Chairman and members of the Commission,
I present before you Part III of the Constitution with the proposed ammendments. The part to corrected or eliminated is in bold, and you will be able to read the reasons for the proposed ammendment in italic right next to it.
I expect to hear your views on the matters exposed below.
Sincerely,

Pt III, Article 14 - I believe that this may have been introduced in the possiblity of Alexandria creating a housing market within an economy. As such, I agree with Monsieur Beaufort that it should be removed but I do ask that Parliament consider attaching it to a larger bill which deals with something in the economic arena.

Pt III, Article 15, Clause 3 - I disagree with Mssr. Beaufort on this point. I think this all relates to the power of patronage. Yes, the Prime Minister does do all these functions as is stated. Yet, he does so through the Emperor's person and I believe that if we do not want to weaken the Imperial Monarchy to a point of irrelevancy in Alexandrian Society and if we still wish to assert the constant presence of our monarch above the murky waters of politics we should keep this Clause.

Pt III, Article 15, Clause 8 - From what I'm aware, Hanover is a different sort of Micronation so this part of the clause may just well need to stand.

Pt III, Article 15, Clause 15 - I'm afraid I disagree with the reforms you propose here. It isn't unnecessary to mention the Emperor's power to introduce bills for a number of reasons. The first is that in accordance with the separation of powers in Alexandria, the Executive should not mix with the Parliament although this is somewhat murky in Alexandria. The second is that the Emperor is no ordinary citizen. The Emperor is the Head of State and above us, his subjects. Due to the separation of powers, I do not think it is right for your proposed amendment allowing the Emperor to participate in debate. He can add his own considerably weighty thoughts to a debate but not inside Parliament. He can do that by addressing the nation.

In regards to Article 11, I am completely opposed to changing it. However, I do agree that the declaration thing could be overly complicated, but making sure that all bodies of government have a copy of the declaration is important.

In regards to Article 14, I believe we should leave it as is, just to add realism to the simulation in Alexandria, and it could add more realism to the economic simulation. I am opposed to getting rid of it.

In regards to any of the reforms in Article 15, I am completely opposed to any changes here proposed. The changes proposed by Beaufort would erode the power of the monarchy, making it useless and more prone to be gotten rid of. However, on the specific matter of Article 15, clause 8 - we should probably change Hanover to Alexandria. This part was probably copied from the Hanoverian constitution and someone forgot to change the name there! :huh:

I noticed that most of the things Beaufort wanted to get rid of he catalogues as unnecessary. I respectfully disagree. It is important that we outline things specifically, because ambiguity can allow for many, many unpleasant things to happen.

I wholeheartedly support His Honor's views in Article 15, Clause 15. I could not have said it better myself.

I want you to consider a bill I drafted in cooperation with Matthieu Poitiers, the Emperor, the Dauphin and other members of the Conservative Party that would amend the constitution and add new things. It is currently sitting on the Hopper, awaiting action.

http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2306

What you have appeared to do is to try and circumvent any findings or proposals that this Commission has made or will make. If this is the case, I am severely disappointed. The Constitution should be above politics and you have placed me in a very difficult position by proposing this. As a judge, I am supposed to be politically neutral. If I show support for your bill, I will be declaring support for the Conservative Party's reforms. The reason this Commission was established was to make sure the Constitution was not sullied by Partisanship point scoring.

Snr Frias, I ask that you save face and withdraw this Act immediately. However, if you don't withdraw it as I anticipate, I hope you allow each member of Parliament to scrutinise it without the party whip being applied by the Conservatives.

Your Honor,

I have been paying very close attention to the processes here in this Commission, and I believe that you guys are doing a fine job. I commend everyone for taking their time in doing their thorough examination of the Constitution.

Upon reading Monsieur Frias' post, I do not believe he was trying to politicize the Convention at all or to push a "Conservative Agenda". I believe he is merely presenting reforms he had drafted earlier that he wanted to be integrated in the reform effort.

I commend you very much for your efforts in remaining neutral and chairing this commission. You are doing an incredibly awesome job in directing this conference and keeping your neutraility. However, I believe that maybe this Commission could be an opportunity to "kill two birds with one shot". Constituents from all Alexandria should be able to send their concerns to the representatives in this Constitutional Commission, and as part of Alexandria, I urged Frias to take the reforms from that bill and try to present them to the Commission in hopes that the proposals could be discussed and a decision be made. Parliament is slow, and this seemed like a better vehicle of bringing about needed reform.

I suggest that instead of trying to humiliate someone who seems to be trying to genuinely want to help achieve the Commission's goals, we should probably with more tact, encourage the person to offer the reforms he wishes to propose in a different manner.

It seems to me that the only reason why his post was outrageous was because he took a previously drafted bill and brought it here to consideration. I agree, bills are for Parliament and are subjected to political debates and partisan debates. However, the reforms and proposals here presented should be given the adequate consideration. (Plus, look around. There aren't barely any Conservatives anymore.)

I apologize and i will present these reforms in a different manner, I hope I did not offend anyone I was merely trying to bring reforms I had drafted in collaboration with other alexandrians to the forefront.

I did not mean to make this Commission a Conservative rubber stamp.

Well, as I've stated before the Commission shouldn't really oversee this bill at all. That is Parliament's job and Parliament should do it. Reading this Bill also provokes the larger question in my mind. Are we all citizens or subjects? That question then leads onto the even larger question of whether Alexandria wants the Emperor to have more control or to lessen his control? Although this Commission was created with a view to encompassing every view in Alexandria, it is not elected and does not have the remit to consider such large questions. Parliament does and so this Bill that Snr Frias has asked to be considered by us really should be put before Parliament rather than before the Commission.

Your Imperial Highness, you stated that Snr. Frias did not push the Conservative Agenda. He may well not have done, but by writing that this bill had been written in collusion with Conservative politicians and approved by the Conservative Party, he created the impression that it was and if I had approved it it would have created the impression of an endorsement of Conservative Policy by myself and therefore, the High Court. I also think it takes far more than a stern word from myself to humiliate or put down someone of Snr Frias' calibre. A former Prime Minister is far more resistant than that.

Your Honor,

With all due respect i am not sure where this comes into play in this matter i believe that is better left out of the matter, the matter at hand is whether a member of this commission can truly being ideas.

i am disappointed because i did not mean to politicize this commission and i just wanted to bring ideas for constitutuonal reform. obviously, bringing ideas is frowned upon in this commission.

i have not been meaning to destroy the purpose of the commission nor to bring support from the courts to the Conservatives because everyone belonging to this commission is indeed a member of a party. are we going to construe any ideas brough forth by the Grand Duke of Ibelin as exclusive ideas from the alexandrian anti-party which he belongs to? are we to construe any ideas brought by the prime minister as ideas from the PDP?

this is very sad, and this commission has been unorganized since the beginning. we should have drafted a small, easy set of rules of procedure because we witnessed how His honor took it upon himself to create a vote out of nowhere, to create a vote on a matter that has not been discussed thuroughly.

if the matter now is of what goes to parliament, then one relizes that the only people that can amend the Constitution is the Imperial parliament, and not the commission. This would imply that the commission is the unconstitutional and that only parliament should be considering reforms.

So much for conciliatory tones. Obviously giving an inch means people will take a few yards.

I'm always afraid of people saying "With all due respect," as usually none is given to the person it is addressed at. I'm afraid I've been proven right in my suspicions.

The matter at hand has never been whether a Member of this Commission can truly bring ideas. The matter at hand has been the Constitutional Amendments you asked for in the form of an old Parliamentary Bill. Bringing ideas is not frowned upon by this commission, as you very well know. I have brought ideas here and so has Jacques de Beaufort and we have discussed these ideas rationally and pleasantly, without frowns.

You have stated that you're not trying to solicit support from the Courts for the Conservative. That I believe. However, your arguments for construing the Grand Duke of Ibelin's proposals as part of the Anti-Party Party's agenda or the Prime Minister's views as PDP agenda are wholly wrong. You're mistake in this, Snr. Frias, was to propose this Bill for recommendation by stating that it was considered and drawn up by Conservative Party politicians. Perhaps if you hadn't done that, I would have been more open to the ideas you presented. However, by placing them so close to the Conservative Party as you did I was duty bound to reject them in the interests of neutrality.

If you wish to comment on the organisation of this commission, you do so in private Snr. Frias. I'm not sure about the part of the world you're from, but in Britain it is a long held convention that a politician never criticises a judge in public in the manner you have. An easy set of rules were established in which each member was given a task to do and was to publish their report on that section of the constitution within a week. So far, Snr. Frias I have not seen your report on your section. As for the vote issue, forgive me for being so radically minded that I took my reforms out of the general thread and put them in a separate thread with a vote there for preliminary purposes so a refined version of the reforms could be drawn up.

The Imperial Parliament are the only ones allowed to amend the Constitution, as was pointed out by the Emperor himself and when I was given my remit by the Prime Minister. This Commission was set up only to propose reforms which would then be submitted to the Imperial Parliament. Even if I had approved your Bill, Parliament would still have needed to vote on it.

I'd like this matter to end here, Snr. Frias and Your Imperial Highness. It has been blown out of proportion by Snr. Frias in his latest statement and I did not take the decision lightly to rebuke him in this matter. I ask Your Imperial Highness to try and calm Snr. Frias down. If Snr. Frias insists on being so openly disrespectful, he will face the consequences.

i think that if this becomes a big debate on this then i am thinking that we take this up to the impieral parliament after the break. i am seeing that we're starting to limit the Emperor's powers which is im thinking unfair considering how much efforts he puts into the nation and also the fact that it is HIS nation too.

jose, count on my support.

Poiters. MP for PN.

As far as I'm aware, there have been no attempts by this commission as a whole to limit the powers of the Emperor.

I'd like to say a few things before this comission, to set the records straight:
The Emperor knows that he has no more passionate and loyal subject than myself, I have pledged my alligiance to the Emperor and the Empire and would never do anything to undermine his authority.
When I first drafted this reforms it was with the sole object of make things simpler, and while doing that I missed the bigger picture: for this I apologise. But mainly this is what this comission is for: to prevent this sort of mistake that I made going steady and to be able to make them right: and for this I am thankful.
I appreciate all the comments, and would like to take this text again to revise it more carefully and suggest a the reforms that are nedded by taking into consideration all of your suggestions.

Sincerely,

Your Honor, As speaker of the house I stayed out of the argument over teh bill, believing it would not have been profesional in my role. I however, now the bill has came before parliament, urge you to consider it fully.

I however feel that trust has been breached in this commision and fear we may not accomplish our goals now. If this is the case then let us disband it immediatly. My time is growing more and more valuable to me as I approach exams, and I don't want to waste it flogging a dead horse. If we are to continue, we much ALL continue or else there is no point.

Faithfully,

Pete James
Speaker.

I will consider the Housekeeping Constitutional Act then. However, due to exams too I will not be able to do this properly until next week.

Thank you your honor

(finally found this forum again) your grace, citoyen de beaufort we fully and completely understand that you simply want to make the consitution simpler and easier to read. at least i do understand.

Poiters. MP for PN.

Thank you Your Grace.

Sincerely,