The Commonly Associated Act

[Hooligan]

Here is another draft act for comment. This one tries to bridge that strange gap we have between Senators who are elected as individuals (and not as creatures of party) and the Organic Law passage that says that if a Senator leaves office before his term expires, it's a political party that gets to choose the new Senator.

We have always kind of had a "feel" for the party with which a Senator is "commonly associated" (it's a pretty good rule of thumb to look at the most recent General Election ballot turned in by the guy). But in cases when a party folds, or two or more parties approach the King after a Senator disappears, each saying, "hey, don't listen to them, he was "commonly associated" with US, Your Majesty! It's common knowledge in our party, we promise!" it would be better if we let the Senators make their own bed out loud.

Anyway, this draft legislation got longer than I thought it would be, but I think it gives us a legally binding interpretation for the words "commonly associated", so we can hopefully avoid any head-scratching and all of the exasperated frantic cries of "oh my gosh, what is the King to do?" that would fill our streets and cause panic and looting, which (as history has shown) would be especially bad for television retail stores.

It's a serious problem! Well, okay, maybe it isn't, but let's pass this anyway. How about it?

The Commonly Associated Act

WHEREAS Article 4 Section 10 of the Organic Law specifies that the King, in appointing a replacement for a vacant Senate seat, “must appoint the individual designated to him by the political party with which the outgoing Senator was commonly associated”, but

WHEREAS it is not always clear with what political party a Senator is “commonly associated”, and

WHEREAS that could cause real problems, now

THEREFORE, the Ziu hereby enacts that

1. Each Senator on taking office is encouraged and expected to (and any Senator at any time may) publicly designate some one political party as that with which he is to be considered “commonly associated”; or he may, if he desires, designate himself as not being “commonly associated” with any political party.

2. Failing such declaration of party association, the Organic requirement that it be impossible for the King to follow the recommendation of a particular political party when appointing a replacement Senator may be fairly said to be met, allowing the Crown to seek recommendation from the provincial executive, and should that be impossible, to take his own counsel, as advised by his privy council and court.

3. Should any political party with which a Senator has declared himself "commonly associated" fail to register for a General Election, then effective on the Balloting Day for said election, such a Senator shall thenceforth be considered to be not "commonly associated" with any party, unless and until he makes a subsequent public declaration to the contrary.

4. After leaving office, at any time prior to the royal appointment of his replacement, any former Senator being available to provide counsel to the King as to the party with which the Senator was "commonly associated" may make a public declaration of said association (or lack thereof), and such declaration shall be considered binding by the King, as if the declaration were made while the Senator held office.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Mà Barôn Tepistà (MC, RUMP)

[King John]

I think this Act is inOrganic in a couple of ways, both hinging on the possibility of a Senator's declaring himself affiliated with Party A when in fact he is "commonly associated" with Party B.

First, the language of the OrgLaw can be enhanced or clarified by statute, but not simply set aside or replaced. Clause 2 of this Act would allow the King (unless a Senator declared his party affiliation) to ignore the *fact* of the Senator's "common association" with a party; but the OrgLaw *requires* the King to act according to that fact. Clause 3 does the same sort of thing, in a different circumstance.

Second, no constitutional officer (in this case, the King) can have his Organically mandated duties modified or restricted by statute. The King is required by the OrgLaw to replace a Senator according to the "commonly associated" scheme, but Clause 4 of this Act refers to the Senator's declaration of party affiliation as "binding" on the King.

For what it's worth, I think we should simply limit this Act to Clause 1, and encourage Senators to associate themselves with a party in a clear way, that can then be looked to as probably equivalent to the Organic "commonly associated".

— John R

[Hooligan]

Hmm. Is anyone else starting to regret our choice of a King so danged attentive to the Organic Law?

Hmm, well, okay, let's see here. Suggesting the removal of three of the four parts of this law, huh? Man oh man.

(pause, think, read OrgLaw, think some more)

First of all, Your Majesty, it took me a few minutes to grok your meaning. I was careful not to use the word "affiliation" when drafting the bill, so I was unsure if your majesty's use of it in the first paragraph of the reply was intentional. Now I understand. Let me see if I can rephrase the objections.

Senator Trumpetbutt is a member of party A. He comes to office, says that he should be considered "commonly associated" with party A, makes a bunch of pompous speeches, serves for many years with as much distinction (if you can call it that) as a Senator can achieve, but then one day he has finally had enough drink to impel him to switch parties. He affiliates himself with (by voting in a general election for) party B. His former party, A, is either happy to be rid of him or his members miss him terribly; it matters not. Anyhoo, then, forgetting to first also state for the record that he wishes to hitherto be considered "commonly associated" with his new party, the poor drunk gets hit by a bus. Could be a train, I guess; I'm not really sure, the whole thing is not really clear in my head yet.

The objection to points 2 through 4, then, revolve around the fact that the King would be forced to appoint a person recommended by party A, even though everyone knows that when the bus (train?) hit him, Trumpetbutt was running around making heated speeches proclaiming "I'm a Party B man now!" (till death, as it turns out), and that for all he cared, Party A was welcome to eat his shorts.

Put this way, I guess I see your point. My attempt to force the words "commonly associated" to only mean "has publicly stated his common association with" is overstepping what the OrgLaw provides for, and takes the usual meaning away from the words "commonly associated", attempting (but failing, because of the danged attentive King) to give them new, more legal meaning.

So I guess I see where the King is coming from. Unless we actually change the OrgLaw to remove or change the vague "commonly associated" phrase and instead make it specify (there in the OrgLaw, and not outside it) something more legally interpretable, it sounds like the King says (and doggone it, I guess he's right) that the best the Ziu can do in a simple statutory law like this one is to just encourage Senators to make it easier for the King to know at all times which party they are "commonly associated" with. Failing that, we fall back to the King's best understanding of what "commonly associated" means, and if he has trouble with that, well, we tried to get him as much help as we could, so what's left now is just to hope that the television stores have shatterproof windows.

Leaving only the proposed point 1 of this act, as King John proposes be done, essentially just says, "hey, Senators, come on, help us out just in case -- in fact, you're expected to do it." I suppose that is indeed as far as we can go. And Senators who fail to do as they are "expected," well, they might want to watch out for buses (or trains).

So okay, I guess I talked myself into agreeing with the King, after setting out to tear his objections to shreds and leaving them on the Hopper floor, with no sound to mourn them but a royal whimper. Well, I was easy on you this time, you King you, in that I completely caved after only seven paragraphs of my own tedious rambling. But your victory makes me stronger! Next time, don't expect it to take any fewer than eight paragraphs!

With grudging concession, I have struck through clauses 2 through 4 of the proposal.

BUT I STAND, FIRMLY AS EVER, BY CLAUSE 1. SO THERE!

Hooligan

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

I have a problem with your First Clause.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Me too. Run-on sentence.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Not to mention the 1 is lined out.

Bad form, and all that.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The first WHEREAS needs more commas, I think. It is not pretty.

[Lord Q]

A forthwith and post haste would be nice too.

[Brad Holmes]

Threatening "pain of death" is also fun...

[Hooligan]

S:reu Secretary of State --

The required five days before the First Clark of a Cosâ having come and gone, with this bill sitting here, getting hacked at and ridiculed mercilessly until it is became a mere shadow of its former self, mutilated to the point where no one could possibly object to what little is now left of it (but of course they still do), I believe this bill is going to have to go to the floor of the Ziu in its current state -- gutted like a fish.

So I ask now that it be added to the Clark for the upcoming session of the Ziu, beginning tomorrow.

If you can find room for it.

Which shouldn't be all that difficult.

See, it doesn't take up much space.

Anymore.

No, I'm not bitter,
Lord Hooligan