View Topic

For Your Information Asks the Candidates
Debate 2: The Underhusen

As the quote says, you can't know where you're going until you know where you've been. This election not only marks a new session of our regional Underhusen, but also marks the end of our very first session. As a candidate in this election, what do you feel is the role of the Underhusen in the region. What do you feel were the biggest weaknesses during the last session of the Underhusen, and how would you resolve those weakness if you were elected?

what do you feel is the role of the Underhusen in the region.

I feel it is the Underhusen's job to be the voice of the people, and to a lesser extent maintain justice

What do you feel were the biggest weaknesses during the last session of the Underhusen,

Well there were several, problems, such as the fact that a member went inactive for a good portion of the time, the fact that I think a few veto's for some bills were due to a preface being there(however this may or may not be true), my inexperience, a bit of a lack of communication, the lack of a Constitution(well Fundamental Laws) for nearly a month, and the fact that this was the first Underhusen.

and how would you resolve those weakness if you were elected?

Well several of the weaknesses have been fixed already, such as the lack of a Constitution which was fixed as quickly as it could have been.
The fact that it was the First Underhusen was also a bit of a problem, as we had nothing to go by, so as you Wintermoot once said, "The sky's the limit." although I believe that, this is still somewhat the case for this next Underhusen.
I also think that a few veto's may have been due to the bill having a preface, which could be lessened by people having to state why they voted the way they did. However this has not been proven, and this could very well be wrong.
There was also a lack of communication, which can be resolved by having the Underhusen meet(in IRC chat), and talk about issues that need to be dealt with(such as the lack of a Law Code), this way Underhusen members know what's going on in the Underhusen, who's doing what, and has better co-ordination.
Finally my inexperience was also a problem as I had no idea what to really do, and that will still be a small problem in the future, and while I did make a lot of mistakes this past Underhusen(such as the ASEFA(Anti-spying and election fraud act)), a lot were due to my new-ness however I will try to work on this with this upcoming Underhusen.

The job of the Underhusen is to create laws to govern the region that reflect not only what is best for Wintreath but also the wishes of the people it draws its members from. The issues within the first sitting were simple - most, such as the lack of a laid-out Constitution, arose from the fact that this was the first sitting - and often rather trivial, such as the objection of certain members towards prefaces, or the lack of activity.

Personally, I'd like to introduce a somewhat more informative response towards suggested legislation as well as a more active role for Underhusen members within the Citizen's Platform, so as to increase the Representative/Citizen link and ensure that suggestions are taken on board and that feedback is enacted upon.

The role of the Underhusen is to serve as the voice of the electorate (or the citizenry). It is the vital link between the monarchy and the common citizen that allows any member to achieve merit through hard work, and service to his fellow citizen. I think that there were a few notable issues with the Underhusen in this first session, chief among them is that aside from the fundamental laws, it did not accomplish very much at all. Instead of devoting time towards codifying laws, establishing all necessary procedures and fleshing out the governing structure of our region in cooperation with the Crown, it devoted itself towards the individual efforts of it's members that in end didn't accomplish these self same goals of structure and order. This is not an attack; rather a highlight of the lack of efficiency, and activity of the previous cycle. As another member pointed out, it is quite possible that some of it is due to newness, however not all members of this body are inexperienced, and hence my concerns.

I would seek to bring efficiency, activity and meaningful legislation to this next cycle. A clear set of goals for each session (perhaps a set of goals suggested by the Crown, as impetus?) must be established, and then once those are met, or met to a level satisfactory to the electorate, then individual projects can be embarked upon. I do not know much of the mentions of prefaces, and whether a person(s) objected to these based solely on them, or not. What I do know, is that I detest legalism in all it's forms. This is a game, and it is always entertaining to exercise our minds and creativity to play act the lawyer, politician and statesman. However it is not so much fun as to be bogged down by endless procedure in which if even the slightest nuance is not observed, it can disrupt an entire session. I will oppose this, although I generally find that most situations in which a legal or grammatical objection is raised, it is for good reason.

Debate 2.1: What is your stance?
Suppose that the Storting passed a high-profile but divisive treaty that has both vocal supporters and detractors, which included a provision that Wintreath could not declare war on certain regions. This treaty is then successfully challenged and voided because it's found to be in violation of Article I Section 12 of the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath, which grants the Storting the power to declare war. The supporters of this treaty are vocally upset, claiming that the decision smacks of legalism and interferes with what the majority wants, while a minority feel that the decision is correct and should be upheld as going against the region's founding document.

As a member of the Storting which passed the treaty, what would be your stance on this issue, and how would you attempt to handle it?

Edit: In response to Chanku's suggestion to revise the treaty with the other party.
The other party feels that this is an integral part of the treaty that cannot be changed. They have pretty much told us to take it or leave it as is.

Debate 2.1: What is your stance?
Suppose that the Storting passed a high-profile but divisive treaty that has both vocal supporters and detractors, which included a provision that Wintreath could not declare war on certain regions. This treaty is then successfully challenged and voided because it's found to be in violation of Article I Section 12 of the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath, which grants the Storting the power to declare war. The supporters of this treaty are vocally upset, claiming that the decision smacks of legalism and interferes with what the majority wants, while a minority feel that the decision is correct and should be upheld as going against the region's founding document.

As a member of the Storting which passed the treaty, what would be your stance on this issue, and how would you attempt to handle it?

My stance would be to try and work with the other party to re-write that section of the treaty, and try and reach a compromise without breaching the Fundamental Laws. Due to the fact a treaty is benificial to both sides, a compromise between the two parties, perhaps re-writing the treaty to address the issues of Supporters and the Opposition.

The other party feels that this is an integral part of the treaty that cannot be changed. They have pretty much told us to take it or leave it as is.

Then I would not go for it, I would side with the opposition. The treaty is unconstitutional, and therefore can not be passed by the sorting, who is supposed to create laws to uphold the Fundamental Laws.

When it comes to legalism, there is a difference between petty "rule-mongering" and the faith and spirit of a document containing the laws and principles of our region. As an example, take the commerce clause in the United States. A lot of ineffectual and redundant legislation and regulation is created and passed on the legal interpretation of that clause. That is legalism, however if the state or federal governments refused to regulate the sales of say Auto Insurance or allowed currencies of different states to be created as in the Articles of Confederation, then that is not legalism. That would be a gross breach of the spirit and meaning of the law or clause for which it was intended.

So in this instance, that isn't legalism, but a gross breach of the spirit of the article that clearly defines the powers of the Storting, and is not trivial but critical to the underpinnings of the Storting's sovereignty. I would oppose the treaty.

We have some more questions Pope on this matter:

How would you respond to the argument that if the treaty be overturned because it is found to violate, via a non-aggression pact, Article One, Section 12 of the Fundamental Laws (Power to declare war), that it would prevent the Storting from ratifying any treaties with such non-aggression pacts, such NAP's being common in most NS treaties?

For those candidates supporting the stance that the hypothetical treaty is in violation of Article One, Section Twelve of the Fundamental Laws, what are you thoughts on the argument that the Treaty Between Wintreath and Lazarus is in violation of the self-same section of the Fundamental Laws, due to Article Three, Section Five of the above-referenced Treaty?

A non aggression pact should usually include a termination clause that contains two important features, one of which could be dual aspect. The first is probable cause, or a general clause of termination requiring no reason to be given. The second would be a notification period wherein one party serves notice that they intend to cancel their observation of the treaty. If a non aggression pact doesn't include at least the first (if ANY treaty doesn't) then I would never support its passage because such a treaty is unconstitutional under the hypothetical scenario presented.

With a cancelation clause, the treaty is not permanently binding and preserves the Storting's ability to exercise its rights.