The Protracted Simulated Coup Amendment

[Ian Plätschisch]

WHEREAS The King derives his power from the people, and

WHEREAS There is currently no mechanism to hold the King accountable to the people except when he outright breaks the law, and

WHEREAS The procedure for removing the King even in that instance is more difficult that simply passing an amendment to change the monarch or get rid of the monarchy altogether, and

WHEREAS That's weird, and

WHEREAS If the King proves inept, even if he hasn't done anything illegal, the citizens must have some method to replace him, and

WHEREAS It should still be more difficult to remove the King when he hasn't done anything illegal than when he has


THEREFORE Section 7 of of Article III, which currently reads;

In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of the Organic Law, treason, bribery or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosâ shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be deposed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is considered deposed and the succession occurs according to Section 4, above.

is amended to read;

In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of the Organic Law, treason, bribery or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosâ shall pronounce by a three-fifths vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be deposed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If three-fifths of the people concur, the King is considered deposed and the succession occurs according to Section 4, above.  At any other time, a three-fifths majority of the Cosâ, with the approval of the Senäts, may resolve to depose the King, and a referendum to this effect shall be put to the people in a referendum occurring during the next General Election.  If three-fifths of the people vote to depose the King, in the session of the Ziu immediately following, the Ziu may, as above, again resolve to depose the King, and a referendum to this effect shall again be put to the people in a referendum occurring no later than the next General Election.  If three-fifths of the people again vote to depose the King, the King is considered deposed and the succession occurs according to Section 4, above.

Uréu q'estadra så;
Ian Plätschisch (MC-MRPT)

[Glüc da Dhi]

S;reu Plätschich, what is the current status of this bill?

(I have some suggestions about the exact wording, which I will post when I have more time.)

[Ian Plätschisch]

Dec 5, 2016 16:10:59 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

S;reu Plätschich, what is the current status of this bill?

I'd be glad to see some people discuss it.  

Hopefully it can be Clarked fairly soon into the upcoming term.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Too little, too non-radical. I want to see an easier way to do away with the King. I want to see to it that we do away with Monarchy. It has brought us sorrow upon sorrow, and nothing but sorrow. It is time for a real change, and now.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Dec 6, 2016 12:46:35 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Too little, too non-radical. I want to see an easier way to do away with the King. I want to see to it that we do away with Monarchy. It has brought us sorrow upon sorrow, and nothing but sorrow. It is time for a real change, and now.

You're in a Monarchist party, Epic. Still time to move to the FreeDem benches.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Dec 6, 2016 14:37:21 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Dec 6, 2016 12:46:35 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Too little, too non-radical. I want to see an easier way to do away with the King. I want to see to it that we do away with Monarchy. It has brought us sorrow upon sorrow, and nothing but sorrow. It is time for a real change, and now.

You're in a Monarchist party, Epic. Still time to move to the FreeDem benches.

I choose to mend it from the inside.

[Glüc da Dhi]

It should be noted that while the King seems to hold an opinion on how the Orglaw reads thats incorrect (regardless of the arguments against the CpI decision, which may be valid, the CpI still gets to decide on the matter, and it has decided), an opinion without the power to enforce it is just that, an opinion.

The scribe has made perfectly clear he does not intend to amend the OrgLaw simply based on the opinion of the King.

We now have a system where even if we have a King who wants absolute veto power, the system protects the peoples right to pass amendments. Similarly we could have a president with similar wishes. So I dont see why we should do away with the Monarchy just because of the Kings opinion.

Tbh, I'm more worried about the CpI, which I fear is about to make a big mistake that directly contradicts their earlier decision. (But then again, I dont think the solution to that would be to do away with the CpI)

[Glüc da Dhi]

With regards to the amendment, I would have two suggestions.

First, that if the King is deposed in this manner during the next election a referendum should be held on whether the normal line of succession is to be followed or a new King should be elected. (Of course the King could prevent this from happening by abdicating before the people decide to depose him.)

Secondly, while a 5/6ths majority is very large, but I can imagine some might have objections to removing the King in a rush. So an idea might be to add a clause that in case the referendum turns out somewhere between a majority and 5/6th a second refendum will be held next GE in which the threshold is only 2/3rds.

[Glüc da Dhi]

No, upon further thought I changed my mind on the above post.

After all, a 2/3rds majority plus Cosa majority and a majority of the citizens can already amend the orglaw to remove the King anyway, so why the 3/4ths Cosa majority. Actually, I think it should be easier for a smaller Cosa majority and a large majority of citizens to remove the King.

How about this

Ziu vote -> 2/3rds Cosa majority + Senate majority -> Referendum -> Majority -> King is deposed
                                                                                                       -> No majority -> King remains on the throne
              -> Cosa majority + Senate majority -> Referendum -> 5/6ths majority -> King is deposed
                                                                                             -> Majority -> Second Referendum -> 2/3rds majority -> King is deposed
                                                                                                                                                  -> No 2/3rd majority -> King remains on the throne
                                                                                             -> No majority -> King remains on the throne
              -> No majority in either house -> King remains on the throne

?

[Owen Edwards]

Ian, could you summarise your intended change for me?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Dec 7, 2016 11:20:45 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

No, upon further thought I changed my mind on the above post.

After all, a 2/3rds majority plus Cosa majority and a majority of the citizens can already amend the orglaw to remove the King anyway, so why the 3/4ths Cosa majority. Actually, I think it should be easier for a smaller Cosa majority and a large majority of citizens to remove the King.

How about this

Ziu vote -> 2/3rds Cosa majority + Senate majority -> Referendum -> Majority -> King is deposed
                                                                                                       -> No majority -> King remains on the throne
              -> Cosa majority + Senate majority -> Referendum -> 5/6ths majority -> King is deposed
                                                                                             -> Majority -> Second Referendum -> 2/3rds majority -> King is deposed
                                                                                                                                                  -> No 2/3rd majority -> King remains on the throne
                                                                                             -> No majority -> King remains on the throne
              -> No majority in either house -> King remains on the throne

?

I don't really understand this.  Could you organize it differently?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Dec 7, 2016 12:37:15 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

Ian, could you summarise your intended change for me?

Basically, at any time, if a 3/4 majority of the Cosa and an absolute majority of the Senate vote to replace the King, a referendum is put to the people in the next general election.  If a 5/6 majority of the people vote to replace the King, the King is deposed.

[Owen Edwards]

I understand the thrust of the Amendment now.

[King John]

This idea would seem to undermine (to some extent) one of the strengths of a Constitutional Monarchy, as opposed to other sorts of governments, that in the Constitutional Monarchy there's *one* officer — the King — who can do what he considers right, without worrying about the possibility of his actions being unpopular in the short term. Yes, that quality of our constitution is, in a sense, un-Democratic; but Talossa has never favoured anything like direct democracy, and I don't think we should start now.

— John R

[Ian Plätschisch]

Dec 8, 2016 11:51:26 GMT -6 King John said:

This idea would seem to undermine (to some extent) one of the strengths of a Constitutional Monarchy, as opposed to other sorts of governments, that in the Constitutional Monarchy there's *one* officer — the King — who can do what he considers right, without worrying about the possibility of his actions being unpopular in the short term. Yes, that quality of our constitution is, in a sense, un-Democratic; but Talossa has never favoured anything like direct democracy, and I don't think we should start now.

— John R

I would probably be amenable to amending the bill so that it takes multiple referendums to remove a monarch.  The fastest that, say, three referendums could occur (excluding early dissolution) is about 16 months, which I would hardly call short-term.

If 5/6 of the population continuously wants to depose a monarch for a span of over a year, something is seriously wrong.  I definitely believe that the Monarchy is helpful for Talossa (despite the views even of others in my party), but being forced to keep a Monarch that is either never active or is hated for a long period of time is very dangerous.