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 Feb 27, 2006 11:15:14 GMT -6
This kind of speaks for itself, part of the process of getting things back on an even keel after last year's unfortunate events. I imagine this will need a bit of legal-language cleanup. (Justice Siervicül?) I intend to put it in the April Clark.
=================
An Act to Repeal the Royal Adoption
WHEREAS a law – The Succession to the Throne Act (33RZ10) – is on our books, which purports to grant a “formal writ of adoption” naming the former King and Queen of Talossa as guardians for the present King of Talossa, and
WHEREAS the said former King and Queen have renounced their citizenship in Talossa, and
WHEREAS even before renouncing his citizenship, but especially since doing so, the former King has been actively working against the best interests of the Kingdom, 1) by deliberately leaving the Kingdom's government in chaos when he abdicated, for instance by refusing to name, as was his duty, a deputy Secretary of State to take over his office of Secretary of State when he resigned; 2) by disseminating lies and calumny on the Kingdom's web page and by email to current and former citizens, claiming that Talossa no longer exists, that the current Government is illegitimate, that many current citizens in fact do not even exist, that the current Government drove him and his supporters out of Talossa, that the current Government won its position by “lying, cheating, and stealing”, and so on; 3) by urging Talossan citizens to renounce their citizenship; 4) by urging Talossan citizens not to vote nor to participate in Talossan life; 5) by dishonestly refusing to release the Kingdom’s treasury, held in a bank account of which he is a signatory; and other such activities, and
WHEREAS it makes absolutely no sense for Talossan law to grant or recognize any position of authority or power over our beloved King to someone who has made himself an inveterate enemy of the Kingdom,
THEREFORE, the Ziu hereby enacts that
1. Clause 1 of The Succession to the Throne Act (33RZ10) is repealed.
2. Neither the former King Robert I nor the former Queen Amy has, in Talossan law, any position of authority over, or guardianship or adoption of King Louis I.
3. No provision of this Act shall be construed as in any way bringing into question the propriety or legality of the adoption in question, or of the present King’s accession to and possession of the throne.
God save King Louis I!
Uréu q’estadra så: John Woolley (Senator, Florenciâ)
|
|
|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Feb 27, 2006 15:47:17 GMT -6
Ben has been very disruptive in the past and present, so I support this Act fully. The former king and queen should be completely cut-off from the Kingdom before Ben attempts to cause more disruption in the future. This act may as well prevent some serious disruptive actions later on.
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Feb 27, 2006 19:46:35 GMT -6
1. If Clause 1 of the 33 RZ 10 is repealed, then Louis would not now be able to assume the throne because he was not considered adopted.
2. Doesn't this proposed law, which purports to recognize Louis as the legitimate King, undercut the legal provisions which give him legitimacy?
3. The effect of this law--as I understand it--is to say that Talossan law doesn't recognize Ben and Amy as the lawful guardians of Louis. I'm uncomfortable with that--no matter how much of a shit Ben has been.
4. If we need to distance ourselves from KRI, can't we make some official declaration to that effect? I really don't like Louis being King--not because he's somehow related to Ben, but because he has no personal or independent relationship to Talossa and because he's a King of heredity not of spirit. Yet he is King by law and he is part of the house and dynasty of Rouergue--the only deserving house inTalossa.
|
|
Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Feb 27, 2006 19:49:55 GMT -6
I'm confuzzled.
Clause 1 was put in there to make Louis a descendant of Ben, per instructions of Article III Section 4 of the OrgLaw.
If the Ziu passes this bill, Louis is no longer a descendant of Ben's. Ex post facto in this situation is confusing the heck out of me. Can you go over the legal stuff in a little more detail? I understand the why, but I need to know the how.
Thanks.
|
|
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 Feb 27, 2006 20:13:33 GMT -6
The OrgLaw and the House Law allow for the adoption of an heir into the Royal Family. Whether that's a good idea, who knows?, but it's legal, it happened, and Louis became King last August because of it.
But is it good for Talossa for Ben and Amy to be legally recognized as the King's guardians? I don't think so. This bill would not mean that Louis had never been adopted; it would mean that now, today, he would no longer be under Ben's control or authority, as far as Talossan law goes. If this bill were to pass, Ben and Amy would lose any legal status they might have (in Talossa) to speak for the King or act for the King.
Another way to look at it is this. The legitimacy of Louis's inheriting the throne depended on the fact that he was Ben's heir in August 2005. But now he is the King, and his Kingship has nothing at all to do with who his guardian might be today, in 2006.
— John Woolley, UrN
|
|
|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Feb 27, 2006 21:04:43 GMT -6
How is he an heir? Is he his son or what?
|
|
Prince Patrick
Citizen since 8-23-2005; Prince since 3-14-2007; Duke since 8-6-2011
Citizen and Governor of Florencia; His Highness, Prince Patrick, Duke of Florencia
Posts: 208
Duke Since: 8-6-2011
|
Post by Prince Patrick on Feb 28, 2006 3:43:10 GMT -6
As I see the matter, this act is not only perfectly legitimate, but necessary. There are no ex post facto consequences. Louis is King and will be King after the passing of the law if I understand it correctly. All we are doing by repealing Clause 1 of the 33 RZ 10 is removing the legal position that Ben currently enjoys over our monarch. That is to say; Louis was already adopted, and he has already assumed the throne. We do not seek to change King Louis' relationship to the kingdom. On the contrary, we seek to change King Louis' relationship to Ben in order to strengthen his relationship with the kingdom. ~PW God Save the King!
|
|
Nikϋ
Citizen since 1-16-2006
Posts: 138
|
Post by Nikϋ on Feb 28, 2006 9:11:51 GMT -6
... it makes absolutely no sense for Talossan law to grant or recognize any position of authority or power over our beloved King to someone who has made himself an inveterate enemy of the Kingdom John Woolley (Senator, Florenciâ) I agree with this wholeheartedly. However, I believe that this act should be made even stronger to guard against possible future events and not just this incidence. By this I mean that noone, in any circumstances, should have any control or authority over the current of future Kings of Talossa, other than his nation as specified in our law. The King of Talossa should be his own man and his institutional role and powers guarded against any influence or direct control from other individuals, whatever their relation to His Majesty as recognised by Talossan law or the law of foreign countries. In any case, the Regent is I believe an effective guardian of the King. Long Live the King!
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Feb 28, 2006 21:13:09 GMT -6
Thanks for your clarifying post, Sir John.
I now better understand the motivation behind and purpose of your proposal, and am less uncomfortable with it.
Thinking out loud here…I might prefer to accomplish what I think is the same trick you're trying to accomplish—cutting any puppet strings under Talossan law connecting the boy King with his disgruntled Royal parents—by simply enacting a new law that does not recognize the right of the boy King's guardians to act on his behalf in Talossan affairs. This new law—as new laws do—would repeal any conflicting provisions of any previous legislation. It would not however remove the adoption link in ascent to the throne—a link that the house law requires. While I strongly suspect that your proposal would not cause any legal ex post facto problems, there is still--to my ear at least--a distinct undercutting noise. And I am very ambivalent about that.
Alternatively, we could adopt some version of the proposal I outlined in the "Three Theses" thread here on Wittenberg. Doing so in combination with a proposal that snips any Ben and Amy puppet strings for a minority age King would assure the Kingdom of its best opportunity to have a King in the Rouergue line—Talossa's only true bloodline—according to that house's own law while limiting the powers of that King and thus reducing our worries about being saddled with a bad King.
Or…well, there are lots more alternatives.
|
|
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 Feb 28, 2006 22:55:01 GMT -6
There are two potential problems I'm hoping to find ways to avoid. Lord Lauriéir's solution — to leave the guardianship in place, but not allow the guardians to speak for the ward — would take care of the first of these problems, but not the second.
First problem: Suppose Ben came along and said "In the name of Louis Guzmán, whose guardian I am (under Talossan law), I abdicate." On what grounds could we refuse to recognize a minor's guardian's action?
Second problem: Suppose Louis's actual parents, his flesh and blood mother and father, came along, and said, "We do not want our son partipating in or having anything to do with your silly 'country'. Quit using his name. Quit calling him your 'King'." Would Talossan law put us in a position of having to refuse their demands, and possibly violating American law? (That would not be cool.)
— John Woolley, UrN
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Mar 1, 2006 16:32:18 GMT -6
Sir Woolley:
How does your proposed bill solve the second problem you've identifed?
|
|
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 Mar 1, 2006 17:39:14 GMT -6
In the famous Dandelions case last year, the Uppermost Cort embraced the proposition that the non-citizen parent/guardian of an underage citizen can renounce Talossan citizenship on behalf of his child. (I argued the opposite, that the OrgLaw is clear that renunciation can only be done by the citizen himself; but I lost the argument.)
It would seem to me, then, that if the non-citizen parent/guardian of an underage King were to abdicate on behalf of the King, or renounce citizenship on behalf of the King, we would have to treat that abdication or renunciation as valid.
But if Talossan law recognizes one person as the guardian of the King, and American law recognizes someone else, we could have a problem. I don't want Ben to be able to renounce citizenship or abdicate in Louis's name; and I do want Talossan law to be able to recognize the parent/guardian status of Louis's real parents (or whoever), should they ever communicate with us "on behalf of" their son.
— John Woolley, UrN
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Mar 1, 2006 20:00:29 GMT -6
OK...Now, I see where you're coming from. Sorry to be so obtuse for so long.
|
|
|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Mar 2, 2006 10:04:02 GMT -6
At this time I abstain. If at anytime the MN accepts me, my vote might change due to party backing policy. Is it possible to change your vote in a 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 Mar 2, 2006 12:19:23 GMT -6
There's nothing for you to abstain on. No referendum is going on. This is the Hopper, a discussion of proposed legislation.
— John Woolley, UrN
|
|