Imperial Diet V

**FactionHeir** · 08-19-2007, 04:51

The definition of a charter amendment is that it requires a 2/3 diet majority to pass.
If you deem this unclear, then point a could also mean that only an edict has to be proposed but not passed. We certainly would not want this to happen, yes?

**Privateerkev** · 08-19-2007, 04:55

Right but Count Matthias is asking whether you need to propose the CA at all. By his question, all territories captured this past term all go up for an automatic vote. I think if it was meant to be that way, then clause (b) would read;

(b) Captured settlements will be abandoned or given away unless, at the next Diet session, 2/3rd's of the Diet vote to incorporate them formally as part of the Reich.

**FactionHeir** · 08-19-2007, 04:56

Yes, that rings true Jan, and is the way I understood it as well.

**Privateerkev** · 08-19-2007, 05:02

I wasn't even politically active when this thing was passed but I'll take a crack at it.

(b) of CA 10.2 means you need to;

first, propose a CA for the territory you wish to be part of the Reich

second, get a 2/3 vote for that CA to pass

if CA passes, the territory is part of the Reich and becomes Imperial until the Kaiser gives it to a house

if CA fails, the territory is to be abandoned or given away

if no one proposes a CA for a newly captured territory, then it is to be abandoned or given away.

How am I doing?

**GeneralHankerchief** · 08-19-2007, 05:13

Jens Hummel:

Really, this whole argument is ridiculous and a waste of time.

The rules clearly say that a Charter Amendment is required to incorporate new territories into the Reich. So that means that...

Someone proposes a Charter Amendment,

People second the Amendment,

And then they vote on it.

If it passes then hey, it's a part of the Reich! Hooray, we're powerful! Drinks all around! If it fails then it's not a part of the Reich and must therefore be given away or sold. I fail to see how this legal obfuscation improves discussion at all aside from the fact that it swells certain people's heads just because since it appears that they dabble in legal matters more than the rest of us they consider themselves smarter.

Erm... where was I... Ah yes, I am Jens Hummel, I am here to serve.

**Privateerkev** · 08-19-2007, 05:17

Young Jens, I think that is exactly what I said. I don't need to dabble in legal affairs to have a swollen head!

*laughs*

But anyways, welcome to the Diet. May your participation be longer and more meaningful than others of your family.

**GeneralHankerchief** · 08-19-2007, 05:20

Jens Hummel:

Well then, if it's so agreed-upon then why bother discussing it in the first place?

Charter Amendment 12.2: Anyone found to be excessively over-complicating simple legal matters is to be banned from the Diet until they publicly apologize. Repeated violations will result in longer bans.

And anyone who has the balls enough to question me about the specifics of this law can go to Hell.

Good day everyone.