Realpolitik of the Smoky Skies - The Reboot

((Interesting, it does make its sense, I've seen the same happen here in Portugal, and unfortunately, it usually happens because someone tries to screw the population in general against the rules, and the supreme courts shut it down. Still, I'd prefer a system where cpm validates this before being put to a vote, since if it's not permitted, it turns our previous vote into a time waste

But still, good info, always learning))
 
((I do take your point about time wasting; but I guess it's on the government to make sure what they're doing is legal, and if in doubt they should consult the Grand Majah for legal advice I suppose.

But in real world constitutional monarchies --- and presidential systems, even --- laws are passed by the legislatures and then handed over to the head of state --- king/queen, Governor General, president --- who either signs them, vetoes them or sends them back to the legislature for additional work. But even after they're signed into law by the head of state they can be challenged.

I guess it depends on whether the Grand Majah would rather have the minutiae of all bills presented to him prior to debate, which considering amendments could be proposed should make obsolete such legal advice, or he could just wait and consider each bill that actually gets passed by the chamber.

But you do raise a valid point: is it better to pass bills and have them potentially thrown out or to have them checked by the highest law in the land --- cpm --- before they are passed?

I don't know the correct answer, but what we've been doing is the former. :)))
 
The courts rule that the Ministerial Reform Bill is constitutional, as it serves to expand, rather than shrink, the cabinet, as long as there are limits on the number of ministerial posts a single senator can hold at a given time.
The Majah, when asked about this by a reporter from the Haven Herald, said, "This whole HMs Government thing is great! I have absolutely no idea what's going on but it won't result in the entire country blowing up!"

OOC: Actually, I do have an idea of what's going on, but for RP reasons...anyway, the government can certainly pass a law of questionable constitutionality, but the courts (me) may strike it down. Of course, players can always contact me with specific questions and I'll do my best to sort out confusion.
Incidentally, part of the job of the Opposition is to block or force amendments to legislation they view as unconstitutional.
 
With the hoopla around the Ministerial Reform bill and talks of consolidation of power. It remind me of Rome. Julius tried to consolidate all power within his hands. He didn't,ah, throw his opponents a bone so to speak. Predictably he was assassinated. His son who succeeded him again tried to consolidate power taking multiple positions not unlike our dear Coalition Government. However he learned from his fathers mistakes and often shared his power among the Senate. Now ask yourself, who am I?Julius or Augustus? With that I present an amendment for the Ministerial Reform.

Amendments-
A-The Ministries of Infrastructure and Construction are merged.
B-A politician can only hold 2 ministerial positions.
 
((Out of character: because the bill has already passed and been signed into law by the head of state I think it's too late to propose amendments to that bill now it's law.

I think your amendment will need to be considered as a new bill seeking to modify an existing act/law. Out of character I apologise for not considering that amendments might be proposed ; I've learnt that lesson for next time. Of course in character William will not be publicly apologising for this. :)

I suspect you'll be wanting to move a Private Senator's Bill titled something like the Ministerial Reform Amendment Act 1822 and include text to the effect of 'this bill seeks to amend the Ministerial Reform Act 1822 to ensure blah and blah, etc.))
 
While limiting the number of ministerial posts that can be held by one person seems like a good idea, it actually isn't. Remember, a Prime Minister can be deposed if four Senators vote against him - something that is likely to happen if he or she decides to ignore party members or coalition partners like that.
 
While I admire the Honourable Leader of the Opposition's passion and zeal for ensuring the avoidance of a dictatorship, an honourable and righteous endeavour no doubt, and while I accept we will not all necessarily agree with the division of ministerial portfolios I fail to understand how the distillation of the same duties from four people to five constitutes an untoward concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister or Government of Pulias.

Perhaps my learned colleague can enlighten us as to how this could be?
 
Further to that my Honourable ministerial colleague is correct: unlike our irreplaceable head of state, His Majesty the Grand High Exalted Majah of Pulias, as head of government the Prime Minister is readily replaceable by the Senate should such need arise.

No offence is intended of course to the Prime Minister, Senator the Honourable Heerlo nor his predecessor Senator the Honourable Gustavus Gurra.
 
When power becomes centralized to fewer hands time and time again we see the rise of absolute rulers. In Roman history itself it has happened twice! The first and second both led to the rise of what we would call 'dictators'. In Argentina the end of the Second Triumvirate saw the position of Supreme Dictator created.
 
Today's edition of the Haven Herald contained the following article:

Lambasted Legislation Licks Legal Limits
by Harland Godwin

It here follows:

Spoiler :
The confusion surrounding the Ministerial Reform Act 1822 was partly resolved today as the bill passed the Senate and was signed into law by His Majesty the Grand High Exalted Majah of Pulias.

Government ministers tried to play down the apparent mishandling of the legislation, which was introduced to the Senate by a first time legislator, the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator the Honourable William Melda. The Deputy Prime Minister's Office denied there were any issues with the bill or the senatorial procedure surrounding it, highlighting the bill's successful passage through the chamber as evidence in support of their view. That the vote took much longer than expected was explained away as the settling in period of the new Government.

The former Prime Minister, Senator the Honourable Gustavus Gurra sought to reassure concerned citizens that the confusion surrounding the bill was not indicative of a lack of Government support for the measures, but that there were different views regarding the legislation's constitutional necessity. Senator Gurra argued that "the passing of this Act gives legitimacy to the new ministries institutionalised by the forming of our new Government," and shared his view that it would have been unconstitutional to undertake the actions the Prime Minister had done without passing the bill. He praised Senator Melda for putting the bill to the Senate for a vote.

The Leader of the Pulias Advancement Union, Senator the Honourable Ernest Barnard felt that passing the legislation was a redundant act and that he wasn't the only person in Cabinet who held that view. Senator Barnard felt that "the Prime Minister should be able to delegate duties as he sees fit," but he conceded if the passage of the Act into law placated people then he saw no harm in doing so.

The Leader of the Opposition, Senator the Honourable Augustus had long made clear his views that the bill was "completely unnecessary". He felt that "the executive action was just a show of force" by the new Government flexing its legislative muscles and maintained his view that the law was one that the people of Pulias did not need. Senator Augustus expressed his view that "this situation really shows that the 3rd Senate is going to make or break our way of life," and that he was leaning towards guessing that it was going to "break" it.

Opposition Senator Albert Bazil argued that the Act was "too fragmented in its current state" to be useful, and while he agreed in principle with the logic of separating some of the ministerial duties "in an organizational point of view" he felt some duties were too strongly related to effectively separate and therefore "it makes no sense to separate them." He also took aim at the Deputy Prime Minister's procedural handling of the bill in the Senate arguing "At the very least, I would've liked the bill to be reviewed." A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed Senator Bazil's feedback about legislative procedural matters had been received and was being considered.

Senator Bazil also believed the Act as passed was unconstitutional because it directly contradicted the "Governments and their Powers" section of the Pulian constitution and he suggested legislation such as this should either be vetted by legal experts first or passed as a constitutional amendment instead of as a regular bill, which would have required an extra vote to reach the two-thirds threshold for constitutional amendments. It is unclear at this stage whether the Government would have had sufficient support in the Senate to have passed the Act as a constitutional amendment.

The High Court of Pulias sat in session to hear the constitutional arguments against the Act and returned the judgement that the Act was constitutional "as it serves to expand, rather than shrink, the Cabinet, as long as there are limits on the numbers of ministerial posts a single Senator can hold at a given time." That the Act does not stipulate this condition has led to the Opposition Leader, Senator Augustus moving a motion in the Senate to resolve this apparent inconsistency.

His Majesty the Grand High Exalted Majah of Pulias was contacted for comment about the constitutionality of the bill he had signed into law. His Majesty did not directly comment on the Act, perhaps due to his long-standing policy as constitutional monarch of avoiding public political statements. However His Majesty did affirm his belief in the success of the existing constitutional arrangements of a democratically elected government to represent him and wield His Majesty's executive powers on his behalf. His Majesty furthermore shared his beliefs that the current arrangements would steer the country surely away from disaster.

So it largely seems as though after an initial stumble the Government has recorded a win, with the High Court ultimately ruling in their favour. But the Opposition seem intent on hounding the Government over the apparent inconsistency between part of the ruling and the published Act, specifically pertaining to the limitation of ministerial portfolios per minister.

Where it goes from here is anybody's guess, but what started out as a seemingly straightforward piece of legislation has already ended up in the High Court. And if the Opposition have their way, the controversy over the Ministerial Reform Act 1822 is not over yet.
 
Et_Absoluti said:
When power becomes centralized to fewer hands time and time again we see the rise of absolute rulers. In Roman history itself it has happened twice! The first and second both led to the rise of what we would call 'dictators'. In Argentina the end of the Second Triumvirate saw the position of Supreme Dictator created.
Click to expand...

I do not believe anyone would dispute what you've stated here.

Can you please explain how a ministry of four people expanding to a ministry of five people is a centralisation of power to fewer hands?

As a historian mathematics are not my strongest skill, and I therefore feel I'm missing something here.
 
Previously we would never think of these multiple ministries! By creating extra ministries it allows the Coalition to make sure power stays in the hands of a select few.
 
If the ministerial responsibilities had not been broken up then you'd have the same amount of duties, responsibilities and --- I guess --- power held in the hands of only four people, instead of five people.

I fail to see the issue here. Ministerial duties have been broken down and shuffled around; the Government hasn't granted itself extra powers!

The ministerial allocations from the First Senate to the current Senate are really a zero sum game. All that's really changed is the labelling.
 
((On a completely out-of-character note I'm very much looking forward to progressing onward through the 1820s and beyond. I have some character-related things planned which I'm excited about. :D))
 
The thing with the 'extra ministries' though is that they don't add any government function that wasn't already existing, and as such a government operating after the old 4 minister system and this one does exactly the same work. The idea was to balance the ministries since for example the Interior department had a heavier workload than say, the Culture department.

So I don't see how the re-arranged ministries "makes sure the power stays in the hands of a select few" because it's just the exact same government but in 10 smaller more manageable pieces rather than 4 bigger pieces. In the end, it adds up to no more and no less.
 
((Might go with just Augutus II, don't like Tiberius very much.
 
((That's a shame; I was really looking forward to Caligula and eventually Nero ;)))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Evie
Creeds, Prophets and Revolutionaries: Culture and Religion idea
Replies
11
Views
710
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
Better Buff Turtle ship
  • Locked
[UI] (7-NS) Display wonders built in the city and its approximate degree of construction by text
2
Replies
25
Views
659
Better Buff Turtle ship
Better Buff Turtle ship
stfoskey12
Strategic Party Affiliation
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
3K
Core Imposter
C
Dhoomstriker
STOP RISAA, the FISA Mass Surveillance Expansion
Replies
10
Views
400
Moff Jerjerrod
Moff Jerjerrod
A
[BTS] Who are your favorite Leaders/Civs?
Replies
13
Views
763
PPQ_Purple
PPQ_Purple
Top Bottom