|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 30, 2018 13:35:07 GMT -6
Whereas there are some specific improvements that can be made to the Organic Law, and
Whereas the first part of this bill shall remove some bits that perhaps do not belong in a supreme governing document but which still deserve special protection, and
Whereas the second part of this bill shall fix the many places where the OrgLaw has been edited and not renumbered by lazy legislators,I. Entrenched Law Therefore, Article IX shall have a new Section 6, which shall read, Furthermore, el Lexhatx shall be modified in the following way: Title A shall be renamed Title B, Title B shall be renamed Title C, and henceforth through to Title L, will shall be renamed Title M. All references within el Lexhatx shall be accordingly renamed so as to correctly identify the same provisions that they currently indicate. Furthermore, Article I of the Organic Law shall be modified so as to remove Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10. Furthermore, the text of these sections shall be placed in the newly-created Title A: Entrenched Law of el Lexhatx, reading identically to their current text and numbered in the same sequence. II. Fixing Holes Furthermore, Article IV of the Organic Law shall be modified so as to remove the repealed Section 5. The existing Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 shall be renumbered 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, respectively. Any and all references to the existing Sections shall be altered to indicate the new numbering and thus preserve the current meaning. Furthermore, Article V of the Organic Law shall be modified so as to remove the repealed Section 4. The existing Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 shall be renumbered 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, respectively. Any and all references to the existing Sections shall be altered to indicate the new numbering and thus preserve the current meaning. Furthermore, Article VII of the Organic Law shall be modified so as to remove the repealed Sections 7, 8, and 9. The existing Section 10 shall be renumbered Section 7. Any and all references to the existing Sections shall be altered to indicate the new numbering and thus preserve the current meaning. Furthermore, Article XVIII of the Organic Law shall be modified so as to remove the repealed Section 4. The existing Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 shall be renumbered Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, respectively. Any and all references to the existing Sections shall be altered to indicate the new numbering and thus preserve the current meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 9, 2018 9:39:42 GMT -6
Sorted out II and mostly finished with I -- just need to figure out which things we want entrenched.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 9, 2018 9:57:33 GMT -6
Trying to figure out about the legality of just yanking out the Covenants and saying they're superior to the Organic Law. At minimum it seems like it will have to involve mucking with Org.XXI.1 and stating the new order of supremacy. But I'm trying to think through the precedent -- it doesn't seem like makes sense on basic principle to be able to enshrine new superlaws, even with a supermajority referendum. I'm not sure this one is feasible, and it might prove incredibly dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 10, 2018 7:21:53 GMT -6
It occurs to me that I will probably have to split this up into multiple amendments, since some might prove controversial or have hidden problems.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 18, 2018 13:18:10 GMT -6
Since some provisions will have opposition from the left and some from the right, decided to leave this as it so that it can pass as a unit. Pretty happy with the solution I found for deposing the monarch. A 3/4 majority can remove him in one election, or two successive 2/3 majorities (in this latter case by amending the Orglaw). Even though I know some other monarchists will be unhappy with this provision, since it would allow deposing His Majesty even if he has committed no crime, I think it's a necessary mechanism and is unlikely to be used in haste. I remember the backlash to His Majesty's handling of the Iusti thing, a backlash he weathered and in which he was ultimately vindicated for keeping a cool head, and that's what I'm thinking of when I want to ensure that no Ziu should be able to vote to depose, dissolve itself, and then send it right to hasty referendum.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Dec 28, 2018 17:39:50 GMT -6
I think the deposition clause needs some work. In particular:
Why should the Monarch be deposed because some other State sticks him in jail for an unspecified time? Don't we need to specify the kind of crime, and the kind of sovereign State? Innocent people sometimes run afoul of diplomatic processes.
WHAT medical authority is competent to declare the Monarch incapable? "A medical authority" is pretty dang vague.
Why does it seem necessary to be able to remove the Monarch so quickly, without any finding of guilt or misbehaviour. Do we want a King who might be hesitant to act in an unpopular way, because three-fourths of the people can send him packing pretty much instantly? This seems to me to negate one of the valuable aspects of having a King in the first place, that he alone can act contrary to a temporary hysteria.
"A two-thirds vote of both Houses" should be "of each House".
— John R
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 28, 2018 19:04:23 GMT -6
Fair points, mostly. I am not sure I agree about the 3/4 one, though. I agree that there is some danger to the prospect of a temporary hysteria riding even so high, but that is a very high bar and if we were to place it even higher, then I'd think we were starting to inch away from the just consent of the people.
Perhaps a time delay necessary before the referendum may occur (to stop Ziu vote -> dissolution -> referendum in a short time period)? Would that be a reasonable compromise?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 2, 2019 19:01:48 GMT -6
Ok, made some edits:
This uses the discretion of the Ziu to confirm disability or convictions as causative for removal.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 9, 2019 20:48:22 GMT -6
I think the deposition clause needs some work. In particular: Why should the Monarch be deposed because some other State sticks him in jail for an unspecified time? Don't we need to specify the kind of crime, and the kind of sovereign State? Innocent people sometimes run afoul of diplomatic processes. WHAT medical authority is competent to declare the Monarch incapable? "A medical authority" is pretty dang vague. Why does it seem necessary to be able to remove the Monarch so quickly, without any finding of guilt or misbehaviour. Do we want a King who might be hesitant to act in an unpopular way, because three-fourths of the people can send him packing pretty much instantly? This seems to me to negate one of the valuable aspects of having a King in the first place, that he alone can act contrary to a temporary hysteria. "A two-thirds vote of both Houses" should be "of each House". — John R Who invited you to the Hopper?
|
|
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 Jan 9, 2019 20:52:52 GMT -6
Who invited you to the Hopper? Calm down, V, we explicitly intended the King to participate in the Pseudohopper/Pseudoclark process, remember? The more he participates, the less likely he is to veto the whole thing and thumb his nose at us when we're done.
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Jan 9, 2019 21:30:10 GMT -6
I think the deposition clause needs some work. In particular: Why should the Monarch be deposed because some other State sticks him in jail for an unspecified time? Don't we need to specify the kind of crime, and the kind of sovereign State? Innocent people sometimes run afoul of diplomatic processes. WHAT medical authority is competent to declare the Monarch incapable? "A medical authority" is pretty dang vague. Why does it seem necessary to be able to remove the Monarch so quickly, without any finding of guilt or misbehaviour. Do we want a King who might be hesitant to act in an unpopular way, because three-fourths of the people can send him packing pretty much instantly? This seems to me to negate one of the valuable aspects of having a King in the first place, that he alone can act contrary to a temporary hysteria. "A two-thirds vote of both Houses" should be "of each House". — John R It's hard to log onto Wittenberg from San Quentin. What about appointing a Regent in the case of going to jail for, say, a few days at a time? Perhaps the incarceration can be put to the Uppermost Cort or even the Cosâ to make sure the Monarch is not being imprisoned without cause? What about the use of 'licensed medical authority'? I'm glad you're on here, John, forestalling a veto from you as you should have done for the previous thing you vetoed. One of your jobs as monarch is looking out for the constitution. Part of this is avoiding the 'veto-ambush', and I'm glad to see you being on-the-mark, here. If I am playing bridge or D&D, I want you on *my* team - if I could not get Mitch McConnell - lol.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 9, 2019 21:51:42 GMT -6
I think the deposition clause needs some work. In particular: Why should the Monarch be deposed because some other State sticks him in jail for an unspecified time? Don't we need to specify the kind of crime, and the kind of sovereign State? Innocent people sometimes run afoul of diplomatic processes. WHAT medical authority is competent to declare the Monarch incapable? "A medical authority" is pretty dang vague. Why does it seem necessary to be able to remove the Monarch so quickly, without any finding of guilt or misbehaviour. Do we want a King who might be hesitant to act in an unpopular way, because three-fourths of the people can send him packing pretty much instantly? This seems to me to negate one of the valuable aspects of having a King in the first place, that he alone can act contrary to a temporary hysteria. "A two-thirds vote of both Houses" should be "of each House". — John R Who invited you to the Hopper? At a guess, I'd reckon the Organic Law's Article IX, Section 2.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 9, 2019 21:54:05 GMT -6
I think the deposition clause needs some work. In particular: Why should the Monarch be deposed because some other State sticks him in jail for an unspecified time? Don't we need to specify the kind of crime, and the kind of sovereign State? Innocent people sometimes run afoul of diplomatic processes. WHAT medical authority is competent to declare the Monarch incapable? "A medical authority" is pretty dang vague. Why does it seem necessary to be able to remove the Monarch so quickly, without any finding of guilt or misbehaviour. Do we want a King who might be hesitant to act in an unpopular way, because three-fourths of the people can send him packing pretty much instantly? This seems to me to negate one of the valuable aspects of having a King in the first place, that he alone can act contrary to a temporary hysteria. "A two-thirds vote of both Houses" should be "of each House". — John R It's hard to log onto Wittenberg from San Quentin. What about appointing a Regent in the case of going to jail for, say, a few days at a time? Perhaps the incarceration can be put to the Uppermost Cort or even the Cosâ to make sure the Monarch is not being imprisoned without cause? What about the use of 'licensed medical authority'? I'm glad you're on here, John, forestalling a veto from you as you should have done for the previous thing you vetoed. One of your jobs as monarch is looking out for the constitution. Part of this is avoiding the 'veto-ambush', and I'm glad to see you being on-the-mark, here. If I am playing bridge or D&D, I want you on *my* team - if I could not get Mitch McConnell - lol. GV, I made updates to the text to address His Majesty's concerns. Rather than trying to sort out what the precise definition of a medical authority we might like to use, which seems open to abuse, I just made it subject to the good discretion of the Ziu. That seems to be an appropriate role for their deliberation.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 10, 2019 4:43:47 GMT -6
Who invited you to the Hopper? At a guess, I'd reckon the Organic Law's Article IX, Section 2. Fair point. So now we are all in agreement that John is a political hack and not some apolitical monarch a la QEII as your party does when it consistently lies to the Talossan people. Seriously, Alex, your party and John are a national disgrace. But that's cool. Let's start talking about how your party enabled Hooligan to evade a trial for his crimes.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 10, 2019 11:13:13 GMT -6
At a guess, I'd reckon the Organic Law's Article IX, Section 2. Fair point. So now we are all in agreement that John is a political hack and not some apolitical monarch a la QEII as your party does when it consistently lies to the Talossan people. I guess if this is a civics lesson, it's okay if we continue it. So our system of checks allows the monarch opportunities to submit, comment on, and veto legislation. This is "political" in one sense, but His Majesty does not vote on bills, does not run for political office, and does not belong to any political party. So this might just be a confusion of terminology. When monarchists say that the throne is apolitical, it is meant that the sovereign isn't subject to the immediate will of the electorate through regular election, even though he ultimately derives his power from their just consent. His role is to stand outside of the turbulence of party politics as both an actor capable of ignoring short-term electoral consequences and as a symbol of continuity in a country with far too few such. If we imagine a different case, where the monarch has no power to influence legislation at all, then he would have fairly little power to use that independence. That is to say, if the monarch never took any actions with consequences that could be described as "political," then he'd be only a symbol, and much of his worth to our nation would be lost. There would have been no one to step up, for example, during the Iusti thing and say, "Wait a second. Let's take a breath" -- or at least, no one who wouldn't be risking everything to do so!
|
|