The Mercurian Empire :: View topic - Reincorporating the Act of Definitions

Well, for one, the acts of definitions were never laws before. They were philosophical references. They had no statutory merit before. Now, they are somewhat worded so as to describe duties in reality (e.g. Calling the emperor an ambassador) rather than describing their philosophical origins. As such, if the acts serve no philosophical nor statutory purpos any more, do they need to be laws? Perhaps we can keep the excellent wording above as a reference document somewhere in our forum and library. It was probably not a good idea to even have the old act of definitions in the past too, but fortunately it was never cited and was treated purely as a reference document back then.

Doesn't matter what direction the Empire takes, and I stand behind the Empire regardless of its choice, but I'm going to do my duty and remain a bit of a defender of our status as an empire and will continue continue resist statutory incremental crawls towards some sort of Republic

As such, my suggestion to those whose ears will hear it: do we even need this Act? What purpose does it serve? Thanks for your patience with my recalcitrance

Agreed, the titles were only given a historical definition in that old link. That entire act served no statutory purpose. It served more like those parliamentary pronouncements nations often do, that recognize history formally. Whether or not it qualified as a law and act at all is probably legitimately debatable.

And, arguably, a system with an explicitly symbolic head of state is indeed a Republic.

A constitutional monarchy gets its authority from the crown, which is of course deeply dependent on parliament for its will (or entirely dependent). Systems that appoint non-crown heads of states make them presidents with power in some cases (US) or symbolic titles with no power, but are all republics. it's an incremental move towards republicanism to explicitly define your head of state as ceremonial.

Author:	Wysterian Labourer's Council [ August 23rd, 2016, 5:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Reincorporating the Act of Definitions
No one is voting yet! This is our platform for initial discussion, and why it is so crucial to hear from as many different perspectives as possible. Everyone's insight is thoroughly appreciated and will towards the crafting of our great language - this is the stuff Hermertia is made of. I for one greatly appreciate your reflections, Regent: your thoughts here demonstrate why it is so important to hear from those who can shed valuable light on the original spirit and values of our older legal language. The issue of maintaing the traditional definition for Emperor is a compelling point. Limited discussion so far has reveled a number of us to be of the opinion that some lanaguge is perhaps a bit outdated, though there is just as much ( particularly concerning the Emperor's role in being the representative of objectivity of truth ) that should remain. Now that we have the benefit of the original spirit of the wording we can work towards this with greater insight. I'm on my phone right now, but will have a stab at it later this evening. Thanks all!

Author:	The Regent [ August 23rd, 2016, 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Reincorporating the Act of Definitions
Very helpful synthesis if Minerva's feedback, thanks so much Nicholas. This is a good document, and all the community revisions are powerful and accurate. But if it is just an act to clarify historical origins and purpose of titles, maybe we dont need it as an act like we once did. The Indoles Carta is superb thanks to the community, and covers all powers and roles well.

Author:	The Regent [ August 23rd, 2016, 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Reincorporating the Act of Definitions
Let me add that being a conservative in the Mercurian Empire is not mutually exclusive with gratitude and admiration for all that the trend-setters and history-shakers do to help the Empire grow. If we are entering a golden age, it I because of all of you. But thanks for hearing out the voices that call for some modest protections of our great history and traditions. The United Kingdom of Greater Minerva stands with pride behind the great spirit of the Empire, which is shaped by all of you.

Author:	Cerdic Accynnafon [ August 23rd, 2016, 5:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Reincorporating the Act of Definitions
Could someone post which area of the laws this would be possibly duplicating if we change it to reality versus a spiritual description of these terms?

Author:	The Regent [ August 23rd, 2016, 7:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Reincorporating the Act of Definitions
Well, for one, the acts of definitions were never laws before. They were philosophical references. They had no statutory merit before. Now, they are somewhat worded so as to describe duties in reality (e.g. Calling the emperor an ambassador) rather than describing their philosophical origins. As such, if the acts serve no philosophical nor statutory purpos any more, do they need to be laws? Perhaps we can keep the excellent wording above as a reference document somewhere in our forum and library. It was probably not a good idea to even have the old act of definitions in the past too, but fortunately it was never cited and was treated purely as a reference document back then. Doesn't matter what direction the Empire takes, and I stand behind the Empire regardless of its choice, but I'm going to do my duty and remain a bit of a defender of our status as an empire and will continue continue resist statutory incremental crawls towards some sort of Republic As such, my suggestion to those whose ears will hear it: do we even need this Act? What purpose does it serve? Thanks for your patience with my recalcitrance

The Mercurian Empire http://hermertia.com/

Reincorporating the Act of Definitions http://hermertia.com/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=991	Page 2 of 5

Author:	The Regent [ August 23rd, 2016, 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Reincorporating the Act of Definitions
Agreed, the titles were only given a historical definition in that old link. That entire act served no statutory purpose. It served more like those parliamentary pronouncements nations often do, that recognize history formally. Whether or not it qualified as a law and act at all is probably legitimately debatable. I don't think it needed in today's day an age, where we have a well defined statutory system, and where the interpretation of the noble titles has shifted far from the original pronouncement anyway. Although it serves a strong place in the libraries and archives. That's just the interpretation of the Minervan house. Of course, discussion is healthy. And, arguably, a system with an explicitly symbolic head of state is indeed a Republic. A constitutional monarchy gets its authority from the crown, which is of course deeply dependent on parliament for its will (or entirely dependent). Systems that appoint non-crown heads of states make them presidents with power in some cases (US) or symbolic titles with no power, but are all republics. it's an incremental move towards republicanism to explicitly define your head of state as ceremonial.

Author:	The Regent [ August 24th, 2016, 12:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Reincorporating the Act of Definitions
Rarely does lore get clarified by the Council, so rarely do we 'need' to define things that are not statutory. But you are right to imply it does indeed happen sometimes. The Council has as one of its duties the clarification of competing lore, but it's use of this power is exceedingly rare. Definitely appreciate all the points you have raise and I am indeed reflecting deeply.

Page 2 of 5	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/