|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jun 2, 2015 17:51:09 GMT -6
I am calm, in fact i'm a little ecstatic, this gives us a chance to truly see certain flaws in the organic law and tweak them a bit or a lot if need be See, that's the problem where we are deadlocked again. If the Monarch *could*, de iure or de facto, not proclaim amendments (thereby maybe blocking them, and maybe not?), how then are we supposed to tweak just that part -- without an injunction?, that is.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jun 2, 2015 17:51:45 GMT -6
Is he "Bobby" for some time now, or did you just come up with that, Miestrâ? I called him that occasionally in Penguinean days just because it drove him up the wall.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jun 2, 2015 17:52:10 GMT -6
I am calm, in fact i'm a little ecstatic, this gives us a chance to truly see certain flaws in the organic law and tweak them a bit or a lot if need be See, that's the problem where we are deadlocked again. If the Monarch *could*, de iure or de facto, not proclaim amendments (thereby maybe blocking them, and maybe not?), how then are we supposed to tweak just that part -- without an injunction?, that is. Civil disobedience leading to a Constitutional Convention.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Luïç Baptiçistà on Jun 2, 2015 17:53:05 GMT -6
But in laws of several countries the silence is generally interpreted as acceptance... Since our highness K. John signed this law when it was voted, and now with this months of silence and now with this non-signature, the silence should be interpreted as an acceptance, since that weren't any negative manifestation prior when the law was voted... Since the king signed this law when it was voted. He should have spoken then back there, by not spoken and sign it the king left the amendment follow its course, and by keeping his silence, it should continuous its course and become valid... I think that this case should be lead to the Uppermost Court, and that be declared that within a 30 days (or an other period) with the king non manifestation on this matter his silence will be interpreted as acceptance... Otherwise he should explicitly say NO ! This limbo cannot goes on...
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Jun 2, 2015 17:53:49 GMT -6
Is he "Bobby" for some time now, or did you just come up with that, Miestrâ? I called him that occasionally in Penguinean days just because it drove him up the wall. Other folks in the L.O.S.S. would occasionally call him "Bobert." It always made me think of a rotund little video game character.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jun 2, 2015 17:54:08 GMT -6
So does anyone support the King on this? Anyone? Anyone? Davinescù?
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Jun 2, 2015 17:54:18 GMT -6
We'll hear our beloved Uppermost Court buddies on this, that's for sure.
|
|
Gaglhen Fortaleça
Citizen of Talossa
Glory to the Proletariat
Posts: 394
Talossan Since: 4-23-2015
|
Post by Gaglhen Fortaleça on Jun 2, 2015 17:54:39 GMT -6
Protest guys, but exercise civil constraint or we'll be painted as the bad guys within seconds
|
|
Vit Caçeir
"I hated being AG so much I fled as far from it as literally possible."
Posts: 810
Talossan Since: 11-19-2007
|
Post by Vit Caçeir on Jun 2, 2015 17:54:40 GMT -6
Legal arguments and pitchforks aside, I don't doubt the sincerity of the King's belief here. Read out-of-context, it's actually a convincing and compelling argument-- the Kingdom deals with a small constituency, many of whom aren't always the most actively present and available to represent the interests of the Crown, especially in their own province. It's an argument that might've made me think differently about my strictly regionalist-minded vote in favor of the amendment.
But where was this opinion during the Hopper debates? Where was it when it was up for vote in either house of the Ziu? Where was it during the window for a veto? Where was it when the amendment was up for public referendum? I understand the Crown's desire to remain "above-the-fray" in partisan debate, but in an amendment which deliberately influences the King's capacity to, in His Majesty's own words: "limit the Crown's freedom in exercising the Royal Organic prerogative to appoint as Constable — that is, as the Crown's personal representative to a Province — whomever the Crown pleases," the Crown's opinion would've been nice to hear in the process of considering and approving the amendment. Whether it came in the form of a formal statement or an informal "hey guys, this is how I feel about this whole thing," thread, any sort of communication of these beliefs would've been valuable consultative insight. Especially if the Crown's opinion on the matter is so ardently held that it's now worth initiating a constitutional crisis.
What I'm saying is that even in this amendment's self-contained narrative this whole thing is like, super out of left field.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jun 2, 2015 17:56:23 GMT -6
You have to see it in context, as I have for ages, as a general agreement by John and his allies that Talossa will remain under their control no matter what the ballot box says. The timing is to do with the fact that the King's "defenders" have slipped in the Cosâ to the point that they may not be able to single-handedly block OrgLaw reforms. This is a shot across the bows of the reformist parties. I doubt this would happen if the RUMP had held or increased their vote.
|
|
Gaglhen Fortaleça
Citizen of Talossa
Glory to the Proletariat
Posts: 394
Talossan Since: 4-23-2015
|
Post by Gaglhen Fortaleça on Jun 2, 2015 17:57:03 GMT -6
But when a Bill is passed with a resounding YES by the people, no one should be allowed to take that away
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jun 2, 2015 17:58:20 GMT -6
Legal arguments and pitchforks aside, I don't doubt the sincerity of the King's belief here. Read out-of-context, it's actually a convincing and compelling argument-- the Kingdom deals with a small constituency, many of whom aren't always the most actively present and available to represent the interests of the Crown, especially in their own province. It's an argument that might've made me think differently about my strictly regionalist-minded vote in favor of the amendment. But where was this opinion during the Hopper debates? Where was it when it was up for vote in either house of the Ziu? Where was it during the window for a veto? Where was it when the amendment was up for public referendum? I understand the Crown's desire to remain "above-the-fray" in partisan debate, but in an amendment which deliberately influences the King's capacity to, in His Majesty's own words: "limit the Crown's freedom in exercising the Royal Organic prerogative to appoint as Constable — that is, as the Crown's personal representative to a Province — whomever the Crown pleases," the Crown's opinion would've been nice to hear in the process of considering and approving the amendment. Whether it came in the form of a formal statement or an informal "hey guys, this is how I feel about this whole thing," thread, any sort of communication of these beliefs would've been valuable consultative insight. Especially if the Crown's opinion on the matter is so ardently held that it's now worth initiating a constitutional crisis. What I'm saying is that even in this amendment's self-contained narrative this whole thing is like, super out of left field. The debate on whether the amendment was a good idea was had a long time ago. It passed in the Cosa, in the Senate, and by referendum which affirmed the support of the Talossan people. We have now moved on to why this is being blocked by one man.
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Jun 2, 2015 17:58:35 GMT -6
Is he "Bobby" for some time now, or did you just come up with that, Miestrâ? We call him 'Bobby' in disparaging terms. He founded the Kingdom of Talossa and nigh-on destroyed it.
|
|
Gaglhen Fortaleça
Citizen of Talossa
Glory to the Proletariat
Posts: 394
Talossan Since: 4-23-2015
|
Post by Gaglhen Fortaleça on Jun 2, 2015 18:01:28 GMT -6
Is anyone else rapidly hitting their refresh button?
|
|
Vit Caçeir
"I hated being AG so much I fled as far from it as literally possible."
Posts: 810
Talossan Since: 11-19-2007
|
Post by Vit Caçeir on Jun 2, 2015 18:01:51 GMT -6
Legal arguments and pitchforks aside, I don't doubt the sincerity of the King's belief here. Read out-of-context, it's actually a convincing and compelling argument-- the Kingdom deals with a small constituency, many of whom aren't always the most actively present and available to represent the interests of the Crown, especially in their own province. It's an argument that might've made me think differently about my strictly regionalist-minded vote in favor of the amendment. But where was this opinion during the Hopper debates? Where was it when it was up for vote in either house of the Ziu? Where was it during the window for a veto? Where was it when the amendment was up for public referendum? I understand the Crown's desire to remain "above-the-fray" in partisan debate, but in an amendment which deliberately influences the King's capacity to, in His Majesty's own words: "limit the Crown's freedom in exercising the Royal Organic prerogative to appoint as Constable — that is, as the Crown's personal representative to a Province — whomever the Crown pleases," the Crown's opinion would've been nice to hear in the process of considering and approving the amendment. Whether it came in the form of a formal statement or an informal "hey guys, this is how I feel about this whole thing," thread, any sort of communication of these beliefs would've been valuable consultative insight. Especially if the Crown's opinion on the matter is so ardently held that it's now worth initiating a constitutional crisis. What I'm saying is that even in this amendment's self-contained narrative this whole thing is like, super out of left field. The debate on whether the amendment was a good idea was had a long time ago. It passed in the Cosa, in the Senate, and by referendum which affirmed the support of the Talossan people. We have now moved on to why this is being blocked by one man. You might re-read that and discover that what I'm asking is why the King's opinion was never expressed during any of that time-- there wasn't even a hint of an indication that this particular amendment would face royal opposition.
|
|