Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Dec 8, 2016 19:27:54 GMT -6
If anything I think the bill should be amended to reduce the threshold. not to increase it. Anyway, since no one understood my schedule I will try to explain it in a way that hopefully makes more sense tomorrow.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 9, 2016 11:09:32 GMT -6
I fear there's a misunderstanding of what the value of a constitutional monarchy is - it's precisely (if the law is ordered rightly) that it shouldn't matter too much if a monarch is unpopular or absent.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Dec 9, 2016 14:46:42 GMT -6
I fear there's a misunderstanding of what the value of a constitutional monarchy is - it's precisely (if the law is ordered rightly) that it shouldn't matter too much if a monarch is unpopular or absent. If the Monarch is absent, why have a Monarch? What purpose serves such a Monarch, who cannot timely perform his or her Organic duties?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 9, 2016 15:09:02 GMT -6
I fear there's a misunderstanding of what the value of a constitutional monarchy is - it's precisely (if the law is ordered rightly) that it shouldn't matter too much if a monarch is unpopular or absent. To expand on what Epic said, your theory of constitutional monarchism only holds up if the monarch has no real power. If the Monarch has only ceremonial duties, then you are right that the monarch could be absent or unpopular and it wouldn't make much difference (although, I would still argue that an active and friendly monarch would do Talossa a lot more good than an inactive or unfriendly one, even if they had no political power). However, in Talossa the monarch has political power (and, if you believe the Crown, he still has absolute veto power over amendments). Even duties that are supposed to be ceremonial can have big consequences if they aren't performed (like when the start of the 49th Cosa was delayed a month because the King forgot to issue a writ of dissolution in time). If the Monarch is to have power in Talossa, the Crown must be expected to stay active and must be accountable to the people in some fashion. The only way to "rightly" order the law such that these factors don't matter is to take away all Royal political power.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 10, 2016 10:11:18 GMT -6
I think in a peculiar monarchy like Talossa's you can afford to leave the Crown with certain prerogatives with a lower bar of accountability than, say, in the UK; the Crown can of course believe it has yet others, but it doesn't get to decide the interpretation of the law so that remains simply the Crown's opinion. However, I am entirely fine with delineating the Crown's powers and defining them by Amendment so they're clear - I would see a UK model of the main material prerogative being the formation of minority/coalition governments as the main one, with a strong advisory relationship between King and Seneschal encouraged. Beyond that, I'd simply have failsafe triggers in case the King doesn't do something ceremonial on time. (I obviously agree, by the way, that it is *far* better that we have an active and engaged King; fwiw, I do think His Majesty is friendly, and is generally available, but has had a couple very busy periods over the last few years).
re Epic's question, granting the permanent semblance of authority to someone without the substance of authority means that you create a constitutional and living object of reverence without granting that ultimate position to one who relies on whipping up the mob for election times; it means your duly elected democratic officials get on with their job and can be properly mocked and jeered at and turfed out but are never going to be worshipped. It's ordering stones into an arch rather than a line. It's a break on tyranny precisely because it places the only permanent power with someone who cannot really abuse it. It very often (though not always) helps create continuity and permanence in the midst of a torrid, ochlocratic political culture.
(It strikes me suddenly - and this is a realization for the politics buff to enjoy - that there's a strange parallel with certain sorts of revered political prisoner. I'm thinking Mandela or Suu Kyi. Both became powerful figures of peaceful, powerless resistance, and then hopeful transition; the reality in both cases has arguably been disappointing. But whilst they were a distant focus for reverence they did a lot of good. They became an idea as much as a person, and "ideas are bulletproof".)
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Dec 28, 2016 5:59:28 GMT -6
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 Two observations:
- "in the short term" can only mean short term. Whether the monarch worries or not is the monarch's private concern; whether the monarch considers something right or not is also the monarch's private concert; whether the citizens consider something right or not, however, is the realm's concern. The absolute right/wrong of something - anything - is not in what us mere mortals can fully know: what we can do, in a democracy, is make our collective feelings felt;
- Talossa, if it perceives itself to be in any way un-Democratic, can - despite apparent tradition - choose to become more Democratic. If the will of the people is ignored then we have lost Democracy. If the long-expressed (not short term) will of the people is followed then, right or wrong, we have Democracy.
No election: no power - that is a fundamental rule of Democracy. Yes, there must be checks and balances to avoid deep changes being made "upon the whim" - but even deep changes must, after time for thought, be possible. Even the Constitution of the United States of America (a foreign country) is capable of amendment.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Dec 29, 2016 11:03:14 GMT -6
A further observation:
Partly in regard to the status and powers of any monarch, or any other person of authority within a state, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNUDHR) declares:
- Article 2:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
[/font][li] Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.[/li]
[li] Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.[/li]
[li] Article 21, paragraph 3: The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.[/li] [/ul] Whether or not Talossa formally ascribes to UNUDHR, these are principles it would be wise to bear in mind.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jan 17, 2017 17:40:06 GMT -6
If anything I think the bill should be amended to reduce the threshold. not to increase it. Anyway, since no one understood my schedule I will try to explain it in a way that hopefully makes more sense tomorrow. Do you have a revised schedule?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jan 29, 2017 9:58:14 GMT -6
Well ok so my idea was that
If a bill is proposed to depose the King, if it is passed with a 2/3rds Cosa majority and a majority in the Senate, a referendum is held in which a simple majority of the voters can decide to remove the King.
If, however, the bill only passes with a simple majority in both houses, a referendum is also held, but with a different threshold, namely 5/6th of the voters. If that referendum passes with only a simple majority, the voters will have another chance to remove the king next election, so there will be another referendum. If 2/3rds of the people then votes to depose the King, we also get a new king.
It's a bit complicated and probably a bit over the top, but it was just a suggestion.
My main point is that 3/4th of the Cosa and a simple majority of Senate and population is already theoretically enough to depose the King by amending the Orglaw.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jan 29, 2017 10:04:50 GMT -6
My main point is that 3/4th of the Cosa and a simple majority of Senate and population is already theoretically enough to depose the King by amending the Orglaw. Oh, good point. I hadn't considered that.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Feb 16, 2017 15:32:58 GMT -6
If a bill is proposed to depose the King, if it is passed with a 2/3rds Cosa majority and a majority in the Senate, a referendum is held in which a simple majority of the voters can decide to remove the King. If, however, the bill only passes with a simple majority in both houses, a referendum is also held, but with a different threshold, namely 5/6th of the voters. If that referendum passes with only a simple majority, the voters will have another chance to remove the king next election, so there will be another referendum. If 2/3rds of the people then votes to depose the King, we also get a new king.I like this schedule, but without the part I changed to red. I don't think that part is necessary, given that the Ziu can simply vote to have another referendum anyway.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Mar 28, 2017 19:36:59 GMT -6
If a bill is proposed to depose the King, if it is passed with a 2/3rds Cosa majority and a majority in the Senate, a referendum is held in which a simple majority of the voters can decide to remove the King. If, however, the bill only passes with a simple majority in both houses, a referendum is also held, but with a different threshold, namely 5/6th of the voters. If that referendum passes with only a simple majority, the voters will have another chance to remove the king next election, so there will be another referendum. If 2/3rds of the people then votes to depose the King, we also get a new king.I like this schedule, but without the part I changed to red. I don't think that part is necessary, given that the Ziu can simply vote to have another referendum anyway. I have made these changes, except that I changed to threshold to 3/4 of the population if 2/3 of the Cosa votes to remove the King (otherwise it is easier to depose the King when he hasn't committed a crime than when he has). If there are no other comments, I am clarking this for April.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Mar 30, 2017 6:42:58 GMT -6
I have made these changes, except that I changed to threshold to 3/4 of the population if 2/3 of the Cosa votes to remove the King (otherwise it is easier to depose the King when he hasn't committed a crime than when he has). If there are no other comments, I am clarking this for April. I generally oppose this bill as too complicated and unnecessary. But that aside, I should note that the text of OrgLaw III:7 does not actually include "3.4" as the Wiki version suggests. The actual text of the section says "Section 4". When the OrgLaw was first transferred to the Wiki, standard wiki heirarchical formatting was imposed on the document, and someone went through and replaced references to "Section X" with " X.Y" based on the wiki-formatted section numbers. You can see the original version on kingdomoftalossa.net. For this reason, I would recommend using "Section 4" rather than "3.4" in the new sentences.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Mar 30, 2017 14:15:39 GMT -6
I have made these changes, except that I changed to threshold to 3/4 of the population if 2/3 of the Cosa votes to remove the King (otherwise it is easier to depose the King when he hasn't committed a crime than when he has). If there are no other comments, I am clarking this for April. I should note that the text of OrgLaw III:7 does not actually include "3.4" as the Wiki version suggests. The actual text of the section says "Section 4". When the OrgLaw was first transferred to the Wiki, standard wiki heirarchical formatting was imposed on the document, and someone went through and replaced references to "Section X" with " X.Y" based on the wiki-formatted section numbers. You can see the original version on kingdomoftalossa.net. For this reason, I would recommend using "Section 4" rather than "3.4" in the new sentences. Ok, I changed it. Thanks for pointing it out.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 8, 2017 21:57:17 GMT -6
A changed name and some new ideas.
Basically, its pretty stupid in my opinion that currently it is harder to remove a King who has committed a crime than it is to amend the OrgLaw to change the monarch or abolish it entirely. So, for when a King commits a crime, I changed the requirements so that now 3/5 of the Cosa, with Senate approval, can put the referendum to depose the King to the people, who must approve the measure by a 3/5 margin.
If the King has not committed a crime, the process to remove him is the same as above, except it must be done twice before the King is deposed.
If the language of the bill and this explanation is unclear, please ask me to clarify.
|
|