Amendment to section 2;3;a; posthumus Discussion

[Lord Ravenclaw]

lol.

I find it funny because you weren't here when the cabinet had mandatory ministries. I am the only Pharaoh who has ever had to suffer with mandatory ministries, and by the time they were removed, it was too late for me to solve the problems they caused. I love it when you talk about things you actually have never experienced in this region as though you are an authority on the topic, it cracks me, and several other past Pharaohs up as well.

The Deshret opted to repeal them at the request of the Government who recognised that the offices were redundant with the exception of Justice. But I'll stop here, since you ignore most of what I say. It's not like I was the Pharaoh or anything.

Your attempts to return Osiris to the KRO style of laws have been noted. I hope you're prepared for it.

[Ainocra]

Considering that you are largely responsible for shaping my view on the subject of mandatory ministries being bad, a view you just reiterated for us all I might add, I fail to understand how you can claim that I pay no attention to your views.




My only desire is to prevent a future constitutional crisis and maintain a functioning government. Removing the clause requiring that a ministry be mandatory is the simplest way to accomplish that goal.



As for your other assertions, I will kindly ask that you refrain from publicly slandering me further as it is beneath you.

[Amerion]

-deleted-

[Ainocra]

While I appreciate the concerns raised herein I do feel as if they are a tad alarmist.

The Deshret and the courts are vested with more than enough authority to reign in the executive should it be necessary.
The justice ministry itself ultimately answers to the Pharaoh, so the contention that it can serve as any meaningful check on the authority vested in the executive is a little silly.

The fact is that no one is proposing the dissolution of the ministry but only the removal of the requirement that a scribe be assigned to head it.
It is clear that in it's current form it does not always work optimally and something needs to be done to fix it. Changing the State code is an important first step on that path.

In addition, the removal of this line from the state code would actually allow the Deshret more freedom to determine the shape of the ministry through legislation. Right now, any changes to it have to rise to the level of amendment to the state code. I would think that if it were removed then the Deshret would be free to enact legislation on the subject through it's normal process.

Fortunately for us all the ministry rarely sees use, so barring catastrophe we do have time to work on a solution.

That being said I renew my call to bring this to a vote.

[Datford-Zyvetskistaahn]

I'm still not sure I see the constitutional doom from which the Vizier seeks to save us or how having a Scribe of Seshat would cause the government to cease to function.

I still do not see also how removing the necessity of appointing a person formally as Scribe, and having expressly them approved as such by this place, but, instead, simply allowing someone to be designated with responsibility over the Priesthood of Seshat will assist in making more people willing to take on those responsibilities. If a person is willing to take them on, why does it matter if they are approved or not, except to give this place opportunity to further scrutinise them and to more effectively hold them, specifically, to account.

I am afraid I not sure I understand the new line adopted by the Vizier either, that requiring a ministry to exist and have a Scribe will produce a constitutional crisis, infringe on the Pharaoh's prerogatives and limit flexibility that would enable the Priesthood to operate optimally, whereas defining the Priesthood even further would not do any of these things.

Also, if I may offer advice to the Vizier briefly on his bill, it would also be wise, I think, to amend Sections 6 and 8 of the Criminal Codex Act, so as to remove or replace references to the Scribe of Justice and his deputies, as they could be construed as a continuing requirement for such a Scribe to exist.

[Ainocra]

I'm still not sure I see the constitutional doom from which the Vizier seeks to save us or how having a Scribe of Seshat would cause the government to cease to function.

I still do not see also how removing the necessity of appointing a person formally as Scribe, and having expressly them approved as such by this place, but, instead, simply allowing someone to be designated with responsibility over the Priesthood of Seshat will assist in making more people willing to take on those responsibilities. If a person is willing to take them on, why does it matter if they are approved or not, except to give this place opportunity to further scrutinise them and to more effectively hold them, specifically, to account.

I am afraid I not sure I understand the new line adopted by the Vizier either, that requiring a ministry to exist and have a Scribe will produce a constitutional crisis, infringe on the Pharaoh's prerogatives and limit flexibility that would enable the Priesthood to operate optimally, whereas defining the Priesthood even further would not do any of these things.

Also, if I may offer advice to the Vizier briefly on his bill, it would also be wise, I think, to amend Sections 6 and 8 of the Criminal Codex Act, so as to remove or replace references to the Scribe of Justice and his deputies, as they could be construed as a continuing requirement for such a Scribe to exist.

Councilor,

My reasons and intent are quite plainly spelled out. If you fail to grasp it then I suggest that you read it again.

There is no suggestion do do away with the justice ministry, only the requirement that a scribe be mandatory to head it.
No one is even suggesting that there not be a minister of justice, just that it no longer be mandatory.

[Amerion]

On the assumption that every nation interested has expressed their view on this contentious issue, I second the motion to bring this to vote as a means of hopefully definitively resolving this matter.

[Datford-Zyvetskistaahn]

The Vizier gives as the first reason for his bill the difficulty in finding a person to do the job, saying that it has rarely been staffed and that the most recent Scribe was a traitor, yet he has not explained, insofar as I can tell, how removing the necessity for whoever is given the job to be subject to a vote of approval by this place will suddenly lead to the Pharaoh being inundated with helpful citizens stepping forward for it.

He says that in order for the Pharaoh, and the executive more widely, to be able to govern the mandatory ministry must be removed, but he does not explain why this is so.

He reminds us that several Priesthoods, in the past, were mandatory, but that this provision was removed, yet he does not note that, in removing the mandatory nature of the other Priesthoods, the Priesthood of Seshat expressly retained that nature (I note that the reason for the retention given in debate on the removal of the old provisions is because the Scribe of Seshat is specifically named in the Criminal Codex Act as being responsible for bringing prosecutions and recommending sentences, yet the Vizier, despite clearly being so knowledgeable on the reasons for the past removal of mandatory Priesthoods, does not include the removal of those specific responsibilities and gives no reason why he does not, nor does he address the point that, by necessary implication of the specificity of the said Act, it may be the case that a Scribe continues, in effect, to be mandatory).

He says that the Priesthood has rarely been needed, yet does not explain why this means the requirement that it have a Scribe should be removed, when surely it only means that the tasks of whoever is responsible for it are few and that, therefore, it should be easy to appoint someone from within the executive as Scribe to fulfil those few tasks and for them to not be over-encumbered by them.

He claims that the mandatory existence of a single Scribe overly complicates the organisation of the executive, yet advocates that this place could then put more comprehensive restrictions on the said organisation, by prescribing the structure of the Priesthood, prohibiting the Vizier from holding Scribe's responsibilities, and bringing the Pharaoh before the Pschent (though he also claims that the ability to bring the Pharaoh before the Pschent in regards to the mandatory nature of the Scribe of Seshat risks a constitutional crisis), without any such complication.

He claims that the mandatory requirement of a Scribe of Seshat does nothing to increase oversight (and removing it would, therefore, not decrease oversight) and that it does not prevent the Pharaoh seeking to influence the Scribe (through threat of dismissal, for instance), yet he has not explained as to how removing the requirement for this place to specifically be informed of who will be responsibility for the Priesthood and for this place to be able to approve or deny whoever will be responsible will not in any way impact oversight, and he dismisses the possibility of an amendment to remove the Pharaoh's ability to so influence, claiming it would be repugnant to the separation of powers. (I feel it necessary to say that I did have note the Vizier's comment that "In [his] view having a mandatory ministry is an oversight that needs to be remedied in order to maintain a functioning government. ", I simply have disregarded it, in light of his later contrary comment and arguments to the effect that "This would have no effect whatsoever on the Deshret's powers of oversight in this, or any other matter.")

I believe that is those are the main points the Vizier raises and my problems with them, would he care to more adequately address them now.

[Ainocra]

Councilor

The problem is really quite simple despite your attempts to over complicate it.

The past several administrations have struggled to find anyone willing and able to do the job.

The Pharaoh approached several people all of whom turned down the job.

Had I not stepped in as a caretaker the ministry would have been left stagnant and without leadership.
To wit: it would not be functional.

Removing the mandatory position would make dealing with this continual issue much simpler for the executive by allowing it the freedom to reorganize the ministry as suits the needs of the Order.

A ministry that derives its powers from the executive cannot serve as any type of meaningful check on the executive as the executive is capable of simply dismissing the entire ministry if it so desires.

The executive is tasked with enacting the laws the Deshret puts forward.

The executive is elected by the Deshret.

Under the current state code the Deshret has the authority to remove the Pharaoh or any other member of the government from office.

This combination give the Deshret clear oversight of the executive without such a conflict of interest as described above.

So yes having a mandatory ministry is an oversight that needs to be rectified, and removing it would have absolutely no effect on the actual agency that is supposed to execute oversight of the executive, namely the Deshret.

It really is that simple.

[Datford-Zyvetskistaahn]

There seems to be a large area of confusion between myself and the Vizier which perhaps I could bridge. I do not see that removing the need for a person to be called a Scribe and be confirmed by this place will suddenly lead to what he describes as a systemic problem of people being unwilling to be responsible for the Priesthood of Seshat being resolved.

The Vizier seems to overlook a simple solution, in that the Pharaoh could actually appoint His chosen "caretaker" as Scribe, and so allow this place to have knowledge of said choice, for, and forgive me if I am mistaken, the present assumption of the responsibilities of the Scribe by the Vizier was not noted in any particular place, and to have opportunity to express approval of said choice through the confirmation vote. Then, once the Pharaoh has found someone more willing to take on the office in a permanent fashion, He can dismiss the "caretaker" in that capacity and nominate the said more willing individual. I think this also serves as a significant area of confusion between himself and myself, my argument is not that the Scribe functions as a check on the executive, it is that the Deshret having the ability to actually know and confirm who exercises holds the Scribe's responsibilities that is a check, and one that is far more precise than the sledgehammer of recalling the Pharaoh from office because this place dislikes a single divvying up of responsibilities.

If I may return to a slightly more combative tone, the Vizier also seems content to ignore what appears to be an large inconsistency in his proposal and other measures he advocates: to support his proposal he claims the requirement for the existence of a single Scribe is such a heavy burden on the executive that it will cause it to be unable to govern and that, instead, the Pharaoh must be afforded the freedom to organise the Priesthood as he sees fit (though the requirement for a single Scribe curtails that freedom in only a very limited way), yet he also advocates that this place could pass laws to prescribe the structures of Priesthoods or to prohibit the Vizier exercising responsibilities outside those expressly placed upon him and that these measures would be entirely permissible, they would cause none of the failures in functionality he posits to exist in having a single required Scribe, they would not lead to any sort of constitutional doom or infringe on the separation of powers.