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 Sept 1, 2015 18:26:37 GMT -6
Estimats Senatôrs:
I'm happy to vote an enthusiastic PËR on everything this month. Except for the 3/4 amendment. Not that it wouldn't be an improvement on the status quo; but I'm still hoping the Cort will declare 48RZ27 to have been adopted and it will prove unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Sept 4, 2015 18:06:48 GMT -6
... I'm still hoping the Cort will declare 48RZ27 to have been adopted ... Unlikely, I'd bet. I'm still of the thinking that the King acted in complete compliance with the law at that time. I don't like it and I think reform is needed. It is what it is. I think the Cort will uphold the King's decisions and actions and it is simply up to us to make reforms to the system. I'm still weighing up the 3/4 Amendment. Everyone, feel free to give further thoughts if you think you can convince me either way. |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Sept 5, 2015 8:56:13 GMT -6
To be honest, I really like the 3/4 Amendment. It takes away the absolute veto power, which the King seems to think he has, and replaces it with a veto that merely delays the inevitable.
And it is ideal: the King cannot veto a referendum; and the people are, per OrgLaw, the ultimate sovereign. We need that back, which the King took from us so heinously! It CANNOT and it SHOULD NOT stand as is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Sept 5, 2015 18:23:39 GMT -6
To be honest, I really like the 3/4 Amendment. It takes away the absolute veto power, which the King seems to think he has, and replaces it with a veto that merely delays the inevitable. And it is ideal: the King cannot veto a referendum; and the people are, per OrgLaw, the ultimate sovereign. We need that back, which the King took from us so heinously! It CANNOT and it SHOULD NOT stand as is. You've just made me wonder something. It's neither here nor there in regards to the Amendment, but ... What is the virtue in "delaying the inevitable"? If it is inevitable, then why even bother with the provision for delay? Surely, it would just be a redundancy in our law. |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Sept 5, 2015 19:17:10 GMT -6
To be honest, I really like the 3/4 Amendment. It takes away the absolute veto power, which the King seems to think he has, and replaces it with a veto that merely delays the inevitable. And it is ideal: the King cannot veto a referendum; and the people are, per OrgLaw, the ultimate sovereign. We need that back, which the King took from us so heinously! It CANNOT and it SHOULD NOT stand as is. You've just made me wonder something. It's neither here nor there in regards to the Amendment, but ... What is the virtue in "delaying the inevitable"? If it is inevitable, then why even bother with the provision for delay? Surely, it would just be a redundancy in our law. You misunderstand; amendments right now seem to be dependent on the King’s goodwill. They are not inevitable. But with the 3/4-amendment, the King could not forever stand in the way of an amendment, which had overwhelming support, the way he can do now. You see, if the 3/4-amendment were to pass, he could either “require” the Cosă and Senäts to demonstrate overwhelming support (3/4 + 2/3), or he could “require” that the amendment be voted upon in another Cosă (2/3 + majority). When I say “the King can require that XYZ”, what I mean is that a rejected amendment — rejection must occur before referendum — can be passed notwithstanding the King’s objections in the same Cosă, if 3/4 of the Cosă, and 2/3 of the Senäts support the rejected amendment. Or, the author can decide to introduce the (same) amendment after the next GE, where the King’s veto gets overidden by a “normal” amendment threshold (2/3 + majority). Why not a higher threshold in the next Cosă, you ask? Why even in the next Cosă, you ask? Because one concern of esteemed RUMPers was the “waving through” of amendments in times of anger, and frustration. It is a kind of “cooling-off-period”. |
|
