|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 9, 2017 3:25:12 GMT -6
Why not use 3/4? 3/5 is a number we have never used in bills. And I would hate for another threshold sitting there, in the law. What is the problem with making it 3/4 for all instances?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 9, 2017 6:24:59 GMT -6
Why not use 3/4? 3/5 is a number we have never used in bills. And I would hate for another threshold sitting there, in the law. What is the problem with making it 3/4 for all instances? I didn't use 3/4 because that would make removing the King in both instances harder than just amending the OrgLaw.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Nov 16, 2017 10:55:14 GMT -6
Does anyone have any more comments on this bill?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Nov 29, 2017 11:07:28 GMT -6
Anyone?
|
|
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 Nov 29, 2017 14:02:35 GMT -6
I continue to strongly oppose introducing an open-ended discretionary process for removing the King, as tending to politicise the monarchy. The monarch cannot be above politics if his tenure is subject to a political vote.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Nov 29, 2017 16:22:00 GMT -6
I continue to strongly oppose introducing an open-ended discretionary process for removing the King, as tending to politicise the monarchy. The monarch cannot be above politics if his tenure is subject to a political vote. The Monarch can never be completely above politics since the office has inherently political powers. Any office with political powers must be accountable to the people, although since this process still makes it difficult to remove the Monarch, the office retains much of its independence.
|
|
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 Nov 29, 2017 17:08:56 GMT -6
I continue to strongly oppose introducing an open-ended discretionary process for removing the King, as tending to politicise the monarchy. The monarch cannot be above politics if his tenure is subject to a political vote. The monarch's not above politics anyway, except for a very limited definition of "politics". If the Head of State thinks he could unilaterally veto OrgLaw amendments because he just didn't like them, then he's entering the political arena. If John I would only act like a proper constitutional monarch, a lot of the wind in the sails of the reform movement would die down.
|
|
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 Nov 30, 2017 5:38:12 GMT -6
Any office with political powers must be accountable to the people, although since this process still makes it difficult to remove the Monarch, the office retains much of its independence. Not as difficult as amending the OrgLaw. In my opinion, discretionary removal of the monarch is essentially a constitutional change, and should require an OrgLaw amendment or a comparably high burden. If the Head of State thinks he could unilaterally veto OrgLaw amendments because he just didn't like them, then he's entering the political arena. Not just because he didn't like them, but because they infringe on the constitutional role of the monarch. A system of checks and balances is worth nothing unless you can count on each branch to defend its ability to provide checks on the other branches. Apart from that consideration, I'd bet that His Majesty has allowed a fair number of amendments that he personally disagrees with as a matter of policy to pass into law uncontested.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Nov 30, 2017 16:41:36 GMT -6
The more power a branch of government, the more crucial it is that the branch is accountable to the people. I definitely agree that the King is a check on the other branches, but that is precisely why he needs to be accountable. I also understand that he does not often veto bills, which is why the process of removing him from office is still difficult under this amendment, but nevertheless the King does have the power, at least in theory, to veto any bill, so a burden as high as a constitutional amendment is not appropriate.
|
|
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 Nov 30, 2017 20:43:07 GMT -6
If the Head of State thinks he could unilaterally veto OrgLaw amendments because he just didn't like them, then he's entering the political arena. Not just because he didn't like them, but because they infringe on the constitutional role of the monarch. By definition the constitutional role of the Monarch is whatever the OrgLaw says it is!
|
|
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 Dec 1, 2017 5:44:09 GMT -6
I also understand that he does not often veto bills, which is why the process of removing him from office is still difficult under this amendment, but nevertheless the King does have the power, at least in theory, to veto any bill, so a burden as high as a constitutional amendment is not appropriate. This bill makes it easier for the Ziu to depose the King than to override a veto. Don't you think that creates a bit of a perverse incentive? Say, for a party that controls 3/5 but not 2/3 of the Cosa?
|
|
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 Dec 1, 2017 5:49:50 GMT -6
By definition the constitutional role of the Monarch is whatever the OrgLaw says it is! Exactly. All the more reason for him to use his powers while his powers are still what the OrgLaw says they are, in order to prevent the OrgLaw from saying they are something different. You wouldn't expect the Senäts to vote for an OrgLaw amendment that stripped the Senäts of all power, just because the Senäts would have no power to block the amendment if it were already part of the OrgLaw. Like I said earlier, a system of checks and balances is useless if the parts of the system don't use the power they have to prevent their ability to provide a check on other parts of the system from being taken away.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 1, 2017 11:20:34 GMT -6
I also understand that he does not often veto bills, which is why the process of removing him from office is still difficult under this amendment, but nevertheless the King does have the power, at least in theory, to veto any bill, so a burden as high as a constitutional amendment is not appropriate. This bill makes it easier for the Ziu to depose the King than to override a veto. Don't you think that creates a bit of a perverse incentive? Say, for a party that controls 3/5 but not 2/3 of the Cosa? No it doesn't. Since the adoption of the Advisory King Amendment, the Cosa can pass a bill over the objection of the King with only a simple majority if that bill was vetoed in the previous Cosa. Thus, the Cosa only has to wait one session to pass the bill, whereas if it tried to depose the King, it would have to wait two sessions (a vote to depose in the first session, another vote to depose in the next session, and only then, in the third session, could the initial bill be passed, not to mention the two plebiscites).
|
|
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 Dec 1, 2017 13:06:43 GMT -6
By definition the constitutional role of the Monarch is whatever the OrgLaw says it is! Exactly. All the more reason for him to use his powers while his powers are still what the OrgLaw says they are, in order to prevent the OrgLaw from saying they are something different. You wouldn't expect the Senäts to vote for an OrgLaw amendment that stripped the Senäts of all power, just because the Senäts would have no power to block the amendment if it were already part of the OrgLaw. Like I said earlier, a system of checks and balances is useless if the parts of the system don't use the power they have to prevent their ability to provide a check on other parts of the system from being taken away. This is the constiutional theory that the monarchy has the right to defend its own prerogatives the same as the democratically elected parts of the State. I will fight this ideology until the day I die. John Woolley did not create Talossa, unlike his predecessor. He was given this role by popular acclaim. He does not own it and I will not allow him to defend it at his personal property, nor to pass it on to his family as if it was his personal property. In a real constitutional monarchy, the monarchy only survives at the grace of the people and their elected representatives.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 1, 2017 13:34:37 GMT -6
With the passage of the Advisory King Amendment that stripped the King of his otherwise already limited political powers, might I ask what the purpose of this amendment would be now? What unchecked powers does the Monarch have that they may need to be "accountable" for? Why should we weaken our Organic Law to create a process whereby a populist wave could sweep out the Monarch even if they were not incapable of performing their duties (looking pretty?) and they were not convicted of violation of OrgLaw, treason, bribery, or high crimes?
I'm not opposed to holding the King accountable. But notwithstanding that he no longer holds any actual power, we already have a process by which we can remove a King for appropriate reasons. Barring that, if one day the Ziu and the population woke up and decided that they no longer wanted a Monarch, then they should take the more appropriate action: Convert the Kingdom into a Republic.
|
|