The Constitution

Due to the fact that the recently introduced Third amendment seems very likely to cause a Coup d'etat every time a WA delegate comes to power, I propose a change to it. This change would be changing the Third Amendment to five people over three, meaning stable Government can be formed while the corrupt can still be overthrown.




NOTE: Can King Wake I please not delete this poll?

I would just like to inform you all that I voted to let the Amendment stay: this is a show of my virtue and honesty.

Grand Duke Henry wrote:I would just like to inform you all that I voted to let the Amendment stay: this is a show of my virtue and honesty.

This is an evident last ditch attempt to win over the public's opinion; an attempt which I should hope is ignored by that public. This amendment needs to be changed if we ever want a government to remain in power for its full term, or it will immediately be put on trial by its opponents so they can have a run at government sooner.

The third Amendment shall remain. However do we think that the number of nations should be increased to five to show a more convincing majority of the region

Secretary-General Cliff wrote:
This is an evident last ditch attempt to win over the public's opinion; an attempt which I should hope is ignored by that public. This amendment needs to be changed if we ever want a government to remain in power for its full term, or it will immediately be put on trial by its opponents so they can have a run at government sooner.

This is precisely what Secretary-General Cliff is doing - when my Government acted with audacity in trying to preserve our National Security, he and certain allies moved agaisnt us in order to knock us from power. My Government is being put on trial "by its opponents so they can have a run at government sooner"."

The accusation that I merely wanted to depose of Henry is not based on any application of facts but the simple use of an honest attempt to improve Duetarian Law to attack his opponents. I would have attempted to charge Henry of these heinous crimes no matter what my personal agenda; the trial may well outlast Henry's term anyway with the rate Lloyd is going at...

"Look, I think that it is obvious that if the Telegram Operators supported the cause of Duetarian security vouchsafed by Ravenburg-Morovia they would never have attacked us in an ad hominem and personal, not to say distasteful, way," says Count Berchtold in the Grand Council Hall, "The simple fact is that we acted only to save Duetaria from invasion, perhaps acting in a mildly authoritarian way. However, charges of illegal conduct were then trumped up by Secretary-General Cliff and Grand Nomad Lloyd - no relation to his agenda? The Trial is Secretary-General Cliff's agenda.

"Furthermore, my declaration that we voted to keep Amendment Three was actually nothing more than a show of our deep-seated honesty in diplomacy. If we had genuinely acted illegally, then my Government would have spurned expediency and voted to throw out the amendment now being manipulated to oust us from Democratically-elected power. As it trasnpired, we have acted only legally, and hence vote to keep a flawed but essential amendment."

Grand Duke Henry wrote:"Look, I think that it is obvious that if the Telegram Operators supported the cause of Duetarian security vouchsafed by Ravenburg-Morovia they would never have attacked us in an ad hominem and personal, not to say distasteful, way," says Count Berchtold in the Grand Council Hall, "The simple fact is that we acted only to save Duetaria from invasion, perhaps acting in a mildly authoritarian way. However, charges of illegal conduct were then trumped up by Secretary-General Cliff and Grand Nomad Lloyd - no relation to his agenda? The Trial is Secretary-General Cliff's agenda."

Is Henry hereby implying that I do not stand for Duetarian security? I am not saying that I don't, just that Henry's methods of enforcing it look uncannily like invasion. Using client states such as Madhav to invade? He should not dare talk of security.

Postmaster Madhav is not my 'client state' - it is an entirely separate political entity that invaded Duetaria, and that I expelled. Why doesn't the Prosecution understand that I will allow Berrington to return to Duetaria as soon as it is liberated?

What was the point of expelling it then?

Please keep trial related discussion to the trial.