Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

[Forum Game] - Empire of the Pacific

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It is with disgust and outrage that I note the formation of a monarchist party and I urge my fellow patriots to ignore their poisonous words. We have seen enough of their ilk here in California and in Mexico to know that they are not worth our time. Let them speak and vote if they wish, because we know that they will not have the influence to corrupt our society. We will still stand loyal to the Californian Republic, and they will simply become a footnote in history at best.

-- Henry Fielding
 
Grover had realized just how radical his party's positions were compared to the other parties. Could there be a party more radical? No. There would have to be a party wishing for a monarchy! He laughed at that idea.

But then someone actually created one.
 
A most absurd and hilarious enterprise, I percieve. There is only one Monarch - the Lord, our God.
 
Wishing to express his own views on the matter of unicameralism, Dr. Arreola stands to seek the attention of the Chamber:


Mr. Chairman; Honoured Gentlemen of Congress,

The issue of whether our government be unitary or otherwise having been laid to rest without having aroused in me any great expressions of emotion, I pray that I am given elucidate my thoughts on the current matter of unicameralism – on whicnI find my views to be far more definite.

My initial sentiments can be encapsulated well by the words of Mr. Allard-Hensdale, who opined recently (and you must forgive my paraphrasing) that "government is not designed for angels". This rings quite true. It is evident that, if it is dominance of the government by one faction that provokes alarm, such a situation would be far more easily fostered by a unicameral legislature than one of multiple chambers – it being generally accepted, I believe, that to exert full control over multiple organs is, in the main, more trying than to do so over only one body.

Such a situation is not wholly precluded in a bicameral arrangement, however, and so I feel it pressing to offer my own thoughts on the problem of partisan control.

If it is indeed our desire to construct a legislature that allows the will of the electorate to be expressed and acted upon in concert with the needs of the state, it seems clear to me that a second chamber be instituted by way of checking and balancing the first. To offer an alternative explanation: one chamber would serve the interests of the populace via their elected representatives, who would carry out legislative business as in any other democracy in the civilised world with a shred of credibility to its name. A second chamber, composed of independent pillars of the community, would then serve to review and examine resolutions so as to ensure that they are appropriate and sympathetic to the needs of the people.

Under such a system, each chamber would serve to complement and balance the other: one able to conduct business as it feels necessary; the other, a means of ensuring that such business would truly be in the interests of bettering the state.

It is in taking these arguments into account that I therefore find myself opposed to the motion in question: that this Convention believes in a unicameral legislature for the Californian Republic.
 
I, Samuel Clawson vote thus:
I Vote against Unicameral Legislature. I do think that two houses; one based on the natural regions of out nation, one based on the demographical make-up of our nation, would represent the people of California in the best manner.

I Vote against single magistrate with executive power. As many governments in Europe show, having a separate Head of State and Head of Government leads to a more cohesive and representative system. While I admit that I do not know of a non-monarchical form of government that has such a practise, I am sure that one could easily be devised.

I Vote for a free and independent judiciary. The people cannot be properly judged if the judge themselves is not of a impartial mind, and thus has no ulterior motive, which a partisan judiciary would create.

~Samuel Clawson
 
I am not averse to those arguments which call for divided legislative power -- their points seem to make a great deal of sense at first glance, and after the tyranny of Santa Anna who would not be properly wary of dictatorship?

However, the simple truth is that the existence of a second chamber is not itself a check on legislative power, but rather simply a second chamber, and one which must have an inherent purpose if it is to serve the people well. I have yet to see a bicameral proposal which presents a coherent and useful second chamber when the proposal is not itself federalist in nature, and did we not just resoundingly reject the federalist model?

If my fellow delegates are so concerned with the accumulation of power in the central government, then I call upon them to make their voices known in the subsequent debates when we assign powers to the government. However, as with the argument over unitary and federal government, this is not a debate over government power or accountability, but rather a debate over government structure, and the unicameral model is most appropriately structured to the unitary government we have chosen to adopt.

Despite being properly wary of tyranny, I must say that I am equally opposed to the notion of dividing up the executive into two persons. I would instead argue that we have a single President, embodying the functions of both Head of State and Head of Government in his person, and that we instead create an empowered legislative leader, a First Consul of our unicameral Senate, to guide debate and oversee the proper functioning of the legislature.

I caution my fellow delegates against an instinctive adherence to American systems as a panacea for future tyranny and populism, and instead direct them toward finding new solutions uniquely tailored to our vibrant new Republic. That is the only true way forward for California and her citizens.

Alexander Ulysses Sinclair
 
Statement to the Constitutional Convention
- On Unicameralism - ​


Mr. Chairman,

My sentiments relating to unicameralism find full expression in the statement made by Mr. Arreola. Of course, the composition of the two houses would have to proceed subsequent to the approval by this Constitutional Assembly of a bicameral legislature. Nevertheless, Mr. Arreola has outlined a vision of bicameralism – to wit, one popularly elected chamber and another body composed of “pillars of the community,” to employ the phrase of Mr. Arreola. This arrangement seems to me agreeable, but prior to such discussion as to the specifics of bicameralism, I am eager to learn – referring you, Mr. Chairman, to prior qestions raised relating to the implementation of a unicameral system, to which I am not, in principle, opposed – what measures can be taken to create a single-chambered legislature while mitigating the deep and relevant concerns surrounding the potential abuses of power.

​
​
​
 
"I shall bring the vote on the motion in regards to the judiciary to a close. By my count is has passed, and therefore, this Convention has ruled in favour of a free and independent judiciary. Let this resolution be added to the record-book.


Guiding Principles
Of the Constitution of the Californian Republic​

Resolved that the government of the Republic shall be unitary;

Resolved that there shall be a free and independent judicary;​


Voting for the remaining motions remains open. I shall take this opportunity to remind those Congressmen, whom in their discussion of the matter of bicameralism, propose federalist upper chambers, that any such measure would be in violation of the Resolved Principles that have been established by the will of this Convention. Any proposal that violates those Principles already established shall not be considered for debate or discussion.

As for the matter of the Californian Monarchists, while their doctrine is quite clearly laughable and alien to the spirit of this Republic, they may only be expelled from this Convention by the vote of the absolute majority of the delegates. If any individual were interested in pursuing this expulsion, I ask them to call for it now, although I shall require a second before actively considering the motion.

In answer to the honourable Gentlemen, I highlight the role of the executive and of the judiciary in restraining the excesses of the legislature."
 
I cast my vote for the motion of the unicameral legislature and the motion of an independent judiciary.

However, I cast my vote against the motion for a single chief magistrate.

Alexander Kingston,
Representative for San Diego
 
99KingHigh said:
A most absurd and hilarious enterprise, I percieve. There is only one Monarch - the Lord, our God.
Click to expand...

According to your logic, all people on earth, have an absolute monarchy under god.
 
Mikkel Glahder said:
According to your logic, all people on earth, have an absolute monarchy under god.
Click to expand...
Well, it is fortunate that our ruler is very benign and forgiven.
 
Qwerty7 said:
Well, it is fortunate that our ruler is very benign and forgiven.
Click to expand...

Benign and forgiving? He did drown most of earth population for not believing in him once. That is not exactly what I would call benign and forgiven.
 
Shynka said:
I call to expel the Monarchists from the convention! Let them not poison the liberty we thought for with their wicked ideology.
Click to expand...

I, William Clark, second this motion.
 
Mikkel Glahder said:
Benign and forgiving? He did drown most of earth population for not believing in him once. That is not exactly what I would call benign and forgiven.
Click to expand...
He drowned them out because they were sinners Sir. Our lord forgives the sins of people. I suggest you stop insulting our creator, lest someone calls you a Satan worshipper.
 
Mr. Shaw is confused how debate of unicameral legislatures and single-seat executives has instead turned to discussion of the Old Testament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back