|
The Cambrist Amendments
| |
| Crin_Star | Date: Sunday, 09 Jan 2011, 8:48 PM | Message # 16 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 313
Status: Offline
| Senator Cambrist while your points about titles themselves are correct the fact remains, however, that monarchies are effective means of governance, both on the galactic level, as we see with the empire, and on the planetary level. I would also like to make a few points in regards to your statement, the empire works not because its the only monarchy but because it is the only one on a galactic scale. While you may think that I am mincing words this is an important point. A king, especially on Volus, is essentially the executive head of a government with in some instances legislative and judicial rights. It is the planet who decides how to rule themselves and these branches would end up existing in one form or another. Whether it be a prefecture, king, Council of governors, and a House of nobles as exists on Volus or an elected monarchy as we see with Naboo, these are structures which will remain the same no matter what kind of government you have. The ONLY notable differences are going to be number of people and the names which you call them. Monarchies, senator, are not a problem on the planetary level as they are not competing with His Majesty, the emperor, for power. Instead they are governing a localized populace in a manner which that populace has consented to be governed.
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Sunday, 09 Jan 2011, 9:46 PM | Message # 17 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| You are right that to a large extent this comes down to titles, which is why I have placed such emphasis upon them. All of the governmental structures you have mentioned, for instance, could be captained by "Governors," "Prime Ministers," and "Presidents" instead of "Kings" or "Emperors," and there would be only one difference—the symbolic and, I would suggest to you, the important difference of worlds not having claims to rule that, in name, are clearly in contradiction with His Majesty's claim to rule. This is important because, while "they are not competing with His Majesty" now, there is no reason to believe that planetary claims to "kingdoms" and "empires" will never be abused to usurp His Majesty's right to rule. It is all too easy to imagine an unscrupulous ruler who justifies a usurpation of His Majesty's right to rule on the basis that he, not Palpatine, is ostensibly the "Emperor" of his people, or "King," etc. As I said, in absense of planetary monarchies there would be only this one difference. It is a positive difference, not a negative one, and it has no real bearing on how a world chooses to govern itself. Why, then, oppose the measure?
|
| |
| |
| Crin_Star | Date: Sunday, 09 Jan 2011, 9:50 PM | Message # 18 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 313
Status: Offline
| Because, Senator Cambrist, what this, and the other measure, support, even if its symbolic, is essentially telling the citizens of the Empire they have no rights in determining how they are governed on a local level. If the people choose it then that is their choice and we should not dictate from essentially on high the way in which they can set up their own governments.
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Sunday, 09 Jan 2011, 10:37 PM | Message # 19 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| As you and I have both said, "the way in which they can set up their own governments" isn't in question here. What is in question are what those governments, and leaders, are called. Just as a world shouldn't refer to its leader as "Palpatine" (as in, "Palpatine Antilles" is "the Palpatine" of his people), nor should it refer to its leader as "Emperor Antilles," or "King Antilles" or similar titles. I do think it's important, also, that this measure prohibits only new monarchies from being formed. Many of the existing monarchies, such as the Volusian monarchy, or the Garosian or Deralian monarchy, etc. have historical connotations to them; that is, they date from a time when those worlds were not part of an Empire, or subordinate to an Emperor. For historical reasons, of course, these monarchies should remain intact. But there is no reason and no excuse why a world, forming a government today, should call it an "empire," "kingdom," or what have you. Surely, Senator, you do not disagree.
|
| |
| |
| Crin_Star | Date: Sunday, 09 Jan 2011, 10:51 PM | Message # 20 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 313
Status: Offline
| Senator Cambrist, that is the reason for my opposition to this act. Planets should be allowed to form new monarchies if they so wish to. If it is the will of the governed or those duly selected by the governed to establish a monarchy, then that is their hereditary right as a planet. However if that language were to be removed and perhaps instead focusing on what we agree is the -real- problem, i.e. titles such as most honorable, then perhaps we can reach an agreement. An outright ban on the rights of people to select how they are governed at a local level though, I can not and will not support.
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Sunday, 09 Jan 2011, 11:10 PM | Message # 21 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| Since, again, the right to a form of government is not in question but, rather, to a style of government, I think you and I agree that what this comes down to is symbolism. You fear that this measure damages, symbolically, the supposed right of a world to style its leaders how it chooses, as "Kings," "Palpatines," "Grand Poobahs," etc. I maintain that this measure preserves, symbolically, the right of His Majesty, Emperor Palpatine, to rule without petty molestations of his right to do so. The question, Senators, is which of these symbols do we exalt more than the other? I would suggest to you all that some supposed right of a planet to have its own "Poobah" is not as important as the right of His Majesty to rule this Empire as wisely and benevolently as he has ever done.
Message edited by Senator_Cambrist - Sunday, 09 Jan 2011, 11:12 PM |
| |
| |
| LomenRyuun | Date: Monday, 10 Jan 2011, 9:40 AM | Message # 22 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 696
Status: Offline
| Druckenwell has no monarchy and as such, is unaffected. I vote in favor.
Lomen Ryuun
Senator, Doldur Sector
Senator, Druckenwell
Representative, Monor II (10 BBY - 9 BBY)
Representative, Geridard
Representative, Boranall
Representative, Therenor Prime
Vice-chairman, Defense Committee (Temporarily suspended)
Controlling Shareholder - Druckenwell Arms Corporation
|
| |
| |
| Tremaine_Fowlkes | Date: Saturday, 22 Jan 2011, 4:54 PM | Message # 23 |
 Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 881
Status: Offline
| Telos IV has no standing in Monarchy, even though we would have supported Constitutional Monarchy. Both Senators Star and Cambrist have brought compelling arguments to the Amendments. However, I am afraid I must choose to vote against. I do not believe in Monarchy, no offense to anyone who has a Monarchy system in place within their planets, but I also believe people should be able to choose whether their planetary government should be democracy or monarchy or dictatorship or whatever it is that they want. As long as they don't pose a threat to His Majesty, I think it should be allowed.
Tremaine Fowlkes
Senator of Telos IV
|
| |
| |
| Sate_Pestage | Date: Wednesday, 16 Feb 2011, 4:21 PM | Message # 24 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 639
Status: Offline
| As Senator Cerra's vote is indeed disqualified, the voting is tied. I am compelled by Senator Cambrist's arguments to vote in favor of his proposal and, thus, it is passed. Especially persuasive to me was the notion that the monarchies in existence today are from an era in which it was a Republic, and not an Empire, that ruled the galaxy. Considering that there is, now, an Empire—a form of monarchy—I truly see no need for planetary monarchies to be constituted henceforth, even if there is some historical merit in permitting those that currently exist to continue to do so. Despite the rather strident opposition of some Senators to this proposal, it is, indeed, a moderate one and one that the chair supports. It is, thus, passed.
Sate Pestage
Grand Vizier of the Empire
Assistant to Emperor Palpatine
Chair of the Imperial Senate
|
| |
| |
|
