|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 25, 2006 10:52:32 GMT -6
How does Aldrodria even manage to be involved with this?
THe laws NEED to be repassed. The fact that there are so many is the very reason we need to. We only went through the Royal Code which does not encompass the entire legal base (decrees, and so forth) it is an inherent need we have to do this. I fear that certain laws may just get skipped over because Nate says they shouldn't be gotten rid of even though the people may feel otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Z on Jun 25, 2006 12:34:49 GMT -6
Becouse Alrodria is a special demense and I can't have a higher title than the head of state now can I? And as far as I can tell you are the ONLY person who wants this place to become a kingdom? SO how does that work? One person (not the emperor) is going to tell the rest of us how to run the country? I think not! I think you need to open yourself up for some more suggestions and stop treating Natopia like you own personal play ground.
As for the laws I have a feeling you meeant when you said
"I fear that certain laws may just get skipped over because Nate says they shouldn't be gotten rid of even though the people may feel otherwise."
Should have read
"I fear that certain laws may just get skipped over becouse only I wanted to get rid of them..." (i.e. recwar)
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 25, 2006 12:53:11 GMT -6
That is offensive and wrong.
And I never claimed to run Natopia, nor did I insinuate it. Is it wrong for me to back up my beliefs? Why are you attacking me personally when I did not threaten you?
And I don't have any problem with Aldrodria and you remaining head of state. Look at it this way: As the sovereign IMPERIAL kingdom of natopia, certain IMPERIAL traits remain including being bound to another nation that remains independent in practicality. Although I feel like you maybe should give Alrodrian independence once again and may even join a new Alrodria, that is up to you entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jun 25, 2006 14:03:19 GMT -6
If the people feel otherwise about any laws or decrees I hope I have not been too much of an evil tyrant that they would speak up and ask for a review of said law or decree.
The only complaint I've ever recieved about any decree of mine was the Act of Preservation, which i myself repealed.
Our laws go back to the Republic and have been in force for almost 3 years. I'd like to keep that link alive.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 25, 2006 14:51:09 GMT -6
Alright... when you say it that way... if you still have them from THAT long... then you are right.
Erm... Some things when we did the culling thing were kinda thwarted by you or others when I brought them up.
I WAS saying we have SO MANY decrees we can't effectively review them all without passing them, but if we publicly go through each individually one-by-one then I'm fine with keeping them.
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Jun 25, 2006 15:21:44 GMT -6
well, if they were thwarted, it was probably majority thwarting.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 25, 2006 15:32:09 GMT -6
Well majority didn't mean much at the time since only you, me, and neem discussed any of it at all.
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Jun 25, 2006 16:09:42 GMT -6
oh but didn't you know? I am the majority!
(just kidding, really)
|
|
|
Post by Z on Jun 29, 2006 12:48:45 GMT -6
My point Brian is your the only one who wishes that we change and the rest of us have already told you that we are not in favor of said changes. Therefore you should either accept defeat or continue beating a dead horse. The choice is yours but I would advise you that the former will make you a lot more popular.
Secondarily I never attacked you personally and I think you are in general are rather nice guy. However you need to learn that saying, “I think you need to open yourself up for some more suggestions and stop treating Natopia like you own personal play ground.” is not a personal attack, nor is, “I fear that certain laws may just get skipped over because only I wanted to get rid of them...” those are attacks of your politics those are not personal. A personal attack would have been, “Brian Capelle is a smelly asshole who kicks his grandmother down the stairs and should jump off a cliff” that would be personal. I’m telling you that if you want my respect and my cooperation with your politics you desperately need to change your attitude.
Brian you haven’t been “backing up my beliefs” you have been trying to force feed a very specific and uncompromising agenda to the rest of us. You’ve been telling us the same dam thing over and over again and we’ve told you (over and over again) that we understand but we don’t agree. Personally I am really sick of it. Moreover I’m sick of you playing the victim card. You might as well run around shouting “help help I’m being repressed” fact of the matter is your not being picked on (at least not by me) because that’s not the way I operate. I’m telling you that your policies and your manor of trying to sell them to us sucks and that if you intend to get anywhere without being universally loathed you need a serious attitude adjustment.
So don’t cry “Z’s picking on me!” how about you grow up and realize that politics is a dirty and mean sport and that what you have called being picked on (whether by Alexandrians or by me) is the way the game is played. I’d stop taking it so dam personally because if you personalize every time someone tells you your economic plans sucks dick your going to have a lot of trouble. So suck it up deal and write a mature well thought out argument for why I should support your plans. Because so far all I’ve seen is that you have vouched for your ideas but have given no arguments why should go along with them except that you feel that it’s the best thing for Natopia. (and that’s what I meant by treating Natopia as your own personal playground)
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 29, 2006 20:51:07 GMT -6
1. Alexandria is none of your darn business, and I think my other thread speaks for itself as to where I want to go with that. 2. "Alright... when you say it that way... if you still have them from THAT long... then you are right." ... yep, that's REALLY force feeding my agenda. That's HORRIBLY "uncompromising." 3. Notice that you're really the only one reacting like this? I didn't say anything hostile or nasty, and all of the comments Neem and Nate had for me WERE disagreements but the difference was they were RESPECTFUL. 4. I'm not playing the victim card... that assertion is idiotic. I've never said "I'm being picked on." I've said, "I feel this way" which I have the right to do. I've said, "I feel like Sullifree and I was treated poorly when I tried to be friendly to Alexandria" since you seem bent on that issue. And I certainly never said "Z's picking on me." Where are you getting this from? This post is complaining about you more than any other post ever has.
Actually YOU are the only one who said we shouldn't write the new constitution. It should be apparent that some of the reforms I suggested (a la the census) would improve Natopia, and so far Nate, Neem, and Co. have only expressed dislike with PARTS of my Constitution where you have rebuffed my ideas entirely which shows you simply are against change even if it is improvement: and that is called being AFRAID of change.
"I think you need to open yourself up for some more suggestions and stop treating Natopia like you own personal play ground."
Actually, I DO take that is a personal attack, because it essencially questions my motives for my beliefs in Natopia, and questions whether or not I care about Natopia. Treating Natopia like my own personal playground and respectfully offering opinions about how Natopia could improve are too way different things, and pointless attacks on other Natopian citizens is actually the onyl way to treat Natopia like a playground since Natopia is essencially made of nothing else BUT its citizens---and perhaps its history. That is a VERY offensive statement therefore, in fact I would rather deal with the other statement you offered since it is completely absurd.
Therefore I think in this post we have made it clear: 1. Z is afraid of change. 2. I am NOT forcefeeding anything since I CLEARLY conceded on the issue discussed earlier on this post. 3. Z doesn't approve of the inherent freedom of speech. 4. Z can't read, since he seems to think I have only been pushing my beliefs without backing them up. In fact, I think a 3 page constitutional draft kinda backs up my beliefs somewhat.
And yes, I will admit, I do think my beliefs are the "best thing for natopia". I'm sure you feel what you would like Natopia to be is the... best thing for Natopia. That is kind of a given.
I have no clue where this is coming from. I don't know how someone who has never expressed dislike for me can attack me out of knowwhere. Maybe Z thinks Brian Capelle's middle name is "Vasroixe" (it's actually Antantartica, btw) but in truth I am a faultless citizen only trying to express my opinion on what would help advance Natopia and its citizens.
Because trust me, the only nation I would ever forcefeed my beliefs on is the Principality of Sullifree, and currently (though perhaps not for long) that nation is dormant.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jun 30, 2006 0:33:50 GMT -6
I think we should get back on topic... we have a proposed constitutional draft prepared by Brian. We should get back to discussing it so I am changing the subject. If you two have anything else you need to say, perhaps continue via PMs.
ok.... i rewrote Brian's original draft and I've re-added the Empire name in the constitution... here it is:
continue discussing this document....!
|
|
|
Post by Z on Jul 1, 2006 13:40:09 GMT -6
Pardon me but I will rebut the fine and mature comments of my college. Brian you obviously missed the point of my last post. You can reread it if you like but I'm not going to waste my breath (figuratively speaking) on trying to make you understand. You really took my point about not personalizing things to heart. Good job.
Oh and for the record I can write you a ten page paper on why string cheese is sentient that doesn’t mean it has substance.
As to the actual matter at hand I must express my concern with this section
Article Four 1. All treaties brought up for consideration must be passed with a majority of approval of the Royal Frenzy and the approval of the Emperor or Empress in the form of a signature. 2. An act of the Royal Frenzy shall be the lowest form of law and may be overridden by decree, judicial statement, or the constitution. 3. A Decree or Treaty shall have equal strength---while treaties override new decrees, no treaty may be passed that is not in accordance with an existing decree.
We should not have to put every treaty before the Frenzy to a vote becouse it would make it impossible for the Foreign Ministry to carry out it's duties in a timely manor.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jul 1, 2006 14:29:41 GMT -6
most countries require the legislature's ratification of treaties for them to come into force.... its different than how we've always done it... do we really sign that many treaties that the Frenzy would cause a tie-up? frankly, i think we're a little too treaty-happy... even if we're only signing treaties of recognition which practically mean nothing.
i think making the frenzy ratify treaties is a good idea... the emperor and foreign minister can still sign treaties... and how about only a treaty signed by emperor or foreign minister can be presented to the frenzy?
also this "treaty out does decress and law" stuff... i dont like it... i already removed the part somewhere about how we cant amend our constitution in such a way that it violated a treaty... sorry, but its out constitution... we should be able to amend it however we want. since the Treaty is ratified by an act of royal frenzy, i think it would make much more legal sense to have a Treaty be equal to a Law in legal matters.
my suggestion for article 4:
Article Four 1. All treaties brought up for consideration must have prior approval of the Emperor or Empress, or Foreign Minister in the form of a signature. Treaties must be ratified with a majority of approval of the Royal Frenzy. 2. An act of the Royal Frenzy, including Laws and Treaties, shall be the lowest form of law and may be overridden by decree, judicial statement, or the constitution. 3. The Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. 4. Constitutional Amendments can be passed with a two thirds (2/3) majority of the Frenzy and approval of the Emperor or Empress. 5. Only an Act of the Royal Frenzy, with the Emperor or Empress’s approval, may declare war on a foreign power. The war may end with a majority vote in favor in the Frenzy or by Decree of the Emperor or Empress.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jul 1, 2006 15:37:44 GMT -6
It's unfair to the nation who may have it on unthwartable grounds... what if, say, Shireroth passes a Constitutional amendment overriding their treaty with us? is that fair? Now I don't think we'd do it on purpose, but the point is treaties shouldn't be breachable in any manner. If it takes as much force to pass a treaty as a constitutional amendment (or close to it) we should be fine.
And Signing treaties without giving frenzy a say in it isn't good because they can't repeal treaties and to say 2 people speak for a nation is way unfair, so I certainly agree with nate on that.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jul 2, 2006 2:12:42 GMT -6
it may not be fair for Hypothetical Shireroth to hypothetically do that... but its in their sovereign right.
|
|