The OrgLaw Amendment (Nonfeasance) Act

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

WHEREAS Organic Law IV.11 ordains that "Senators may be removed from office by the Uppermost Cort, for criminal activity or for mis-, mal-, or non-feasance";

AND WHEREAS "nonfeasance" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "failure to act; especially : failure to do what ought to be done";

AND WHEREAS this is a great word;

AND WHEREAS Organic Law XVI.1 ordains that UC Justices may be removed from office due to "due to inactivity as defined by failure to act, rule, or appear in an open case the justice is assigned to or participating in for more than 60 days";

AND WHEREAS this is pretty much the same thing as "nonfeasance";

AND WHEREAS sauce for the legislators and justices should a fortiori be sauce for the Head of State;

AND WHEREAS an argument could be made that provisions allowing removal of the King for "violating the Organic Law" would already include nonfeasance, but legal opinion casts doubt on this, and I'm sick and tired of long semantic arguments:

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosâ and Senäts of Talossa and endorsed by the people of Talossa in referendum THAT Organic Law III.7 be amended as follows, with amended text in red:

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, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, 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 3.4, above.

Uréu q'estadra så:

Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN, MC
Mximo Carbonel, MC

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I would include a timeframe. Either something as general as prolonged nonfeasance, or continuous nonfeasance, or something more specific, like nonfeasance of a quarter year. We do not want our Head of State to be removed because they missed a deadline by one or two days.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I much prefer, instead of a timeframe, a provision that nonfeasance has to be serious enough to endanger the Kingdom. One or two days late won´t do that.

[Colonel Mximo Carbonèl]

co-sponsor

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Feb 12, 2017 13:35:20 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I much prefer, instead of a timeframe, a provision that nonfeasance has to be serious enough to endanger the Kingdom. One or two days late won´t do that.

“order, or good government of the Kingdom” is too broad a description. A malicious Seneschal could very reasonably argue that the King withholding consent to appoint a certain person to a certain position within the Government lead to an obstruction of said good government of the Kingdom, and could very well move to usurp him.

I agree that we need better, and more democratic ways of dealing with the current Monarch, and monarchy itself. But, I beg of you, let us not be so short-sighted as to introduce destructive, debilitating laws into our books.

Also, please indicate in your title that this is an Amendment, and add the sponsor-part.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Feb 16, 2017 11:05:08 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Feb 12, 2017 13:35:20 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I much prefer, instead of a timeframe, a provision that nonfeasance has to be serious enough to endanger the Kingdom. One or two days late won´t do that.

“order, or good government of the Kingdom” is too broad a description. A malicious Seneschal could very reasonably argue that the King withholding consent to appoint a certain person to a certain position within the Government lead to an obstruction of said good government of the Kingdom, and could very well move to usurp him.

And the Uppermost Cort would fall for this?