The Amendment Amendment (Amendment)

[King John]

WHEREAS Article XV, Section 1 of the Organic Law permits the King what amounts to an absolute veto over Amendments to the Organic Law, and

WHEREAS the King should have no such power, but rather any measure that receives the approval of 2/3 of each House and a majority of the voters should pass into law, even over the King's objection, and

WHEREAS the Organic Law seems to leave the question undecided, as to whether the King can veto an Amendment even before it is ratified by the people, and

WHEREAS the King should have no power to do that either, since a 2/3 vote of each House can overturn his veto anyway, and the Amendment has to have 2/3 approval to pass in the first place, and

WHEREAS the Organic Law's requirement that the ratification take place "as soon as practicable after the vote in the Ziu" is ill-defined, and isn't the way it's usually been done anyway, and

WHEREAS the last sentence of Article XV, Section 1 contains obsolete language concerning the rôle of territories in the election of Senators,

THEREFORE the Ziu hereby adopts the following Amendment to the Organic Law, and transmits it to the voters for their ratification.

Article XV, Section 1 of the Organic Law is amended to read, in full:

A Bill seeking to Amend the Organic Law shall be deemed to have passed the Ziu only upon the approval of two thirds of the votes in each House. Such a Bill cannot be vetoed. If such an Amendment passes the Ziu, it shall be transmitted to the voters for their ratification in a referendum, which shall be held no later than the next General Election, and may be held sooner if the Seneschál so directs. A period of at least three weeks shall be allowed for balloting in any referendum not held concurrently with a General Election. Upon approval by a majority of the votes cast on the question in the referendum, the Amendment shall be incorporated into the Organic Law.

Uréu q'estadra så: John Woolley (Senator for Florenciâ)

[Lord Q]

A very wise bill.

[Nic Casálmac'h]

Sometimes I wonder why we have a king at all. In reality it seems the king is little more than a president, and if this were to be passed that would take power from the king that even a president has. The current meaning of the Organic Law very closely resembles that of the US constitution, Article I, Section 7:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

There has been a lot of discussion about limiting the powers of the king, but if it is limited to such an extent that it is practically nonexistent, then we might as well not have a king at all, unless his sole purpose is to grant honors. It seems to me there is a question to ask: do we want a democracy or a kingdom?

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Nic, we all know your answer, of course, and mine, and that of all our other fellow co-sponsors of the Act to Elect a King. Our nation is a Kingdom. It says so, and we like it that way. (yes, I know I sound like a Parti Conservatïu Fidistà here. But unless I mis-interpret what the CLP stands for, I would think they are the LAST party to suggest such change. Now, if the RUMP'ers suggested it, I would understand)

I do believe that I am a Citizen of the KINGDOM of Talossa. Not our esteemed neighbors, the Talossian REPUBLIC. If we go off "electing" a "King" every now and again - then we are only setting up a proverbial "Master of Ceremonies". Heck, if we made it so we voted for a King every time there was an opening- then the Party in Power would be electing the King. And if that happened, it's not a far jump to think that even *I* could be King one day.

waits until the paramedics leave, the faint of heart are revived, and decorum is restored

This is taking longer than I thought

Anyway- Kings are not elected, except under dire consequences, when there is no obvious Heir to the Throne. Electing a King puts us on par with electing an Emperor.

That didn't work out so well for Rome. I don't think it will work out so well for the KINGDOM of Talossa, either.

OK, look, I'm not running for King. Would those of you still lying prone on the floor, stop it?

[Sevastáin Casálmac'h]

It sounds as though the prospective king wants to take away MORE of his power.

I agree with Nic and Mick.

Sevastáin Casálmac'h

[King John]

I don't want to get involved in the current debates raging over the election of a King, but may I point out that this Bill, if passed by the Ziu and ratified by the people, while leaving intact the King's normal (but very rarely used) veto power over legislation, would take the King entirely out of the loop when it came to amending the Organic Law?

This point is relevant to the discussion going on in some other threads, about whether desirable changes to the Monarchy need take place before the election of a new King. If this Amendment is enacted, the Organic Law could be amended however the Ziu and the Nation desired, either before or after a new King is chosen.

— John Woolley, UrN, Senator from Florenciâ

[Nic Casálmac'h]

This amendment--in practical effect--would change nothing in regards to passing an amendment to the OrgLaw. Really all it does is take the king further from involvement in legislation.

With the king having the power to veto such an amendment, that allows him a chance to present his objection and reasons for it. Since by a 2/3 vote of each house his veto can be overturned there is no worry that his veto will prevent such an amendment from becoming law. (If I have understood this correctly.) Why give the king no chance to give his opinion on the matter?

It seems to me rather that what should be amended is what remains unclear, namely:

as to whether the King can veto an Amendment even before it is ratified by the people

[Brad Holmes]

captainblaknar said:

This amendment--in practical effect--would change nothing in regards to passing an amendment to the OrgLaw. Really all it does is take the king further from involvement in legislation.

No, it takes the King out of the process of ratifying and approving amendments.

captainblaknar said:

Why give the king no chance to give his opinion on the matter?

Who says the King can't give his opinion? He just talks to people and thus conveys his opinion.

The idea is that the King is not to be political, nor be in control in the ability to augment or shrink his own powers.