The Time Bomb Amendment

[King John]

The TIME BOMB AMENDMENT

WHEREAS the Organic Law specifies no time period within which the King must act to proclaim (or refrain from proclaiming) an approved Amendment, and

WHEREAS it is desirable that the status of an Amendment passed by the Ziu and referendum be known within a reasonable time, and

WHEREAS we do not want to allow the Crown to be able to "sit" on an Amendment indefinitely, in order to proclaim it (or not) at some future time,

THEREFORE the Ziu hereby approves this Amendment to the Organic Law, and transmits it to the nation for ratification:

A second sentence shall be added to Article XV Section 1 of the Organic Law, reading:

Should the King, by the 15th day after the referendum in which an Amendment is authorized, fail to take action on an Amendment so authorized, it shall be deemed to have been proclaimed by the King and shall immediately take effect.

Uréu q'estadra så

John Regeu

[Glüc da Dhi]

Would this, according to your interpretation, mean the King could still refuse to proclaim an amendment and would doing that count as taking action?

[King John]

Yes, certainly. Perhaps that should be in the language of the Amendment itself, replacing "take action" with something like "fail either the proclaim or to announce his intention not to proclaim". The idea is simply to require the Crown to act quickly, not to keep Amendments in the royal pocket as it were.

I had thought of simply changing the language of the first sentence to say that the authorization itself lasts only for two weeks (or something), but I think the default should be that it takes effect. The Crown shouldn't be able to block legislation or Amendment by simple inaction. (Or so I think.)

— John R

[Glüc da Dhi]

Then I would urge the newly elected members of the Ziu not to make the strategic mistake of supporting this. It's a distraction. It solve a problem, but it's a way to avoid solving the problem.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

It is an entirely separate matter, and fixing this problem has nothing to do with how we fix the other.

[Glüc da Dhi]

It would require amendmending the same clause in a different way though.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

One minor problem with this bill is accounting for the election validation process. What if it takes longer than fifteen days to validate election results, and there is a close vote on a referendum? Thirty days would be safer than fifteen.

[King John]

Good point, Sir Cresti. Maybe 15 days from the certification of the election results?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jun 3, 2015 10:46:28 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

It would require amendmending the same clause in a different way though.

It picks out one specific sentence, so that doesn't seem like a problem to me. Honestly, it looks like His Majesty just spotted an unintended flaw and is hoppering a bill specifically to fix it; it doesn't look like it would interfere with any other attempts.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Doesn't the Democratic Amendment fix this problem as well as the problem most people are actually concerned about right now?

Here is the language from the proposed Democratic Amendment:

* If the King does not make such a proclamation within two weeks of the amendment being authorised, the amendment to the OrgLaw will be considered in effect and the OrgLaw accordingly amended."