The How About This? Amendment

[Eðo Grischun]

WHEREAS the King can currently block any and all amendments to the Organic Law, and

WHEREAS this is legal, but many citizens feel uncomfortable with the King being able to block amendments that have the approval of the majority of the population, and

WHEREAS amending the Organic Law shouldn't be easy and quick anyway, so

THEREFORE Article XV of the Organic Law (entitled; Amendments to the Organic Law) is stricken from the Organic Law in its entirety, and rewritten as follows:

Article XV: Amendments to the Organic Law

Section 1

An amendment to the Organic Law shall be made by proclamation by the King where so instructed in accordance with all other sections of this Article. The King shall be deemed to have received such instruction when all provisions in all sections of this Article have been met. Amendments to the Organic Law shall only be made when all provisions outlined in all other sections of this Article have been met.

Section 2

Amendments to the Organic Law may be submitted for consideration in the following manner:

A legislative proposal which seeks to amend the Organic Law must spend a minimum of 28 days in The Hopper before being submitted to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the Clark; THEN

The legislative proposal shall be considered by the Ziu twice in two separate voting sessions (Clarks) and must pass both chambers of the Ziu both times before being considered ready to submit to referendum; AND

In both voting sessions an affirmative vote of two-thirds in both chambers of the Ziu must be achieved.

Section 3

In the event that a legislative proposal that would amend this Organic Law satisfies all provisions set out in Section 2 of this Article then a referendum on the question of the amendment will be held. The referendum will be held no later than during the next scheduled general election following the second stage approval of the Ziu. The referendum will be deemed approved if a majority of participating voters vote in favour of the amendment. Additionally, proposed changes to this Organic Law that affect the representation of a province in the Senäts, or of the territory or equal sovereignty of a province, shall only be passed with the approval of a majority of participating voters in that province.

Section 4

The Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, being sacred and necessary to the defence of our free society, are entrenched provisions of this Organic Law. They may only be amended if the referendum required by Section 3 of this Article passes with a two-thirds majority of voters participating in the referendum.


Uréu q'estadra sa

Senator Éovart Grischun (Senator for Vuode)

[Eðo Grischun]

In plain English for those that can't be bothered reading Bills in full:

- Amendments will go into the hopper for 28 days minimum, THEN
- Amendments go before the Ziu twice. ie, Amendments must go to Clark twice and must pass both times, THEN
- It goes to referendum, and if passed THEN
- The King SHALL enact the amendment.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Wouldn't this have, in almost every instance, no effect beyond the Democratic Amendment stripping away the veto entirely? That is to say: is it likely that the Ziu would ever reject an amendment they just passed the previous month?

[Eðo Grischun]

Jun 6, 2015 14:31:54 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Wouldn't this have, in almost every instance, no effect beyond the Democratic Amendment stripping away the veto entirely? That is to say: is it likely that the Ziu would ever reject an amendment they just passed the previous month?

It's hard to say with any degree of certainty. I sort of see this as a middle ground between the Democratic Amendment and your own proposal. That is to say this amendment lies somewhere between outright stripping the "veto" power and sending a veto away for a second vote and second referendum.

This version would act much the same as your bill but without a second referendum and the possibility of the second vote being within the same Cosa it originated from. I'm not against putting some minimum limit between the two voting sessions. Say "the second voting session must be held at least two clarks from when it was first voted upon. Then we have the possibility of it being held in the same clark and the possibility it wont. ? .

and we dont need to hassle folk with a second referendum.

but more to your question: Yes, its possible for Ziu members to get "buyer's remorse" right after voting. And a month *is* ample time for "waves" to settle over an issue for enough of a sober thinking second reading.

Further, most legislatures in the world have multiple votes and readings and hearings for bills. I'm struggling to see real reasons for Talossa not to have multiple voting sessions in the initial instance on important matters.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

There really is no point in the Ziu considering the bill twice - it doesn't really prove anything if it passes the second time. All it will do is lengthen the time it takes to get to the same stage at the end. The difference between our legislature and say the UK's, is that we don't have a vote on the principle of the bill, followed by detail etc. We vote on principle AND on content at the same time.

[Eðo Grischun]

Hmm. Yeah. I guess that's because Talossan legislation is so short with less details compared to our macro neighbours. Our legislation has the principle and content wrapped up together in a few paragraphs usually.

But, going to the Ziu twice does prove something. It would show the King that we are REALLY sure about this one, so he *has* to enact it.

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

the doing away of the veto power reduces him to a rubber stamp. will definitely vote against after i take the seats.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Of course you would. 'Cause you're so much more.

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

Jun 7, 2015 16:23:41 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Of course you would. 'Cause you're so much more.

i can't understand what's the problem with you? Why do you have to be personal each time around? Can't you talk on the subject, that you have to jump on the person(s)? I guess it has something to do with you still being a 'kid'...

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

Kid? Did you really just go there?

On the subject of maturity: way to lead by example.

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

Brand new day. Can we dispense with further snarkiness and get back to business?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Two approvals by the same Ziu would not protect against a wave election, if that was the goal. As far as waiting for dust to settle over a controversy, isn't that why hoppered bills must wait 21 days to be clarked?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 14, 2015 22:03:33 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

As far as waiting for dust to settle over a controversy, isn't that why hoppered bills must wait 21 days to be clarked?

Bills only have to be in the Hopper for 10 days. The purpose of the Hopper is more to have a period of public comment on legislative proposals so that potential flaws and areas of improvement can be pointed out before the final language of the bill is Clarked. This gives the sponsor the opportunity to fix issues that might have forced other MZs to vote against a bill that they otherwise agreed with. Before the Hopper, often publication on the Clark was the first time anyone besides the sponsor would hear about a bill, and there's no way to amend a bill once it's been clarked. I see it as making the legislative process faster and more efficient, because it allows a lot of bills to pass on their first Clark that would have failed (and had to be re-submitted on a later Clark) if they had been clarked as originally drafted.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Also, the Seneschal has the power to bypass that waiting period.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 15, 2015 3:18:26 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jun 14, 2015 22:03:33 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

As far as waiting for dust to settle over a controversy, isn't that why hoppered bills must wait 21 days to be clarked?

Bills only have to be in the Hopper for 10 days. The purpose of the Hopper is more to have a period of public comment on legislative proposals so that potential flaws and areas of improvement can be pointed out before the final language of the bill is Clarked.

*facepalm*

Still though, would the same Ziu really veto an amendment they just passed?  The "buyers remorse" argument makes some sense, but doing so would make the Ziu look rather indecisive.

On the flip side, the second election would give naysayers more time to naysay, and everyone else time to forget about the original vote, which would make the amendment less likely to pass the second time, even when the two votes would otherwise be the same.