View Topic

I hereby introduce this act:

Title
1. This act is to be cited as the Independence of the Chambers Act

Act
2. No person who is a Skrifa of the Underhusen may be a Peer of the Overhusen concurrently.
3. No person who is a Peer of the Overhusen may be a Skrifa of the Underhusen concurrently.
4. No part of this act prevents a candidate for election to the Underhusen from serving as a Peer, provided they were not elected.
5. Should any person who is a Skrifa wish to be appointed as a Peer they are required to resign as a Skrifa.
6. Should any Peer of the Overhusen be elected as a Skrifa, they are ineligible to be reappointed as a Peer until their term as Skrifa ends.

Exceptions
7. Should a Peer of the Overhusen run in an Underhusen Election in which there is not enough candidates to fill the legally selected amount of seats,
then the restrictions as detailed in Section Two (2) through Section Six (6) of this act do not apply.
8. Should the amount of candidates meet or exceed the number of Candidates within no more than one (1) hour prior to the close of nominations for Underhusen,
then the Monarch may chose to apply the restrictions as detailed in Section Two (2) through Section (6) of this act. If they chose not to do so, the candidate
is exempted from restrictions in accordance with Section Seven (7).

This act merely establishes, as law, the precedence prohibiting dual membership with an exception for if there is no other possibility.

5. Should any person who is a Skrifa wish to be appointed as a Peer they are required to resign as a Peer.

This doesn't sound right. If a person is a skrifa and wants to be a peer, they must resign as a peer?
I think it should be...

5. Should any person who is a Skrifa wish to be appointed as a Peer they are required to resign as a Skrifa.

5. Should any person who is a Skrifa wish to be appointed as a Peer they are required to resign as a Peer.

This doesn't sound right. If a person is a skrifa and wants to be a peer, they must resign as a peer?
I think it should be...

5. Should any person who is a Skrifa wish to be appointed as a Peer they are required to resign as a Skrifa.

Fix

Other skrifa members may wish to talk about this, but I give my full support for this bill now.

Can we just change this to:

Act
1. No person may serve as a Skrifa in the Underhusen and as a Peer in the Overhusen concurrently.

? Seems simpler and covers all the bases of people double dipping, people can still run in elections, they just can't serve, etc

Can we just change this to:

Act
1. No person may serve as a Skrifa in the Underhusen and as a Peer in the Overhusen concurrently.

? Seems simpler and covers all the bases of people double dipping, people can still run in elections, they just can't serve, etc

Theoretically yes, but I would argue no.

First off, there may be a situation (like what we found ourselves in this past election), in which we may not have enough people otherwise, and there may be a situation in which a person waits until last minute to stand to 'bump' out a candidate who would be excepted from the requirement, thus effectively cheating the region out of an election, and the other candidate from the seat. Next, I would prefer to cover out bases, to prevent any shenanigans from occurring looks over at Doc.

Right, I would still want the Exception provisions in the bill. I'm not sure what kind of loopholes would be created by using my clause vs the other clause...I feel like mine is sufficient and much more simpler. I think that having multiple clauses to try and counter all possible loopholes is actually more likely to yield loopholes than just a straightforward clause outlawing what we don't want: people can not serve in the UH and OH at the same time.

I'm with Chanku on this; there are instances where there may not be enough interest where we should allow Peers to stand for election, should they wish to.

I'm not sure this can be done through statutory law. Article IV Section 1 of the Fundamental Laws, which allows Citizens other than the Monarch to stand for election, would take precedence. If this can be done, what's to prevent the Storting from further restricting candidacy to the UH?

I think a better option would be to amend the section to include peers.

I'm not sure this can be done through statutory law. Article IV Section 1 of the Fundamental Laws, which allows Citizens other than the Monarch to stand for election, would take precedence. If this can be done, what's to prevent the Storting from further restricting candidacy to the UH?

I think a better option would be to amend the section to include peers.

Article IV, Section 1 of the Fundamental Laws states:

1. Only Citizens of Wintreath shall be eligible to vote in elections, stand for elected office, or assume any elected office. The Monarch may not stand for or assume any elected office.

However, this only says that elected offices are only available to Wintreans, and no one else (and also explicitly exempts the Monarch). This adds a restriction on who may vote, stand, and assume office. It does not, however, state that this is the ONLY requirements. This law does not permit, or otherwise contradict, this passage. It merely adds on additional requirements and caveats for standing and assuming an elected office (Specifically Skrifa).

In any case, there is nothing that can keep the Storting from restricting candidacy further as the Storting can make laws. There has been, in the past, consideration by Skrifa to introduce laws to restrict candidacy even further (admittedly, that was mostly from me), however none have never been introduced. The only reason this is being introduced this session is to codify what has been -- for seven years -- Customary Law and Precedent. I do not believe that any serious Skrifa would introduce such a bill, nor any serious Storting pass any such additional restrictions without good reason. The only person I believe to be of particular concern in such a bill would be Doc, but Doc does not make a majority of the Underhusen by himself.

I didn't realize that I'd posted that directly to the Underhusen area...I mean, technically I have the right to, but I usually post to the Citizens Platform instead. But since I'm here...

I don't agree with your interpretation of the section, but if I did I would say that's even reason that it needs to be fixed via constitutional amendment. The idea that the Storting (or any person or group really) can restrict who can vote in elections and stand for constitutional offices is dangerous...technically, that means the Storting could restrict candidacy for just about any reason. For example, around the time of your censure, there was a proposal put out (since deleted) that would have barred you from standing for Underhusen. It was explained that it was unconstitutional and the idea was quickly dropped, but if it's not unconstitutional...well, you see the can of worms that can open.

Obviously, the intent was to allow all Citizens the opportunity to take part in the legislature, restricted only by the selection mechanisms of each chamber (elections for the Underhusen, appointments for the Overhusen). It was an oversight that there's nothing that restricts Citizens from being in both chambers at the same time, and that should be corrected in the Fundamental Laws. If there truly is a belief that the Storting can further restrict who can stand and vote for Underhusen elections, then I think that should be corrected in the Fundamental Laws as well.

I didn't realize that I'd posted that directly to the Underhusen area...I mean, technically I have the right to, but I usually post to the Citizens Platform instead. But since I'm here...

I don't agree with your interpretation of the section, but if I did I would say that's even reason that it needs to be fixed via constitutional amendment. The idea that the Storting (or any person or group really) can restrict who can vote in elections and stand for constitutional offices is dangerous...technically, that means the Storting could restrict candidacy for just about any reason. For example, around the time of your censure, there was a proposal put out (since deleted) that would have barred you from standing for Underhusen. It was explained that it was unconstitutional and the idea was quickly dropped, but if it's not unconstitutional...well, you see the can of worms that can open.

Obviously, the intent was to allow all Citizens the opportunity to take part in the legislature, restricted only by the selection mechanisms of each chamber (elections for the Underhusen, appointments for the Overhusen). It was an oversight that there's nothing that restricts Citizens from being in both chambers at the same time, and that should be corrected in the Fundamental Laws. If there truly is a belief that the Storting can further restrict who can stand and vote for Underhusen elections, then I think that should be corrected in the Fundamental Laws as well.

I also don't typically post to UH forums, except for Librarian-related matters, but since this is about reading what the law (quite unambiguously, IMO) says, and the discussion is already here, I think I'll also make an exception.

At first I was also going to raise a concern about the constitutionality of this proposal, but after going back and reading the Fundamental Laws, I think it's quite clear that Chanku is in the right that everything in is legal and proper.

On the qualifications for UH elections specifically and in elections in general, the Fundamental Laws only say the following:

2. The Underhusen shall be comprised of no less than four and no more than seven Skrifa elected by the Citizens of Wintreath.

That is, we have here that all citizens can vote, but there is nothing here that says that all citizens can stand for election.

1. Only Citizens of Wintreath shall be eligible to vote in elections, stand for elected office, or assume any elected office. The Monarch may not stand for or assume any elected office.

This is very clearly a restriction on eligibility. It says that only citizens are eligible for any office (i.e., non-citizens are ineligible for all offices), not that citizens are always eligible to run for any office. I really don't see how you can misinterpret this, the language here is unambiguous.

7. Citizens shall have the right to stand for any elected government offices for which they qualify and to vote in any regional elections.

The key here is "for which they qualify." The Fundamental Laws clearly makes provisions, in general, for possible restrictions on elected positions (and as noted earlier, does not comment on restrictions, or lack thereof, for the Underhusen specifically).

The interesting thing here is that this is argument here is also one of the legal arguments for the constitutionality of Thane elections. (The other semi-valid one IMO, and one necessary to institute voting restrictions, is to have some sort of disclaimer saying that Thane elections aren't actually elections and are actually a poll. But since that has never been done—the Monarchy has always called them elections—and especially now that voting restrictions are gone, I think that by far the stronger argument is to just point at the "for which they qualify" clause.) The Riksrad is allowed to arbitrarily restrict who can stand for its elections because the Fundamental Laws not only doesn't say it's not allowed, but actually makes a specific exception for it. There is, similarly, nothing stopping the Storting from making restrictions on who can run for Underhusen.

Perhaps the intent was always to allow all citizens to stand for UH elections (which, since there are currently no restrictions in place, is indeed the case right now), and perhaps this was an oversight to not specifically open the UH to all citizens, and thus legally allow the Storting to change such things on its own. I don't know and don't particularly care tbh (edit: this is because I generally trust that the UH will act in good faith and that the OH will act as a check; the Storting already has wide power to unilaterally revoke citizenship and declare PnG, so having the ability to restrict UH eligibility, even if that power could theoretically be used on individuals, wouldn't be much of a stretch). But as it currently stands, I think it's pretty clear in the law that all of this is perfectly legal.

The interesting thing here is that this is argument here is also one of the legal arguments for the constitutionality of Thane elections. (The other semi-valid one IMO, and one necessary to institute voting restrictions, is to have some sort of disclaimer saying that Thane elections aren't actually elections and are actually a poll. But since that has never been done—the Monarchy has always called them elections—and especially now that voting restrictions are gone, I think that by far the stronger argument is to just point at the "for which they qualify" clause.) The Riksrad is allowed to arbitrarily restrict who can stand for its elections because the Fundamental Laws not only doesn't say it's not allowed, but actually makes a specific exception for it. There is, similarly, nothing stopping the Storting from making restrictions on who can run for Underhusen.

Thanes are part of the Monarchy, whose offices the Monarch can create, define, remove, and staff as they see fit according to Article II Sections 2 and 6. I believe these sections give me the authority to provide additional criteria for Thane elections as part of the process of staffing them, and that Article IV only applies to elections that the Fundamental Laws themselves mandate, such as the Underhusen. Even if we were to agree, the fact that the entire article could be bypassed by a change in wording goes to show the intent here. The Fundamental Laws clearly refer to the process of selecting Skrifa as elections, so such a change of wording wouldn't be possible from the Underhusen's end.

Perhaps the intent was always to allow all citizens to stand for UH elections (which, since there are currently no restrictions in place, is indeed the case right now), and perhaps this was an oversight to not specifically open the UH to all citizens, and thus legally allow the Storting to change such things on its own. I don't know and don't particularly care tbh (edit: this is because I generally trust that the UH will act in good faith and that the OH will act as a check; the Storting already has wide power to unilaterally revoke citizenship and declare PnG, so having the ability to restrict UH eligibility, even if that power could theoretically be used on individuals, wouldn't be much of a stretch). But as it currently stands, I think it's pretty clear in the law that all of this is perfectly legal.

Perhaps you should particularly care. Imagine a veto-proof Burn It Down Underhusen that legislates that nobody can run for UH elections. Such a scenario may be unlikely in the short term, but given recent events I think it's in the realm of possibility. It is the sort of legislation that I think would be up their alley...one that would functionally destroy the UH by purely statutory law. I have faith in the current Underhusen to do the right thing, and I believe this legislation was written with good intentions. However, I also think regardless of whether it's currently legal or not it creates a precedent that's more troubling than the one it's trying to end, which future Underhusens may utilize in pursuit of their own agendas. For those reasons, I still believe this should be resolved via constitutional amendment.

Can we just change this to:

Act
1. No person may serve as a Skrifa in the Underhusen and as a Peer in the Overhusen concurrently.

? Seems simpler and covers all the bases of people double dipping, people can still run in elections, they just can't serve, etc

I just want to point to my earlier suggestion. It seems like most of the debate over this bill has been about restricting who can run for elections. My suggested proposal avoids that (?), and if not, I still think it's a much easier and better way to meet our goal than trying to address every possible scenario with elections and whatnot. The end goal is to prevent someone from being in the UH and OH at the same time, so why not just say that outright?

Thanes are part of the Monarchy, whose offices the Monarch can create, define, remove, and staff as they see fit according to Article II Sections 2 and 6. I believe these sections give me the authority to provide additional criteria for Thane elections as part of the process of staffing them, and that Article IV only applies to elections that the Fundamental Laws themselves mandate, such as the Underhusen.

I've heard you bring up this line of reasoning before, and I simply don't see how it makes sense. Of course, the Monarch is free to choose any arbitrary method of selecting the positions in the Monarchy. But if you specifically make a position in the Monarchy that is chosen by election, especially when you codify it into law as you have with Decree 12, then that is pretty obviously an elected government office. In that case, everything that the Fundamental Laws says about how elected positions work takes precedence, as explicitly noted in the somewhat recently added Article VIII. Namely, that only citizens are allowed to qualify for an elected position (Article IV Section 1), and that all citizens who do qualify for an elected position are allowed to run for them (Article V Section 7).

Note that the Fundamental Laws do not say that that these clauses apply specifically to offices established within the Fundamental Laws. Other parts such as Article IV Sections 4 and 6 do, but the above are just general statements about elections. It would be very odd if we could reinterpret general clauses in the Fundamental Laws to only refer to the things specifically in the Fundamental Laws.

(And again, what Article IV Section 1 is saying is pretty clear language. It literally just says that only citizens are allowed to run for office, which is not relevant here, and doesn't need to not apply to Thane elections for them to work.)

Even if we were to agree, the fact that the entire article could be bypassed by a change in wording goes to show the intent here. The Fundamental Laws clearly refer to the process of selecting Skrifa as elections, so such a change of wording wouldn't be possible from the Underhusen's end.

I was a strong proponent of the "just don't call them elections" argument in the past, but recently I have strong doubts about whether that argument actually holds up. Even if you hadn't written a royal decree into law calling them elections, and even if you hadn't called them elections every time you run them, they are still run exactly the same way that other elections are done in Wintreath, and they are literally the dictionary definition of an election (voters vote for someone to take a government official position). Quacks like a duck, etc.

And again, the Fundamental Laws do not say that all citizens must be eligible to run for every election. They say that 1. only citizens may be eligible and 2. citizens can run for an office if they meet its qualifications. I am honestly quite confused as to how you're continuing to misread it.

Perhaps you should particularly care. Imagine a veto-proof Burn It Down Underhusen that legislates that nobody can run for UH elections. Such a scenario may be unlikely in the short term, but given recent events I think it's in the realm of possibility. It is the sort of legislation that I think would be up their alley...one that would functionally destroy the UH by purely statutory law. I have faith in the current Underhusen to do the right thing, and I believe this legislation was written with good intentions. However, I also think regardless of whether it's currently legal or not it creates a precedent that's more troubling than the one it's trying to end, which future Underhusens may utilize in pursuit of their own agendas. For those reasons, I still believe this should be resolved via constitutional amendment.

Under our current system, the Storting could also just pass a law saying that anyone who stands for Underhusen election loses their citizenship. And for good measure, maybe also change the appeal process for revoked citizenship to the Underhusen. This would also theoretically destroy the Underhusen via pure statutory law. The fact of the matter is that the Storting, under our current legal system, does have wide latitude of power relating to the legal system itself. This doesn't bleed over to the actual forum community because administration is entirely separate, of course, but when you look at what the Storting can do with certain legal things, there's quite a bit of leeway. Under such a system there's a bit of necessary trust here that this power does not get abused. At least we don't have parliamentary sovereignty like the UK does.

Perhaps I should clarify that when I said I don't particularly care in this instance, that was not about this bill or the precedent that this bill would set, but rather this theoretical abuse of this power and whether or not this power should be amended out of existence.