View Topic

So, it seems I am running for Underhusen again. Two months ago, I promised reforms to the Constitution, to our laws, and to some of our systems. These reforms did not, entirely, occur. While some of the Underhusen reforms occurred, the larger reforms have largely fell to the way-side. As the principal author and pusher for these reforms and changes, I must accept responsibility for the failure to advance these goals. However, this is the past, and this is an election, so you have to be wondering, what is my goal now? What will I do for you for the next two months.

First, my aim is to work closer with the monarchy to implement some new programs and reforms, although some of these are being debated by the cabinet so I can not go into details. However these ideas aim to breathe new life into Wintreath, and hopefully it will help generate new activity, and bring in new people.

Second, I aim to continue work on my reforms. Judicial Reform, Constitutional Reform, and Reform of our codes and laws. Some of these changes are minor, and others are major, however I will make it my goal to engage and involve Wintreans in my major reforms. I also aim to reintroduce the two amendments to the Fundamental Laws that are currently sitting before the Storting at the start of the next term.

Next, I intend to run for Speaker of the Underhusen this term, as I will need it to use the new powers and responsibilities of the position to reinvigorate the Underhusen and other areas of Wintreath. I plan on using the Office of Information to put out weekly little pamphlets listing bills that the Underhusen has, or is, considering and their status, along with putting out a statement at the half-way mark of our term, outlining bills introduced and what they aim to do, in addition to outlining any additional agenda for the Underhusen going forward for the remainder of the term, and putting out an end-of-the-term report outlining everything that occurred within the UH. I am also considering the creation of additional Offices and the appointment of additional Officers.

Finally, my last aim is simple, to get elected. After all, if I am not elected to the Underhusen I can not push for my agenda within the Underhusen. This is not something I can do myself. I encourgae all citizens, all Wintreans, to vote and make their voice heard. I need your help! We have to do this together!

Now, for those of you who are new, you might be wondering about who I am, well my experience in unchallengable. The only person who has continously held citizenship longer than I have is Wintermoot. I have been in Wintreath since almost the very beginning. I have been a part of numerous sessions of the Underhusen, held Speakership several times, and I have even served within the Overhusen as its Chair. I helped write our constitution, and many of our laws. Several Laws were either written by me, or influnced by me in some form. I am even explicitly mentioned in the Criminal Code of Laws  as having helped lay the foundations for the law. I have been called one of the best legislators in NS, and I have been called upon by numerous sessions of the Underhusen, and by the Monarchy, for advice on matters of our law. I have also been Jarl at three different points, and was once Prince of Wintreath. Therfore my experience and qualifications are unimpeachable.

So please, vote Chanku for Underhusen!

Laws I plan to reintroduce

The Fundamental Laws Supremacy Amendment
This law merely adds a section that explicitly places the Fundamental Laws above all other laws in the region.

Fundamental Law Amendment Styling Amendment
This law merely amends the section for amending the Fundamental Laws that deals with amending the Fundamental Laws to use the styling of the rest of the document, in order to make it work better.

Below is a list of positions and statuses that I hold at the time of this campaign. It is listed for the purpose of full disclosure

Currently Held Positions

• Speaker Pro Tempore of the 28th Underhusen
• Skrifa of the 28th Underhusen
• Adviser to the Riksråd.
• Citizen of Wintreath
• Citizen of Lazarus
• Citizen of Warzone Sandbox (IIGSB)
• Imperial Chancellor of Warzone Sandbox (IIGSB)
• Citizen of Warzone Airspace

Will you help Crush burn down the UH?
IF NO I CANNOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE VOTE FOR YOU

That's a joke, but I will note that UH terms are two months, which someone so intimately tied up with our legal system should be familiar with. So I wonder why you keep saying three months.
Very suspicious, as if there's such an assumed degree of entrenchedness in this incumbent that he doesn't even know how long his term is.
(Some other attacks on personal character, pivot to a brief positive about (CANDIDATE THIS SUPER PAC SUPPORTS), plea to get out the vote on election day, this message paid for by (SUPER PAC), (CANDIDATE) approves this message)

Will you help Crush burn down the UH?
IF NO I CANNOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE VOTE FOR YOU

That's a joke, but I will note that UH terms are two months, which someone so intimately tied up with our legal system should be familiar with. So I wonder why you keep saying three months.
Very suspicious, as if there's such an assumed degree of entrenchedness in this incumbent that he doesn't even know how long his term is.
(Some other attacks on personal character, pivot to a brief positive about (CANDIDATE THIS SUPER PAC SUPPORTS), plea to get out the vote on election day, this message paid for by (SUPER PAC), (CANDIDATE) approves this message)

The first instance was just a counting/math error, date math is not my strong suit. I blame the latter on the initial draft being written at like 8 am after walking like 15 minutes to a coffee place, and it slipping through editing.

(INSANE INVECTIVE, CREATIVELY REINTERPRETED DETAILS OF LEGISLATIVE CAREER, WILDLY INACCURATE SPECULATION ABOUT LIFE CHOICES, PASSIONATE PLEA TO VOTE FOR (CANDIDATE THIS SUPER PAC SUPPORTS), "This message has been paid for by (SUPER PAC)", "I'm (CANDIDATE) and I approve this message")

I mean, with all that, how could you possibly vote for this guy?

Asking a serious question however - what value does your legislative agenda add? Isn't there the implicit understanding that the Fundamental Laws are, by their very nature, fundamental - there doesn't need to be explicit verbiage enshrining a constitution as the basis from which all rights and legal obligations devolve, by virtue of judiciaries ruling legislation in terms of the constitutionality of said legislation.

Asking a serious question however - what value does your legislative agenda add? Isn't there the implicit understanding that the Fundamental Laws are, by their very nature, fundamental - there doesn't need to be explicit verbiage enshrining a constitution as the basis from which all rights and legal obligations devolve, by virtue of judiciaries ruling legislation in terms of the constitutionality of said legislation.

Implicitly, yes, but it would be nice for it to be explicitly outlined. Many IRL constitutions that I've seen do so, such as the US (kinda), France, and China.

There's the argument to be made that while the Fundamental Laws are fundamental, they may not necessarily be above all other laws, much as is the case in the UK (where all statutory law, common law, and conventions comprise the constitution). And though quite unlikely, there is the possibility (posited by Chanku some time back) that the Underhusen could abuse this loophole to legally coup the government. Wouldn't really work, but the fact that this is arguably legal is somewhat concerning.

I think it'd be nice to get this fixed without having to go through the potential trouble of getting it challenged.

You mention that you're considering additional officers...do you know what specific offices your considering and what their roles would be?

Asking a serious question however - what value does your legislative agenda add? Isn't there the implicit understanding that the Fundamental Laws are, by their very nature, fundamental - there doesn't need to be explicit verbiage enshrining a constitution as the basis from which all rights and legal obligations devolve, by virtue of judiciaries ruling legislation in terms of the constitutionality of said legislation.

Sorry for the late response, I have been dealing with real life a bit and taulover did give a decent response to one of your own questions. Additionally, keep in mind that the Storting itself is the judiciary, and the Underhusen makes up a majority of the court. The Storting has judicial powers in itself, as all of those relevant clauses are found under Article I not Article III of our Fundamental Laws.

The reforms would help clean up some of the oddities and weirdness our laws have, due to their age and due to mistakes while writing them. Because the Fundamental laws aren't explicitly supreme, they aren't entirely protected, as at this time it is more-so a Law that has a higher threshold to amend than any other law. Additionally, the fact that it is constitutional could, theoretically, be debated as it never refers to itself as a constitution, but does lay out a method for amending a constitution (Which is part of the reason for the styling change, that Article is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the document. Also note that this argument relies on technicalities more than anything, and as such is not one I endorse or would support.).

You mention that you're considering additional officers...do you know what specific offices your considering and what their roles would be?

A few different Offices and Officers, one for Grammar Review might be nice, additionally having one to help us keep our records up to date would be nice to have as well. Finally, an office I've been toying around with for a while is an Office of Legal Counsel for the Underhusen. This office would be held by a non-skrifa explicitly and would be independent legal advice for the Underhusen, in addition to representing the UH/Officers in any potential litigation involving the performance of their official duties.

Also note that this argument relies on technicalities more than anything, and as such is not one I endorse or would support.

The very fact that it relies on technicalities, and has those higher thresholds to amend, is why I'm questioning what the point is. It would take a profoundly concerted effort to 'debate' the Constitution, since despite never being explicitly referenced as such most people recognize it as such, and even if that were to happen, amending it would require the assent of either the Overhusen, which would take a bizarrely targeted and seriously concerted effort to infiltrate if foreign affairs is the concern (which, to my mind, is the absolute heights of paranoia, akin to 'VACCINES! AUTISM! DO THE MATH!'), or both the majority of the region's population and Wintermoot himself to amend. I find it profoundly unlikely that people with ill intentions could feasibly argue against the constitutionality of the fundamental laws, or more importantly, would even bother in the first place.
I'm not opposed to the idea of this reconciliation, mind you - I just think it's a waste of time, considering the cost/benefit ratio of (time taken)/(not having our laws overturned by theoretical enemy agents). If you want to spend your time doing that, more power to you and the UH that does it, but it just seems pointless to me.

Also note that this argument relies on technicalities more than anything, and as such is not one I endorse or would support.

The very fact that it relies on technicalities, and has those higher thresholds to amend, is why I'm questioning what the point is. It would take a profoundly concerted effort to 'debate' the Constitution, since despite never being explicitly referenced as such most people recognize it as such, and even if that were to happen, amending it would require the assent of either the Overhusen, which would take a bizarrely targeted and seriously concerted effort to infiltrate if foreign affairs is the concern (which, to my mind, is the absolute heights of paranoia, akin to 'VACCINES! AUTISM! DO THE MATH!'), or both the majority of the region's population and Wintermoot himself to amend. I find it profoundly unlikely that people with ill intentions could feasibly argue against the constitutionality of the fundamental laws, or more importantly, would even bother in the first place.
I'm not opposed to the idea of this reconciliation, mind you - I just think it's a waste of time, considering the cost/benefit ratio of (time taken)/(not having our laws overturned by theoretical enemy agents). If you want to spend your time doing that, more power to you and the UH that does it, but it just seems pointless to me.

Yes, the Fundamental Laws does require the Overhusen to support, however to rule something as legal you only need the Underhusen. Therefore you could have the UH legally write a document that declares itself above the Fundamental Laws, and then declare that the document is, in fact, legal within Wintrean Law. Additionally, the requirement for the approval could be ruled, by the Underhusen, to only apply to explicit amendments, and implicit amendments and changes do not need to have that.

Additionally this legislation is mostly already drafted, it just needs to be passed.