Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 1, 2017 14:17:46 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? The King still has a (limited) veto over acts and amendments, so there must be a way to make him accountable for his use of those vetoes. Just because the population doesn't want a specific Monarch doesn't mean the population doesn't want a Monarch at all.
|
|
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 15:07:27 GMT -6
The King still has a (limited) veto over acts and amendments, so there must be a way to make him accountable for his use of those vetoes. Isn't that what the veto override process is for? What is the need for further "accountability," other than to eliminate the very limited check that the monarchy provides on the other branches?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 1, 2017 16:09:38 GMT -6
The King still has a (limited) veto over acts and amendments, so there must be a way to make him accountable for his use of those vetoes. Isn't that what the veto override process is for? What is the need for further "accountability," other than to eliminate the very limited check that the monarchy provides on the other branches? Individual vetoes can be overridden, but whoever is in the position to issue the vetoes (the King) must also be accountable for simply possessing the veto power. Ultimately, if the people don't want someone to have any political power, there must be a way to remove them, no matter how limited the power 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 17:06:05 GMT -6
Individual vetoes can be overridden, but whoever is in the position to issue the vetoes (the King) must also be accountable for simply possessing the veto power. Accountable for possessing the veto power? The OrgLaw says he does, so why should there be a consequence for the possession? Accountable for using the power? Why have it, if he's not supposed to use it? Accountability for using it in a way the elected members of the Ziu disagree with? Again, that's why they have the ability to override a veto. Being able to also remove the king for exercising the veto power in a way they disagree with sounds like trying to have their cake and eat it too, in a way that seems to have the effect, if not the intent, of critically undermining the political independence of the monarch.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 2, 2017 19:20:11 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? The King still has a (limited) veto over acts and amendments, so there must be a way to make him accountable for his use of those vetoes. Having the "power" to delay passage of a bill for one month isn't what I would consider a veto power. Echoing Sir Cresti though, is it right for the Ziu to step in and say "We didn't like that you 'vetoed' that bill. So while we've 'overridden' your veto simply by voting for it a second time, we're also going to push you out of office for exercising your 'power'..."?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 3, 2017 10:19:05 GMT -6
The logic that the King shouldn't be responsible for possessing a veto power (even a very weak one) doesn't seem to hold up if it is applied to the other parts of the Ziu. By this logic, you would not approve of the people voting out the governing parties if those parties passed bills they didn't like.
If the King has any political power, he must be accountable for it.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 3, 2017 10:29:44 GMT -6
The logic that the King shouldn't be responsible for possessing a veto power (even a very weak one) doesn't seem to hold up if it is applied to the other parts of the Ziu. By this logic, you would not approve of the people voting out the governing parties if those parties passed bills they didn't like. If the King has any political power, he must be accountable for it. Removing a Monarch is a lot different than changing political winds voting out a governing party. Presidents aren’t impeached for vetoing bills. Granted, we don’t elect Monarchs every two legislative terms nor do we impose term limits. But that is the nature of a hereditary monarchy. If we want a Republic, then let’s have a Republic. (Of course, Presidents also have a more definitive veto power than what the King currently posseses as well.)
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 3, 2017 11:22:14 GMT -6
The logic that the King shouldn't be responsible for possessing a veto power (even a very weak one) doesn't seem to hold up if it is applied to the other parts of the Ziu. By this logic, you would not approve of the people voting out the governing parties if those parties passed bills they didn't like. If the King has any political power, he must be accountable for it. Removing a Monarch is a lot different than changing political winds voting out a governing party. Presidents aren’t impeached for vetoing bills. Granted, we don’t elect Monarchs every two legislative terms nor do we impose term limits. But that is the nature of a hereditary monarchy. If we want a Republic, then let’s have a Republic. (Of course, Presidents also have a more definitive veto power than what the King currently posseses as well.) Presidents are also elected to their position and are subject to subsequent elections, making them accountable for their use of the veto. The nature of a hereditary monarchy can be whatever we want it to be. Just because I want to make the King accountable for his political power does not mean I want a republic.
|
|
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 3, 2017 13:30:26 GMT -6
- The nature of a hereditary monarchy can be whatever we want it to be. Just because I want to make the King accountable for his political power does not mean I want a republic. I do want a Republic. But I must say I support Ián P. over Dien on this issue. A hereditary monarchy does not necessarily mean the unaccountable exercise of power. The Glorious Revolution in Britain of 1688 was fought over this issue. William of Orange was allowed to take over from James Stuart as King on the understanding that he was King by the consent of Parliament, and if a King went too far he could always be removed. This finally put an end to "divine right" nonsense, but it also put an end to the notion that the King "owned" the Kingdom as his personal/family property. Pre-2005, the OrgLaw made it clear that Robert I had certain rights in Talossa as its founder. Robert I was a reprehensible borderline sociopath, but he could make a good case that Talossa was "his". John Woolley will never be able to make that argument. He is King by the assent of the Ziu and people in referendum. We made him and we can break him. Talossa is not his property. He has nothing by personal or divine right.None of this, as you can see by looking at the current UK, means that a hereditary monarchy is any less so, as much as I would want that to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 3, 2017 16:31:48 GMT -6
The difference here is:
1) Presidents aren’t impeached for exercising their powers lawfully, not are legislators removed from office for voting a certain way. Simply because they can be ousted following another election doesn’t mean they are immediately removed following a lawful but unpopular exercisation of their power.
2) The Monarch can already be removed if he is convicted of violating Organic Law or of some other crime. Anything that could be considered an “overreach” of power is already covered under OrgLaw, therefore, the Monarch is already held accountable. On a related side note, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the Monarch could be charged with a crime and acquitted, yet under this amendment they could still be removed from office as there is no reason necessary to do so. Our Covenants protect our right to due process of law, yet are we opposed to such due process being afforded to our King?
3) The Monarch no longer has any power that he could exercise. An advisory delay is not a veto when it is overturned by another simple majority of the same Cosa that voted on the legislation in the first place, but simply voted on a mere week later. Having said that, the Monarch exercising this “power” lawfully and in compliance with OrgLaw is no reason to remove him from office. If you don’t want him to have a power at all, remove the power. But if you give him the power, recognize that his use of it is entirely at his discretion. Saying “Go ahead and veto but we’ll remove you” is coercion.
4) As Sir Cresti has stated, the only legislation the King has vetoed over recent years either concerns his own powers or he expresses concerns regarding the bills inOrganicity. Who cares. Again, it’s his power to use. If you’d prefer he didn’t have a power, then remove it entirely. Alternatively, and as I’ve noted before, if you’d prefer an executive branch that is more politically accountable then let’s have a Republic.
|
|
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 3, 2017 16:50:34 GMT -6
4) As Sir Cresti has stated, the only legislation the King has vetoed over recent years either concerns his own powers or he expresses concerns regarding the bills inOrganicity. Who cares. WTF? If King John's only interest in Talossan lawmaking is protecting his own powers, then he does not deserve those powers. We fought a drawn-out and fractious court case about that.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 3, 2017 17:17:32 GMT -6
4) As Sir Cresti has stated, the only legislation the King has vetoed over recent years either concerns his own powers or he expresses concerns regarding the bills inOrganicity. Who cares. WTF? If King John's only interest in Talossan lawmaking is protecting his own powers, then he does not deserve those powers. We fought a drawn-out and fractious court case about that. A court case concerning amendments, not legislation. He no longer has the power to veto either types of bills, of course. He does have the power to delay passage of legislation, and the overall context of this point makes the following clear: If he has such a power and exercises it, then he exercises it. If one has a problem with the potential of him exercising a power he holds, then the power should be completely removed. It makes no sense to “hold sdomeone accountable” for lawfully exercising their powers by making it way too easy to remove them from office.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 4, 2017 11:38:46 GMT -6
The difference here is: 1) Presidents aren’t impeached for exercising their powers lawfully, not are legislators removed from office for voting a certain way. Simply because they can be ousted following another election doesn’t mean they are immediately removed following a lawful but unpopular exercisation of their power. The King could not be immediately removed under this amendment. The process would likely take almost a year and be subject to four different votes. However, the process must exist, because anyone that has political power must be ultimately responsible to the people. You seem to be OK with the King (who has no democratic mandate) exercising political power indefinitely even if he is deeply unpopular If the King consistently exercises his political power in a manner that a large majority of people dislike, it should be possible to remove him, even if he hasn't done anything illegal. The King has a right to due process before he is convicted of a crime, but the King does not have (or at least, should not have) a right to continue being King indefinitely if that is not what the people want, regardless of whether or not he committed a crime. That is a misread of the amendment. The same Cosa could not pass a vetoed bill with only a simple majority, only the next Cosa could. You are treating the King's power as if it is his birthright. It is not. If the people do not like how the King is exercising his power, even if he is exercising it lawfully, they must be able to remove him. The King can use the power at his discretion, and I don't want to remove it, but I do want to make his accountable for using it. Besides, the removal process is so lengthy that it is doubtful the King would be removed over a just a few vetoes. The power is his to use, but not his to keep if he exercises it in a way the people disapprove of. I don't want the power removed and I don't want a republic, and I'm unsure of why you keep trying to force me into those positions.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jan 10, 2018 19:13:34 GMT -6
I intend to Clark this in February. This bill sat in the Hopper for the entirety of 2017!
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 12, 2018 6:42:18 GMT -6
This bill has my support. I find the counterarguments poorly thought-out, self-defeating and without merit.
On the one hand, we are told the King is accountable for his "limited" veto power (i.e. impeachment); on the other hand, we're told that the Ziu won't impeach the King (or that Congress wouldn't impeach a president for veto, something that is absurd to claim being that congress can define the grounds pretty much anyway it wants), thus there is no accountability. So what we have Sir Cresti and Dien doing here is talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Ultimately, Dien doesn't want to subject the King to the ever-changing winds of a populist citizenry. Then it's quite simple, just have a "sense of Talossa" vote every five years.
|
|