EXTRAORDINARY DEBATE: Crown Refusal to Proclaim Amendments

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Estimats Senatôrs:

Would this esteemed House support a motion condemning the King's recent actions in simply refusing to put 47RZR8 into effect?

There is no legal provision for the King to refuse to endorse a properly enacted OrgLaw amendment. If he can simply say "no, I won't proclaim this because I don't like it", what's to stop him doing that to any OrgLaw amendment?

This is absolutist monarchy. Even the RUMP gentlemen would be hard-put to defend this.

Of course, there is no legislative remedy other than another OrgLaw amendment - which he could again simply ignore! There may be a judicial solution (i.e. appeal to the Uppermost Cort), I wonder what my colleagues think on that.

But there is a political remedy - to make it clear to the Head of State that this can simply not be tolerated in a constitutional monarchy.

What say you, good people?

[Lüc da Schir]

I say that Alexandreu Davinescu might want to amend his earlier comments on the MRPT's policy of reducing the role of the Monarchy, because there's no way he'd want to defend King John's behaviour.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jun 2, 2015 16:21:27 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

I say that Alexandreu Davinescu might want to amend his earlier comments on the MRPT's policy of reducing the role of the Monarchy, because there's no way he'd want to defend King John's behaviour.

Esteemed colleague from Benito, I wouldn't take that bet with you.

[Eðo Grischun]

Senators,

First, I wish to go through all the points made by the Senator for Fiova before offering my opinion on what has actually happened today.

Jun 2, 2015 16:15:14 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Would this esteemed House support a motion condemning the King's recent actions in simply refusing to put 47RZR8 into effect?

At this time, I would not support such a motion. Such a motion really reads 'We, the Senate, condemn the recent LEGAL actions of the King and as such condemn the language of the Organic Law'. I cannot, as a Senator of this parliament, take such a course of action. It would be blatant disregard for the written laws of our Nation.

There is no legal provision for the King to refuse to endorse a properly enacted OrgLaw amendment.

Actually, it seems there is. Look at the verbatim text of the law: "An amendment to the Organic Law may be made by proclamation by the King ... "

"AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORGANIC LAW MAY BE MADE ..."

"... MAY BE MADE ..."

"MAY"

It seems that the law STATES that amendments to the Organic Law DO NOT REQUIRE to be enacted.

If he can simply say "no, I won't proclaim this because I don't like it", what's to stop him doing that to any OrgLaw amendment?

Nothing. I think that's the real point he is trying to make.

Of course, there is no legislative remedy other than another OrgLaw amendment ...

Exactly.

... which he could again simply ignore!

We don't know that. I don't think he would. If he did, well, that's a whole other bridge to cross.

There may be a judicial solution (i.e. appeal to the Uppermost Cort), I wonder what my colleagues think on that.

I don't think we are there yet. The King has acted completely legally. The Court can't do anything. No laws have been broken.

But there is a political remedy - to make it clear to the Head of State that this can simply not be tolerated in a constitutional monarchy.

Which takes us back to writing an amendment.


***

King John NEEDS to defend his royal privileges. Not to do so would just be reckless of him in his position as Monarch. This is why the issue has come up now. It has nothing to do with how many Cosa seats the RUMP just won in the election. It is simply coming to light because the amendment in question changes Royal powers. He has legally used the mechanisms of the Organic Law to protect his royal privileges. There is no conspiracy here.

My opinion is this... I think the King knew fine well before he posted this evening what reaction he was going to get. I think the King can see the exact same flaw in the Organic Law that you can see. I think he is "silently" asking us to rewrite that section of the Law. I believe he is using the old "problem-reaction-solution" approach to nudging us in the right direction.

I believe he doesn't want to just come straight out and publicly ask or tell the Ziu to rewrite the law. Instead, I think he is using the law in such a fashion to provoke the Ziu's action. It's quite clever, actually.

A future amendment changing the word "may" to "shall" in the law in question wouldn't technically limit his powers, which is why I believe he would sign it.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

With respect, the interpretation of my colleague from Vuode is utter nonsense. If the King actually thought that he had this power under the Organic Law, and that it needed changing, he would have told someone else in advance. He might have told those stalwart defenders of the monarchy, the RUMP, who would have promoted a constitutional amendment, which would have passed without opposition from anyone.

With respect again, I don't believe that my colleague from Vuode really believes what he's saying. It has the magical-thinking quality of a little child trying to explain that his father was really taken by aliens to fight a space war, instead of by the cops to spend 2 years in jail for cheque fraud. The simplest explanation is that the King just pulled this interpretation out of his ciúl, pardon my Talossan, as a petty act of payback for his "defenders"' electoral defeat.

[Eðo Grischun]

With respect, Senator, but I find your interpretation utter nonsense also. The simplest explanation is that the King just pulled this interpretation .. as a petty act of payback for his "defenders"' electoral defeat?

The simplest explanation is that the King followed the letter of the law to protect a royal privilege.

I believe he would have done the exact same thing even if the RUMP had just won by a landslide. Not everything is about the RUMP you know. The wording of law is clear. The King may enact amendments once he receives authorisation to do so. He received authorisation to enact a law, then choose not to. The amendment in question would have limited explicit Crown powers.

The simplest explanation is that the King followed the letter of the law to protect a royal privilege.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Apologies for having seen this thread so late. I, for one, would support such a condemnation. But I guess the point seems to be moot.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Not really. The legality of the refusal to proclaim 47RZ28 is still before the Cort.