Promothea
Response from Senator Speaker Candidate Jovan Montalban
Federal Republic of New Valdoria
Distinguished Members of the United Commonwealth,
First, I would like to welcome the candidacy of Francisco d’Anconia of the Incorporated States of Promothea for the Office of the Speaker of the Senate. A competitive election strengthens our democratic institutions, and I am glad that the Commonwealth has multiple voices offering different visions for the future of our Senate.
However, I would like to respectfully request clarification regarding several key principles presented in Mr. d’Anconia’s platform, particularly concerning Objective Law, Separation of State and Economics, Regional De-control, and the rejection of the “mixed economy.”
These questions are not raised as an attack on his candidacy, but as part of the necessary constitutional dialogue expected from candidates seeking the highest legislative office of the Commonwealth.
—
I. Regarding “Objective Law”
Mr. d’Anconia states that his administration would require every proposed legislation to identify the “specific physical act of force it seeks to retaliate against” and remove concepts such as “public interest” or “social justice.”
My question is:
What exactly does Mr. d’Anconia define as Objective Law, and how would this principle operate within the constitutional framework of the United Commonwealth?
Under our Constitution, the Commonwealth is not solely founded upon protection from physical force. Article I establishes that the Union is founded upon:
Institutional transparency;
Rule of law;
Preservation of regional peace;
Respect for human dignity;
Freedom;
Democracy;
Equality;
Justice.
Furthermore, Article II guarantees citizens not only protection from arbitrary punishment, but also:
The Senate does not merely create laws concerning direct acts of force. It also has constitutional authority under Article IV, Section 7 to:
Therefore, my concern is whether an extremely narrow interpretation of Objective Law could unintentionally prevent the Senate from addressing legitimate constitutional responsibilities such as:
For example, Proposal No. 5: The Duty Check and Active Work Requirement Constitutional Amendment was designed to prevent institutional paralysis by establishing standards for government officers.
Would this type of legislation be considered valid under Mr. d’Anconia’s definition of Objective Law, considering it does not address physical force but rather governmental accountability?
—
II. Regarding Separation of State and Economics
Mr. d’Anconia states:
“The Separation of State and Economics.”
And proposes opposing taxation, subsidies, and economic regulation.
My question is:
What exactly is the intention behind separating the State and Economics?
Does this mean:
The government should have absolutely no role in economic policy?
The government should only have a limited regulatory role?
Economic decisions should always remain exclusively under private actors?
Because under our current constitutional structure, economic governance is already recognized as a legitimate function of the Commonwealth.
Article III grants the Department of Treasury responsibility for:
Additionally, Proposal No. 7: The Official Government Salaries & Expense Allowances Act establishes a transparent compensation structure and allows the Treasury Department to review financial trends.
Would Mr. d’Anconia oppose this proposal because it involves government involvement in economic matters?
Or does he believe that certain economic functions, such as financial accountability and administrative budgeting, remain legitimate responsibilities of government?
A constitutional government requires clarity regarding where the boundary exists between economic freedom and necessary public administration.
—
III. Regarding “Rejecting the Gray Swamp of Demoralization Common to International Bodies”
Mr. d’Anconia states that he will:
“Reject the gray swamp of demoralization common to international bodies.”
My question is:
What specific institutions, practices, or policies is this statement referring to?
The United Commonwealth Constitution emphasizes cooperation and unity among member states.
The Preamble states that the Commonwealth exists to create:
Furthermore, under Article IV, Section 4, the Speaker of the Senate serves as the World Assembly Delegate.
The Speaker is therefore not only a legislative officer but also a representative of the Commonwealth internationally.
How would Mr. d’Anconia balance his criticism of international organizations with the constitutional duty of the Speaker to represent the collective interests of all member nations?
—
IV. Regarding the Rejection of the Mixed Economy
Mr. d’Anconia states:
“We shall force the Commonwealth to choose between the nightmare infernal machine of the mixed economy and the only moral foundation for human association: voluntary, contractual agreement of sovereign individuals who deal as traders.”
My question is:
What practical constitutional change does this position propose?
The United Commonwealth currently operates under a federal democratic framework, not an economic constitution.
The Senate has previously approved legislation involving:
Institutional reform;
Government salaries;
Treasury oversight;
Legislative procedures;
Judicial organization.
Examples include:
Proposal No. 6: The Legislative Resilience and Executive Balance Amendment
which seeks to strengthen checks and balances by:
Expanding Senate membership;
Establishing a limited Presidential veto;
Preventing legislative paralysis.
Would these forms of institutional reform conflict with Mr. d’Anconia’s economic philosophy?
Or does he believe that government may still establish constitutional structures while maintaining a free-market economic system?
—
V. A Question Regarding Senate Leadership
The Speaker of the Senate, according to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, is responsible for:
The Senate Bylaws further require the Speaker to:
Maintain legislative order;
Ensure proper legislative procedures;
Archive legislative actions;
Ensure Senators can properly represent their constituencies.
Therefore, my final question is:
How will Mr. d’Anconia ensure that his philosophical principles as a candidate do not prevent him from impartially administering the Senate for all members, including those who disagree with his political and economic views?
The Speaker is not merely a representative of one ideology.
The Speaker is the guardian of the Senate’s procedures.
—
I welcome Mr. d’Anconia’s response and look forward to a constructive debate. A strong Commonwealth is built not by avoiding disagreement, but by ensuring disagreements are handled through reason, constitutional principles, and respectful discussion.
Jovan Montalban
Senate Speaker Candidate
Ambassador of the Federal Republic of New Valdoria to the United Commonwealth
