Proclamation of Amendments

[King John]

The Organic Law provides that

An amendment to the Organic Law may be made by proclamation by the King where so authorized by:

    A vote of two-thirds in both chambers of the Ziu, and
    Approval of the majority of voters participating in a referendum on the question of the amendment no later than during the next scheduled general election following the approval of the Ziu.

While it has been our usual habit to allow Amendments to pass into the Organic Law without explicit proclamation by the King — according, I suppose, to the general legal principle that qui tacet consentire videtur —, I have long felt that a more formal adherence to the Law on this point would be better practice. Therefore, since I *may* proclaim the Amendments recently approved, I hereby proclaim all of them except referendum number 3, 47RZ28, which I hereby explicitly refrain from proclaiming even though I am *authorized* to do so.

My reason for NOT proclaiming 47RZ28 is simply that to do so would 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. This action is in concert with my general intention vigorously (but always legally!) to defend the Crown's several privileges and prerogatives.

Done under Our hand Royal at the city of Centennial in Colorado this 2nd day of June being Whit Tuesday according to the Orthodox Paschalion, in the year of salvation 2015, of the independence of Talossa the thirty-sixth, and of Our reign the ninth.

— John Regeu

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Ladies and gentlemen, the King just rolled up the will of the Ziu endorsed by the people in referendum and threw it in the circular file.

If he can do this to this amendment, what is to prevent him doing it to any amendment?

John Woolley has just shown that there are no limits to his Royal authority he will respect. This is a constitutional scandal on a level with King Robert I vetoing Ián Anglatzarâ's citizenship in 2003.

Well might we say "God save the King", because no-one else will.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Just to make this 100% clear, the Chancery is in no way involved in this decision and it is the official position of the Chancery to be outraged at the King's action to reject the will of the PEOPLE.

This amendment was not just voted by a sufficient margin to override his veto by the ziu but also by a majority of the voters.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

I had to read and then re-read this proclamation and then check the OrgLaw before it sank in. I'm stunned. 47RZ28 passed without a SINGLE no vote in the Cosa or the Senate and by 75% of those who didn't abstain on the referenda in the GE. The king has just essentially vetoed an act that the overwhelming percentage of Talossa supports.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Jun 2, 2015 16:00:07 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Just to make this 100% clear, the Chancery is in no way involved in this decision and it is the official position of the Chancery to be outraged at the King's action to reject the will of the PEOPLE.

This amendment was not just voted by a sufficient margin to override his veto by the ziu but also by a majority of the voters.

This isn't technically a veto, and there is no provision in Organic Law to override it as far as I can tell.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

As I say, the closest we've come to this before was when Ben Madison used his power to "commute" sentences to set aside the Uppermost Cort's decision to readmit Ián Anglatzarâ as a citizen in 2003. It's a complete misuse of power, done on a "I can do this and I dare you to stop me" basis.

Never mind Robert I, John Woolley - stuff him, I'm not giving him his royal title if he's going to do stuff like this with it - has just gone all Charles I or Louis XVI on us. And we know what that leads to...

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jun 2, 2015 16:01:40 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

Jun 2, 2015 16:00:07 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Just to make this 100% clear, the Chancery is in no way involved in this decision and it is the official position of the Chancery to be outraged at the King's action to reject the will of the PEOPLE.

This amendment was not just voted by a sufficient margin to override his veto by the ziu but also by a majority of the voters.

This isn't technically a veto, and there is no provision in Organic Law to override it as far as I can tell.

I am sadly fully aware of that, which is what infuriates me even more.

That the King vetoes a bill is his prerogative is not a problem for me.

But this... this leaves a bad taste in the mouth, so soon after my reaction to the June 2004 events in GV's thread.

It's like a perfect Republican storm, all on the same day.

We need a bill in the hopper right now fixing this mess.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jun 2, 2015 16:01:00 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

I had to read and then re-read this proclamation and then check the OrgLaw before it sank in. I'm stunned. 47RZ28 passed without a SINGLE no vote in the Cosa or the Senate and by 75% of those who didn't abstain on the referenda in the GE. The king has just essentially vetoed an act that the overwhelming percentage of Talossa supports.

That means even the King didn't bother to vote against it!

[Óïn Ursüm]

Perhaps a legal argument can be made that the King, when given authorisation to proclaim an amendment by the Ziu and a plebiscite, *cannot* refuse. It seems absurd that the OrgLaw, adopted by the people in a referendum, cannot be changed by a similar referendum.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Well, of course, the Cosâ hasn't been called together. (Hmmm. Can the King just refuse to do that, too? I know he can simply refuse to appoint a Seneschál from a party he doesn't like - that's why Ceváglh Scurznicol and the other Liberals left in 1998-9... you know, if John's just going to refuse to proclaim amendments, we should be on standby for a full-blown Royal Coup.)

But the Senäts is always in session, so let's see what I can do.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Jun 2, 2015 16:07:31 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Jun 2, 2015 16:01:40 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

This isn't technically a veto, and there is no provision in Organic Law to override it as far as I can tell.

I am sadly fully aware of that, which is what infuriates me even more.

That the King vetoes a bill is his prerogative is not a problem for me.

But this... this leaves a bad taste in the mouth, so soon after my reaction to the June 2004 events in GV's thread.

It's like a perfect Republican storm, all on the same day.

We need a bill in the hopper right now fixing this mess.

Any bill hoppered and then Clarked and then passed can be vetoed or refused the royal assent and overriding a veto is not an easy thing to do. This wasn't even a controversial bill and I don't recall even the most conservative among us had enough of a problem with it to vote against it in the Ziu. 

[Óïn Ursüm]

Perhaps we can carry on as if the amendment *has* passed. After all, as he says himself, the king has not explicitly proclaimed most recent amendments, and they still clearly passed.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jun 2, 2015 16:08:50 GMT -6 Óïn Ursüm said:

Perhaps a legal argument can be made that the King, when given authorisation to proclaim an amendment by the Ziu and a plebiscite, *cannot* refuse. It seems absurd that the OrgLaw, adopted by the people in a referendum, cannot be changed by a similar referendum.

In the end, this begs the question: who has the final word on our highest law, the people or the king.

The people said yes. The king says no.

The last time the two were so far apart, the republic was started.

Because if we cannot trust the King to honor the wishes of the people, we cannot have a democracy.

Again, a veto on bill, I am all for it. But a veto on the population, nay! Nay! NAY!

and please note that I don't give a rats ass about this bill.

Its the non-signature that's a problem after months of silence.

The king signed this law when it was voted. He should have spoken then.

[King John]

Jun 2, 2015 16:00:07 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Just to make this 100% clear, the Chancery is in no way involved in this decision and it is the official position of the Chancery to be outraged at the King's action to reject the will of the PEOPLE.

I'm curious. Where in the Organic Law, or anywhere in Talossan law, is the Chancery authorized or permitted to take an "official position" on a controversial political question?

— John R

[Lüc da Schir]

Since we're talking about Royal Representatives to the Provinces, it sounds rather ironic that (and I quote) "whomever the King pleases" to be the Cunstaval for Benito is a chap no one in my Province has ever had the "pleasure" to meet or talk to in years. We signed a petition (a "humble" petition) for his removal, and we weren't even considered. And that was back in 2012.

Guess how many times did the Royal Representative turn up in three years?