Sinners? If he forgives people, shouldn't he also forgive the sinners? Also, I do not insult our creator. I am merely pointing out flaws in the logic of some.
-
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.
Sinners? If he forgives people, shouldn't he also forgive the sinners? Also, I do not insult our creator. I am merely pointing out flaws in the logic of some.
William Clark clears his throat.
"Sir, I believe it would be best if we focused on the task at hand of creating a proper government, rather than debate scripture."
A Note to Mr. Sinclair
- Private -
- Private -
Delivered to Mr. Sinclair by a pageboy at the Constitutional Convention
Mr. Sinclair,
Mr. McEbin may very well fail to see how others may vote differently from him. Such a failure may stem both from simple-mindedness and a lack of foresight, particularly as it was in a statement made mere moments ago that Mr. Arreola articulated a possible composition for a bicameral legislature.
Furthermore, that the architects of the leading democracies of our time should have opted for bicameralism suggests in some measure that the impetus should be on the advocates of unicameralism to present cogent arguments in favour of such an arrangement – such as you have done in your most recent address to this Convention.
Nevertheless, it is the notion that the votes of men such as Mr. McEbin will be counted in equal measure with all others that give me reason at the present to gravitate towards a legislative system that divides the power of any law-making body.
Mr. McEbin may very well fail to see how others may vote differently from him. Such a failure may stem both from simple-mindedness and a lack of foresight, particularly as it was in a statement made mere moments ago that Mr. Arreola articulated a possible composition for a bicameral legislature.
Furthermore, that the architects of the leading democracies of our time should have opted for bicameralism suggests in some measure that the impetus should be on the advocates of unicameralism to present cogent arguments in favour of such an arrangement – such as you have done in your most recent address to this Convention.
Nevertheless, it is the notion that the votes of men such as Mr. McEbin will be counted in equal measure with all others that give me reason at the present to gravitate towards a legislative system that divides the power of any law-making body.
Mr. Chairman,
In response to the points raised by Mr. Sinclair, I must find disagreement with his notion that a bicameral legislature is an inherently federal phenomenon. Indeed, I fail also to comprehend how such an arrangement would in itself not be congruent with a unitary system of government. Certainly, I know of nothing that states that a federal system is requisite for the institution of two chambers of legislature. If it is the belief of Mr. Sinclair that a bicameral arrangement is fit only for providing representation to a set of hypothetical Californian states, then I fear he is misguided. One need only look to the various democracies of Europe to see that bicameralism may be instituted where no states exist.
With regard to Mr. Sinclair's argument that the presence of a second chamber does not inherently serve as a check on the first, he is quite correct. Nevertheless, it seems ludicrous to use this point in defence of the unicameral arrangement when neither is a second chamber inherently (to use his words) "simply a second chamber". Such specifics are not, however, being discussed at the present, and so, insofar as they remain as having not been discussed, we must refrain from using such assumptions in justification of our arguments.
I maintain, therefore, that a system of bicameral legislature, even at its most fundamental form, in no way hinders nor contradicts the principle of unitary government. Rather, regardless of how out state may be structured, it offers a far greater surety that the interests of both the people and the state may be respected in government.
In response to the points raised by Mr. Sinclair, I must find disagreement with his notion that a bicameral legislature is an inherently federal phenomenon. Indeed, I fail also to comprehend how such an arrangement would in itself not be congruent with a unitary system of government. Certainly, I know of nothing that states that a federal system is requisite for the institution of two chambers of legislature. If it is the belief of Mr. Sinclair that a bicameral arrangement is fit only for providing representation to a set of hypothetical Californian states, then I fear he is misguided. One need only look to the various democracies of Europe to see that bicameralism may be instituted where no states exist.
With regard to Mr. Sinclair's argument that the presence of a second chamber does not inherently serve as a check on the first, he is quite correct. Nevertheless, it seems ludicrous to use this point in defence of the unicameral arrangement when neither is a second chamber inherently (to use his words) "simply a second chamber". Such specifics are not, however, being discussed at the present, and so, insofar as they remain as having not been discussed, we must refrain from using such assumptions in justification of our arguments.
I maintain, therefore, that a system of bicameral legislature, even at its most fundamental form, in no way hinders nor contradicts the principle of unitary government. Rather, regardless of how out state may be structured, it offers a far greater surety that the interests of both the people and the state may be respected in government.
~Dr. Júpiter Arreola
"Learned Doctor, you are absolutely correct in that the basic principle of a second chamber is not un-unitary - if it were, it would have been folly for me to introduce this motion. However, the proposals to which I refer to, in which the second chamber is established as the representative of localities, is a federalist proposal, one wholly in contravention to the Guiding Principles. It is this proposal which I consul against, not the very concept of a second chamber.
I recognise the motion calling for the expulsion of the Monarchists. I thus call the motion to vote. Congressman shall vote in the affirmative if they wish the Monarchists to leave; in the negative if they wish for them to stay."
I recognise the motion calling for the expulsion of the Monarchists. I thus call the motion to vote. Congressman shall vote in the affirmative if they wish the Monarchists to leave; in the negative if they wish for them to stay."
"Mr. Chairman, does this Convention really have the power to expel properly-elected or appointed members simply because a majority happens to disagree with them?"
"If we truly live in a democracy installed on the virtues of liberty I find it distasteful to expel men for speaking their mind no matter how much I may disagree with what they believe in."
Statement to the Constitutional Convention
- On Monarchism -
- On Monarchism -
Mr. Chairman,
I thank you for opening a motion relating to the presence of Monarchists at the Constitutional Convention.
While I by no means support the creation of a monarchy in Californian, I am also of the opinion that we should not exclude those who wish to speak in favour of such a system [peculiar and foreign as such a system may appear to us.]
Whereas it seems clear to me that the monarchists among us are few and far between, the spirit of full and free debate would not be served if we were simply to eject those who disagree with us from participating in the robust discourse which this Convention provides.
Therefore, I vote: Nay – Let the monarchists remain.
I thank you for opening a motion relating to the presence of Monarchists at the Constitutional Convention.
While I by no means support the creation of a monarchy in Californian, I am also of the opinion that we should not exclude those who wish to speak in favour of such a system [peculiar and foreign as such a system may appear to us.]
Whereas it seems clear to me that the monarchists among us are few and far between, the spirit of full and free debate would not be served if we were simply to eject those who disagree with us from participating in the robust discourse which this Convention provides.
Therefore, I vote: Nay – Let the monarchists remain.
I motion to organize all lands east of the Colorado River as territories of California, granted a degree of autonomy, but whose residents are not awarded voting rights until their territories are connected and integrated.
I further motion to enforce the basic rights of property, freedom of speech, press, and religion, the right to organize militias, and the right to public assembly.
I further motion to enforce the basic rights of property, freedom of speech, press, and religion, the right to organize militias, and the right to public assembly.
Señors of the Convention, I grew up under four monarchs, the Bourbons and Napoleons of Spain, and the short-lived Mexican Empire. I also had to live under the autocratic rule of Santa Anna. While most Californios wish to see the Californian government respect and/or uphold their culture is the larger population compared to the Americanos, we do not wish to see our government turn into a dictatorship that ignores the liberties and freedoms we are born with. These monarchists are a complete and utter disgrace to the very fabric of democratic principle, and as such, I vote yes on the motion to expel the monarchists.
On the contrary, I ask the convention and Señor Presidente of the convention to put a motion forward for the establishment of a standing army, for at this moment our national defense consists of militia who can easily take advantage of their arms to undermine this convention for their own agenda and to further their beliefs.
-Juan Manuel Campo
On the contrary, I ask the convention and Señor Presidente of the convention to put a motion forward for the establishment of a standing army, for at this moment our national defense consists of militia who can easily take advantage of their arms to undermine this convention for their own agenda and to further their beliefs.
-Juan Manuel Campo
I am afraid that I have not yet seen a coherent proposal from Mr. Arreola regarding a second chamber. I have seen a basic concept, a sketch, in which "pillars of the community" would be somehow chosen to populate a second chamber, but no indication of how they would be chosen (Appointed, perhaps?) or from whom they would be chosen (Would they be men of property? Men of wealth?). My concern is that such a proposal will lead to the creation of an un-democratic aristocracy, empowered in a similar fashion to the British House of Lords.
However, this is just supposition on my part, as I have not seen anyone suggest the composition of a second chamber with significant details or mechanisms by which it would be selected. I have not heard which powers are proposed to be delegated to this second chamber, if indeed it will not exist to represent the needs of states. I therefore have difficulty seeing the rationale, understanding the motive, behind such an endeavor, because none has been presented to me.
I would appreciate if Mr. Arreola would elaborate on his proposal, so that I could understand the motivation for a second chamber beyond simple ornamentation. What I have heard so far suggests oligarchy or aristocracy, and that is alarming indeed, but I am sure that that is not his intention for this democratic Republic.
On an unrelated note, I do not support the views of the monarchists. I find their beliefs to be counter to everything for which we in this Convention stand. However, I also believe that this Convention stands for an independent California, and since we have admitted annexationists into our ranks, we cannot adhere to the principle of ejecting those who disagree with our fundamental principles unless we make it universal. Therefore, I vote No to the proposed motion.
Alexander Ulysses Sinclair
However, this is just supposition on my part, as I have not seen anyone suggest the composition of a second chamber with significant details or mechanisms by which it would be selected. I have not heard which powers are proposed to be delegated to this second chamber, if indeed it will not exist to represent the needs of states. I therefore have difficulty seeing the rationale, understanding the motive, behind such an endeavor, because none has been presented to me.
I would appreciate if Mr. Arreola would elaborate on his proposal, so that I could understand the motivation for a second chamber beyond simple ornamentation. What I have heard so far suggests oligarchy or aristocracy, and that is alarming indeed, but I am sure that that is not his intention for this democratic Republic.
On an unrelated note, I do not support the views of the monarchists. I find their beliefs to be counter to everything for which we in this Convention stand. However, I also believe that this Convention stands for an independent California, and since we have admitted annexationists into our ranks, we cannot adhere to the principle of ejecting those who disagree with our fundamental principles unless we make it universal. Therefore, I vote No to the proposed motion.
Alexander Ulysses Sinclair
Tis amusing that members of this convention seek to espoused the tenants of freedom and democracy yet, in the very same breath seek to expelled delegates for embrace their right to have beliefs no matter how different they are to the average person. You seek to expel me on no grounds other then I want a government with a monarch at its head, that some how this is undemocratic or bad for California as a whole. Now I would disagree with this sentiment as it implies a Monarchy is inherently authoritarian and would remove the rights of the people. How is this so? How would a Constitutional Monarch as, would be the only plausible Monarchy to be established during a constitutional convention, negatively affect California? Ask yourself this, how would have a King instead of a President make California worse? What would a King do that a President with the same powers wouldn't do?
Needless to say I vote: Nay, this would spit in the face of democracy and everything California needs to survive.
- Richard Scott
Needless to say I vote: Nay, this would spit in the face of democracy and everything California needs to survive.
- Richard Scott
Gentlemen, I believe that the best course for the Californian Republic is to use the United States as a model for our government. I believe that their government is one of the most successful in the world and one of the most unique in the world. I vote as follows:
I vote against a Unicameral Legislature.
I vote in favor of a single magistrate with executive power.
I vote in favor of an independent judiciary.
I vote against a Unicameral Legislature.
I vote in favor of a single magistrate with executive power.
I vote in favor of an independent judiciary.
Statement to the Constitutional Convention
– Point of Order -
– Point of Order -
Mr. Chairman,
I rise Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I refer the Honourable Chair to the recent motion advanced by Mr. Menzies, and seek clarification as to whether members of this Convention may create motions on substantive issues prior to a determination as to the composition of the legislature. Unfamiliar as I am with the protocols relating to this chamber, I await the judgement of the Honourable Chair on this matter.
Pray tell, who are these annexationists, Mr Sinclair - or are you simply spewing more of your nonsensical and unamusing hyperbole towards those who disagree with you?
Also, it must be stated that I oppose barring the monarchists from participating in the Convention, wrong-headed as their beliefs are.
~ H.J. Jarvis
Also, it must be stated that I oppose barring the monarchists from participating in the Convention, wrong-headed as their beliefs are.
~ H.J. Jarvis
I oppose the motion to remove the monarchist from the convention. Every ideology must be represented.
Grover doubles over laughing. Perhaps he is a moderate at the convention!
Sir, I find it hilarious that you say that expelling you is a spit in the face of democracy when you yourself seek to remove democracy. But, I shall still vote against the motion to expel the monarchists. For I believe in the principles of free speech.
I would like to clarify; I also support the right to free speech, but simply propose that the Monarchists exercise their right to it outside of this convention.
Statement to the Constitutional Convention
– on Unicameralism -
– on Unicameralism -
Mr. Chairman,
As Mr. Sinclair has indicated, the proposal of a bicameral legislature has yet to take full-shape, and the composition of a second-chamber has not been articulated in any complete form.
In a similar fashion, however, the concerns relating to the possible excesses of a unicameral legislature – namely the danger of a narrow majority exercising enormous power – has yet to be addressed by proponents of unicameralism.
It seems to me strange that the absence of a fully articulated vision for bicameralism should lead individuals to vote in favour of unicameralism, when a full understanding of that system likewise evades us.
Mr. Sinclair, in his previous statement, indicated that a unicameral system with limited jurisdiction – these limitations being the subject to a subsequent discussion – is a suitable means of addressing the concerns of an abuse of power.
I do not disagree with Mr. Sinclair, but simply and respectfully posit that the precise composition of a bicameral legislature may also be the subject of a subsequent discussion.
As Mr. Sinclair has indicated, the proposal of a bicameral legislature has yet to take full-shape, and the composition of a second-chamber has not been articulated in any complete form.
In a similar fashion, however, the concerns relating to the possible excesses of a unicameral legislature – namely the danger of a narrow majority exercising enormous power – has yet to be addressed by proponents of unicameralism.
It seems to me strange that the absence of a fully articulated vision for bicameralism should lead individuals to vote in favour of unicameralism, when a full understanding of that system likewise evades us.
Mr. Sinclair, in his previous statement, indicated that a unicameral system with limited jurisdiction – these limitations being the subject to a subsequent discussion – is a suitable means of addressing the concerns of an abuse of power.
I do not disagree with Mr. Sinclair, but simply and respectfully posit that the precise composition of a bicameral legislature may also be the subject of a subsequent discussion.
Point of Order - Mr. Chairman,
I am of the opinion that the recent quarrels between Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Sinclair serve more the point of a personal vendetta than any matter of substance to this Constitutional Convention. Should they both wish to serve the ministerial interests of this young Republic, I implore their persons to withhold any further disparages between their personal character. The fragile of this nation are served no better by such meaningless hostility.
Augustus Naddim Rothschild-Morgenthau