Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Feb 26, 2007 22:08:12 GMT -6
Fellow Legislators and Citizens: This proposed legislation is intended to bridge a gap between two important traditions in Talossa. On the one hand, we are clearly—as the Organic Law states in Article III, Section 1—a hereditary Monarchy. On the other hand, we've been unwilling to let anyone except those who have truly earned our respect and trust to rule as Kings. This legislation makes the hereditary transfer of power the default process in the Kingdom, but nevertheless opens a brief window of opportunity—should we desire such an opportunity—for the Kingdom to choose a King based on merit rather than blood. I offer this draft legislation to begin a discussion on this important issue. Please offer your fundamental criticisms as well as your suggestions for more precise, more eloquent, more succinct, and more "Talossan" expression of this proposal. The Hereditary Monarchy Married to Talossan Tradition AmendmentWHEREAS, according to Article III, Section 1 of the Organic Law, the Kingdom of Talossa is a "constitutional, hereditary Monarchy…" WHEREAS, notwithstanding Article III, Section 1 of the Organic Law, Talossans have never suffered any pretenders or any incompetents to sit on the throne (consider the deposed and despised Dobberpuhl, the beloved but very temporary Florence I and—most recently—King Louis, the King who didn't know he was King) WHEREAS, Talossans have always valued above all else genuine and sustained contributions to the Kingdom's on-going culture and politics in their Kings and have—as a matter of fact—not valued mere bloodlines as very important THEREFORE in order to respect the Kingdom's self-definition as a hereditary Monarchy as well as its actual tradition of preferring Kings that have earned their title by virtue of their contributions to Talossa, the Ziu hereby adopts the following Amendment to the Organic Law, and transmits it to the voters for their ratification. The following sections to Article III of the Organic Law are added, modified or renumbered: Section 4. The Throne shall be inherited by the descendants of His Majesty, Robert I, King of Talossa. The present Royal Family is styled as is appropriate on historical grounds, La Casâ és la Dünastà Rouergue (The House and Dynasty of Rouergue). Succession to the Throne shall take place according to the House Law of 11 February 1989. But the adoption of any person after 26 December 2005 shall affect the line of royal succession only on the adoption's being explicitly approved by a law of the Ziu passed by a two-thirds vote in each House. Section 5. Upon the demise or abdication of the Monarch, the Heir to the Throne shall assume the Throne, but his or her assumption shall remain provisional for a period of time. The provisional period ends only when a General Election occurs after the Heir has provisionally assumed the Throne and four Clarks under the new government have been conducted. If, during this provisional period, the Senats and Cosa pass legislation to seek the Kingdom's ratification to elevate someone other than the provisional King to the Throne and the Kingdom's citizenry so ratify the legislation with a two-third votes in a national referendum, then the provisional King shall be removed from the Throne and the true King enthroned with full powers under the provisions of this Organic Law, including the existing law of succession. If, however, no such legislation is both enacted and ratified by referendum during the provisional period, upon its conclusion, the formerly provisional King shall rule with full powers under the provisions of this Organic Law. During the provisional period, the King shall not have the authority to veto legislation, and notwithstanding other provisions of the Organic Law, all legislation passed by the Senats and the Cosa shall be the law of the realm. Section 6. Where there is no person entitled to succeed to the Throne under the rules of the preceding articles, the nation shall elect, by a two-thirds majority, a new King to whom the existing laws of succession shall immediately apply. Current Section 5 is renumbered Section 7. Current Section 6 is renumbered Section 8, with the following modification: the line "If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is considered deposed and the succession occurs according to Sec. 4 above" is changed to read: "If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is considered deposed and the succession occurs according to Section 6 above." Current Section 7 is renumbered Section 9. Current Section 8 is renumbered Section 10. Current Section 9 is renumbered Section 11.Current Section 10 is renumbered Section 12. Uréu q'estadra så: Danihél Lauriéir, MC (DOTT)
|
|
|
Post by Bleic'h Ianescu on Feb 27, 2007 19:20:18 GMT -6
I would consider putting the court in charge of vetoing legislation during a provisional period, like during a council of regency(Article 5). This would just preserve the check on the legislature in absence of full King.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on Feb 28, 2007 12:58:38 GMT -6
Let me tell you a story….
Despite being for remaining a hereditary monarchy, I have considered this with an open mind and I do not think this would be in our best interests.
Though something as drastic as the above would not be likely to occur, the story does offer some interesting insights into the matter.
With the possibility for the heir to the throne to be supplanted by another of the people's choice, comes the dangerous possibility of having two proclaimed as king. One would no doubt have the majority of the people behind him, but the other might have a loyal following as well, albeit smaller. This false king could wreck much havoc upon our nation. Do we want to leave open such a possibility?
Though I can understand what you are attempting to do I do not see how this can resolve the matter. I think we must be either a Hereditary Monarchy or an Elective Monarchy, and I think the two are mutually exclusive.
We do already have a way out after all: we can depose the king. Admittedly we can do so only for serious reasons, but it seems to me that serious reasons would be the only reasons for replacing one king with another.
-Nic
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Mar 4, 2007 22:55:01 GMT -6
Bleic'h—
I'm going to mull over your suggestion…I actually considered it initially, but decided against it for three reasons:
1. I wanted to make sure that the Heir was King in some, if limited, sense in order to emphasize that the Heir was the default choice of the Kingdom. Having a Council of Regency assume the Royal powers struck me as too stark of an interruption of the "natural" flow—a flow that's already been disturbed.
2. Writing the proposal this way is shorter and cleaner.
3. I'm not too worried about having to check the power of the legislature. For one thing, Talossan Kings rarely use their veto powers. For another, if the legislature did do something "inorganic," any citizen could petition the Cort to strike down the legislation.
But I'll think about it some more. How big of a deal do you think it is?
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Mar 4, 2007 23:00:41 GMT -6
Nic:
Endless snow, at first. Choices followed by avalanches of consequence. Spurned heirs plot, then attack Bloody battles ensue. Wanton regicide—oh, the horror, the horror. Who is King? Who is King? Who is King? The cynical wisdom found in taverns. Cycle of despair.
I like it! I want more. A novel…No, no that's not enough…give me a trilogy.
Seriously, I did enjoy the story as a story—though I think it should be fleshed out a bit more.
However, as an argument against my proposal, I am not as moved, though you do raise important issues that we need to grapple with.
The Danger of Rival Claims to the Throne. It's possible that the language of my proposal is not precise enough about who gets to be King under what circumstances. Ambiguous or conflicting instructions in the Organic Law could give rise to legitimate, rival claims to the throne. If that's your concern, then I think I can—with the help of critics like you—clarify ambiguities and close loopholes. But if your objection is simply that someone who had been in line to inherit the throne but didn't—because of the lawful decisions of the Kingdom—might get pissed off…well, that doesn't bother me very much, and I'll tell you why: Talossa is a nation that respects law, and if the law says that A gets to be King and B doesn’t, then I'm reasonably confident that the vast majority of Talossans will respect that.
Also, if this is a genuine concern of your's, think about this: There are already three people who could, if they were so inclined, jerry-rig claims to the throne of Talossa—claims that might win them a small handful of benighted followers. King Florence could claim she is the rightful King, having been mistaken in her abdication. King Robert could—and if you know him, you know he might already have a completely articulated argument at the ready—claim he is still the real King of Talossa. King Louis might one day decide that his "guardians" who chose to abdicate his throne were in fact his "sworn enemies" and therefore by definition incapable of acting on his behalf. And it's possible that some "Milwaukeean" could make the argument that a King that doesn't come from the "soil" of Talossa can hardly be legitimate.
My point is: we can spook ourselves with these scary scenarios if we want to, but we are—and have been--a nation that understands the importance of following laws, and I think that that tradition easily trumps these rather thin specters.
Either/Or Not Both! An inherited monarchy or an elective monarchy, but not both—you claim that we must bite this bullet. I don't agree. I will grant you that my solution is a little messy on the conceptual level, but I think it's a perfectly workable and wise solution to a real conflict of values in Talossa. Yes, it's a compromise position, one that lacks the shining purity of untouched principle.
Here's the conflict of values:
On the one hand, many Talossans think of—and have thought of—Talossa as an inherited monarchy. Our Organic Law proclaims that we are such. Clearly many Talossans like to think of Talossa as a Kingdom, and for them a Kingdom is a realm ruled by a King and a King is position that gets transferred by bloodline.
On the other hand, I think our history of changing Kings—and the reason for the changes—belies the whole alleged "inherited" tradition. I must say that as a long-time Talossan, I've never taken the inherited part very seriously. Nor do I think I'm the only one with that view. At the very least, our history provides only the shakiest of grounds on which to build a firm foundation for unearned Kingships. And there's a good reason for this: Kings play a critical role in Talossa, and we Talossans have always preferred our Kings to be real leaders with an almost absurd devotion to Talossa. Whenever we've had a King who didn't fit this profile—whether the pretender came from within or outside of some family—we've the dumped the usually grateful fool.
What my proposal does is say "yes" to both of these values—because we cherish both of them—and finds a way (imperfect and compromised, but workable) to honor both of them. This proposal is about Talossa being Talossa, about Talossa learning from its own history and being true to its own values—not about following some cliché, off-the-shelf statecraft notions. We have our own history, let's be ourselves.
Only Serious Reasons Should Dethrone a King. I agree with this for the most part, except for the brief provisional period created by my proposal. And—as I've alluded to earlier in this post—there's a serious reason to create a provisional period during which the Kingdom can, if it so chooses, select a King from outside some one family. The reason is: the best person for the job might not be in the line of succession, and we shouldn't prevent ourselves from elevating the best person to the throne. The job of King is important in Talossa, after all.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 4, 2007 23:23:23 GMT -6
I have read the comments here, and I am quite impressed by both sides. Much thought has been brought to bear upon this question.
I won't embarrass myself, in thinking I can sum up the arguments . So, like any good commentator, I'll just post my own opinion, and pretend I know what is going on.
I can understand those that are now against an Hereditary King. A Hereditary linage locks Talossa into an unknown path of those that may be king. While we may have a great King now, his heir may be a freaking dolt. We'll be stuck with a line of Royalty that is suspect at best, and down right destructive at worst. (uh- no offense to any potential Kings, Heirs, family members, or anyone that knows where I live).
On the other side, if we go "electing a King" every 4...6...8 years, we really aren't a Kingdom. We are a Democracy/Republic that puts a golden crown on their current leader. This 'King" can be tossed at the whim of the current citizenship, without regard to how the "King" has conducted the Affairs of State in the past years.
Both of these concerns are quite legitimate, in my mind.
(For the sake of brevity, I'll start a new post)
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 4, 2007 23:31:51 GMT -6
One of the great concerns I have (believe) that is occurring, is that these two divergent ideas cannot be mediated.
I have an idea, that just might ease this problem.
I suggest, that at the end of a King's reign, for whatever reason, that a Resolution for the New King be put into place.
The Heir to the Throne, if any, be the Primary Candidate for the vacant Throne. BUT! If any person or persons wish to stand in opposition to the Heir, they make themselves known. ( If none stand in opposition to the Heir, then (s)he assumes the Throne. )
And at that point, we (the Citizens of Talossa) can hear the arguments of any and all Candidates , and we, the Citizens, then cast our lots to the one we feel should be the new King.
While this is not a perfect solution to the present question - I offer this up for debate, in that it may be reworked, reworded, or generally tossed out with the morning refuse, as it may be needed.
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Mar 4, 2007 23:37:15 GMT -6
Mick:
Your proposal is awfully close to my proposal, and is motivated by precisely the same concerns.
If anything, my proposal is more pro-hereditary monarchy. Hmmm.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 4, 2007 23:52:10 GMT -6
I would say-- "Great Minds think alike"....
But I'm not up to your level, my friend.
How about .."A Great Mind, and a pretty decent mind" ..?
You made the suggestion in a most proper, formal, and most eloquent way.
I just kinda mucked thru it
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on Mar 5, 2007 13:27:54 GMT -6
No, no, no! It is said that the best king is he who does not wish to be king. We do not want a bunch of candidates seeking election. Then we would end up with campaigning politicians and we do not want a politician for king. (If there is no one who agrees with me you are quite welcome to take my use of the word "we" to mean me, myself and I.)
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 5, 2007 13:44:12 GMT -6
OK then...
We take everyone who DOESN'T want to be king, and have them write a 50 word response of why they should NOT be king, and we vote for the one who doesn't want it the worst? err... best? ...least?
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on Mar 5, 2007 13:51:28 GMT -6
Why thank you, milord. I just dashed it off because the idea occured to me. I have too many others brewing in mind to take it too seriously though.
This matter of itself is not reason to forget the proposal, but it should be considered. Generally Talossans do respect the law. However the law--very clearly--prohibits secession. This did not stop certain Talossans from seceding and that--from my understanding of Talossan history--was a tragic blow, nearly the end of Talossa, and the end of it as it once was. Talossa recovered of course, but my point was that this sort of thing could happen again, and we could end up with another competing Talossa. This is something to seriously consider.
This would be an outsider coming in, which is not what I am concerned about. I was talking about an inside split.
You have some good arguments here and I am thinking about this again. I am not quite so much against it as I was at first.
HOWEVER,
There is the saying "Better the fool you know than the one you don't." You said
You have a point there, but how are we to know who is the best person to ascend to the throne? With an heir it should be that you get to know him and have an idea of what sort of king he will make.
Also--though I can understand the reasons for this and they are valid reasons--this proposal goes a step toward being a republic. What I mean: this comes to be more "King by the grace of the people" rather than "King by the grace of God". It is the sort of mentality where the people always know what is right, and all that. People are quite rational on their own, but when they get together they sometimes do the most absurd things.
Hopefully that makes sense.
-Nic
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Mar 6, 2007 16:29:33 GMT -6
Nic:
Three quick comments on your comments:
--Your concerns about taking care not to make it too easy for there to be rival claims to the throne are real, and worth considering. On balance--after lots of consideration, which is still continuing--I have to say that I'm just not as worried as you are, and I think I'm right about that. But I could be wrong.
--Your "grace of God" comment reveals you to be a disciple of the watery tart divine-right-of- Kings-to-rule school of thought. Did you know that when King Robert I founded Talossa he was an atheist and a rather rabid one, at that? (And, at that time, I wasn't an atheist.) If I remember correctly, one of the early slogans of the Kingdom was: omni sin deo. But regardless of the God question, it's still people who hear and interpret Him/Her/It. And no King has ever ruled without support from people. So, I'm afraid we can't escape the foibles of people.
--Thanks for your insightful criticisms. I like these open, public forum discussions.
|
|
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 Mar 7, 2007 16:55:29 GMT -6
How boring it is when everyone is civil about opposing points of view.
:-)
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 7, 2007 22:21:55 GMT -6
I know... someone throw a chair!
|
|