called King/Queen. We want the political stability and cultural perpetuity that, we believe, only monarchy can provide while acknowledging the right of self-determination of those who disagree with us. I realize that this is a concept beyond you but adult conversations sometimes require adult considerations.

Oh, I know who I speak too.

Ok, now I'm not really quite sure how other parties can really feel comfortable with allowing one election for life.

[Jetan]

Wait, is Aurentine a monarchy now?

We aren't. We are dicussing a proposal to allow subnational monarchies within the republic.

[Distruzio]

And what of his successors? Would the province be allowed to elect a family to executive office?

You mean like one election to give hereditary power to the monarch?

Indeed. There is no sense in societal conflagration being risked.

Hell, truth be told, the constituencies may, themselves, unite under a single monarch. My own constituency leans heavily towards Lord Tyrannia.

In the interest of securing ties between the monarchist constituencies and the national government, I would suggest that the constitution explicitly forbid the recognition of foreign heads of State as subnational monarchs. The monarchs within Aurentina should be Aurentine. As favorably as I look towards the Queen and the United Kingdom, it would not do for the monarchists to be divided between loyalties.

[The Orson Empire]

Wait, is Aurentine a monarchy now?

We aren't. We are dicussing a proposal to allow subnational monarchies within the republic.

That sounds like a very bad idea.

[Distruzio]

They can elect a family to be the monarchy, as long as another family can run.

This would go a long way towards satisfying us and, I believe, the Progressive Monarchists (from what I can glean from our conversations - do not mistake me as representative of their views although I will endeavor to seek their input on this matter).

[Britanno]

Orson Empire, leave now. You are not a member of this and Di not state that your post was a tag, which I would allow.

[The Orson Empire]

Orson Empire, leave now. You are not a member of this and Di not state that your post was a tag, which I would allow.

Oh yeah, sorry, forgot this thread was closed.

[Distruzio]

One election doesn't grant the heirs any legitimacy, they weren't given legitimacy by the people.

That is not for you to decide. I thought we'd been over this? Are you still clinging to your disregard for self-determinism?

Ok, now I'm not really quite sure how other parties can really feel comfortable with allowing one election for life.

Considering this initiative would affect neither those parties nor their constituencies as well as go quite far in securing monarchist fealty to the national government, I fail to see the threat it poses to them or why their input is relevant.

[Battlion]

One election doesn't grant the heirs any legitimacy, they weren't given legitimacy by the people.

That is not for you to decide. I thought we'd been over this? Are you still clinging to your disregard for self-determinism?

Ok, now I'm not really quite sure how other parties can really feel comfortable with allowing one election for life.

Considering this initiative would affect neither those parties nor their constituencies as well as go quite far in securing monarchist fealty to the national government, I fail to see the threat it poses to them or why their input is relevant.

I think you're the one disregarding self determination, you suggest that one family be allowed monarchy would you suggest that someone born 50 years after this family is instilled has been given their right to self-determination? I doubt that..

Additionally, you're suggesting that one province doesn't affect anyone else.

[Jetan]

You mean like one election to give hereditary power to the monarch?

Indeed. There is no sense in societal conflagration being risked.

Hell, truth be told, the constituencies may, themselves, unite under a single monarch. My own constituency leans heavily towards Lord Tyrannia.

In the interest of securing ties between the monarchist constituencies and the national government, I would suggest that the constitution explicitly forbid the recognition of foreign heads of State as subnational monarchs. The monarchs within Aurentina should be Aurentine. As favorably as I look towards the Queen and the United Kingdom, it would not do for the monarchists to be divided between loyalties.

OOC: No matter what the decisision, I'll state again what I stated when that absurd attempt at making Hath a king surfaced: I will oppose every attempt at making one of the players a king, queen, or whatever permanently at every possible time in every possible way.


As to the subnational monarchy, I might be persuaded to accept a election for life under extreme circumstances, but election for life and hereditary position is a definite no-no.

[Great Nepal]

I think you're the one disregarding self determination, you suggest that one family be allowed monarchy would you suggest that someone born 50 years after this family is instilled has been given their right to self-determination? I doubt that..

Provisional executive doesn't have that much power (atleast not under text I purposed) anyway and if its already been 50 years, how long is that executive going to live anyway? As soon as he drops dead, there will be a new elections for replacement.