The Al Act (The Home Improvement Acts II)

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I have placed the most-discussed and problematic portion of the former Replacing the House Law bill into this separate portion, so we can iron out this bit to everyone's satisfaction. This will hopefully be simpler.

---

The Al Act
Home Improvement Acts Part Two

WHEREAS the people of Talossa deserve some say as to the succession of new monarchs to the illustrious throne of the nation, and,

WHEREAS it is nonetheless important to preserve the dignity and integrity of the throne, and avoid legislating into existence a process by which the sovereign would be affronted by the presumption of an interrogation, and,

WHEREAS a period of probation for a newly succeeded sovereign would only enforce a period of thespianism and would serve no practical purpose, and,

WHEREAS accordingly the most respectful and practical method of allowing citizens to help maintain the potency and virtue of the throne is a veto upon heirs,

THEREFORE the Senäts and Cosâ hereby approve the following amendment to the Organic Law, and transmit it to the populace for ratification:

Article III, Section 6 of the Organic Law is relabeled Section 7.

Section 7 is relabeled Section 8.

Section 8 is relabeled Section 9.

Section 9 is relabeled Section 10.

Section 10 is relabeled Section 11.

Section 11 is relabeled Section 12.

FURTHERMORE:

Article III, section 6 of the Organic Law shall now consist of the following text:

Section 6. The Ziu may, by a resolution of two thirds of each House, not subject to veto, suspend any person from his place in the line of succession, and may, by a resolution of a majority of either House, not subject to veto, remove such a suspension and restore the suspended person to his place.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Alexander Davis (Senator, Maritiimi-Maxhestic)

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

While I suspect this will not actually be as heavily scrutinized, since it has already been exhaustively debated, I nonetheless wish to recommend this bill to the attention of the legislature for study, in case some might have missed it.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

I suppose, for the sake of discussion, I will throw out the following. Here is an essay on monarchy versus republicanism by Otto von Habsburg, the head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine (Austria's former imperial house, among other things):

home1.gte.net/eskandar/ottohabsburg.html

In this essay, he makes the argument that while democratic republics are based on legislative supremacy, and authoritarian governments are based on executive supremacy, monarchy can best be viewed as a kind of government based on judicial supremacy.

He (the monarch) was not, in the first place, a law-giver or head of the executive; he was a judge. All other functions were subordinate, and were only exercised to the extent necessary to make his judicial function effective.

The reason for this institutional arrangement is clear. The judge must interpret the meaning of law and justice, and to do this he must be independent. It is essential that he should not owe his position, his function, to any man. The highest judge, at least, must be in this position. This is only possible under a monarchy. For in a republic, even the highest guardian of the law derives his position from some other source, to which he is responsible and on which he remains dependent to some extent. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. His most important task is not to pass judgment in actual legal disputes, but to stand guard over the purpose of the State and natural law. Above all, it is the task of the supreme judge to see that all legislation is in accordance with the State's fundamental principles, that is, with natural law.

. . .

The activity of the head of State will undoubtedly go beyond the purely judicial field. He will have to control the executive, since it is his duty to see that the decisions of the judicial power are carried out in practice. Nevertheless, all these tasks will remain of secondary importance. It is in his judicial function that a twentieth-century monarch will find his primary justification.

For this reason, von Habsburg acknowledges that some kind of check on hereditary succession is necessary, but argues that the political branches of government should play as small a role therein as possible:

Nothing would be more appropriate in a modern monarchy than the institution of a judicial tribunal, which could, if necessary, intervene to change the order of succession to the throne.

. . .

While there is thus much to be said for a hereditary transmission of the supreme position of the State, there is also one serious drawback, which has already been mentioned. If the succession occurs automatically, there is the possibility that the throne will be occupied by an incompetent. This is the greatest danger of the monarchial system. On the other hand, this danger only dates from the period when the inflexible legitimism of Versailles came into being, and the safeguards present in one form or another in most classical monarchies disappeared. Such safeguards would therefore have to be built into any future monarchical constitution. It would be wrong to hand this task over to political bodies, as that would open the door to private interests. The decision should be left to a judicial tribunal. The king, as the highest constitutional judge of the State, cannot exercise his function in a vacuum. He will have to be assisted by a body representing the highest judicial authority, of which he forms the head. It is this body which should pronounce on whether a law or a regulation is constitutional, that is, in accordance with the purpose of the State. When the ruler dies, the other judges will continue in office. It should be their duty to pronounce on the suitability of the heir presumptive, and, if necessary, to replace him by the next in succession.

So, might it not be more appropriate, in principle, to have some kind of apolitical "judicial tribunal" as the guardian of the order of succession?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Given that we already have more than sufficient executors of government powers in this country, such a role could conceivably be filled by the Privy Council, the Upper Cort, the Council of Governors, and so on. But I believe that is a solution for a populace grown unwieldy and distant from the crown, and Talossa is certainly not at that stage yet.

[Trotxâ]

siervicul said:

I suppose, for the sake of discussion, I will throw out the following. Here is an essay on monarchy versus republicanism by Otto von Habsburg, the head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine (Austria's former imperial house, among other things).

Hey! Great article!

siervicul said:

So, might it not be more appropriate, in principle, to have some kind of apolitical "judicial tribunal" as the guardian of the order of succession?

Good point! Could the Cort Pü Înalt serve this purpose? How would this be written into the law?

Sir T

PS: Does S:reu von Habsburg have any granddaughters near in age to Prince Patch?

[Hooligan]

In response to the question asked in postscript by the good knight, it does look like

• S:reu Habsburg's daughter, the Archduchess Gabriela, is the mother of not one but two personages with whom our Prince of Potential Prospect may wish to make himself acquainted:
  • Lioba Meister (born 20 August 1983), and
  • Alena Meister (born 7 September 1986), and that
• Gabriela's sister the Archduchess Micheala is mother to the fair eligible
  • Carla Regina Teran d'Antin (born 17 August 1987), and that
• Gabriela and Micheala's eldest sister Andrea, the Princess Imperial and Archduchess of Austria, Princess Royal of Hungary and Bohemia, and Hereditary Countess of Neipperg, is mother to
  • Countess Maria Hemma Nathalie Sophie Franziska Georgine of Neipperg (born 11 October 1983), and
  • Countess Maria Katharina Franziska Monika Elisabeth of Neipperg (born 3 April 1986).

Happy hunting, Patch.

Hooligan

P.S. of my own: This family is in direct descent from William the Conqueror. So if Talossa ever wants to invade England, history would be on our side with this kind of a marriage, Patch.

P.P.S. We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate concerning the merits of the Al Act.

[Nic Casálmac'h]

That is a great article. It brought up one point that I have been uncomfortable with about this law from the beginning: giving the legislative body power over the succession. I kind of like giving that power to the Cort Pü Înalt; the Cort should consist of members who have been citizens for a long time and know well the history of Talossa and have much experience, so it makes sense that these would be the right ones to guard the line of succession; on the other hand that is putting a lot of power in the hands of only three judges.

In this essay, he makes the argument that while democratic republics are based on legislative supremacy, and authoritarian governments are based on executive supremacy, monarchy can best be viewed as a kind of government based on judicial supremacy.

That is a very interesting way of thinking about it, one I had never considered. The US does not seem really to fit so much into that definition of a republic anymore though, but I digress.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

While I agree with the idealism behind such a council, be it the high cort or what, I have to say that I am wholly uncomfortable with leaving the whole fate of the crown in the hands of three people, no matter how trustworthy they might be. Limiting the power as I have and putting it in the hands of the people through their representatives is the best way to go, I believe. I have faith in our legislators, and their continued adherence to Talossa and her traditions.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

agbdavis said:

While I agree with the idealism behind such a council, be it the high cort or what, I have to say that I am wholly uncomfortable with leaving the whole fate of the crown in the hands of three people, no matter how trustworthy they might be. Limiting the power as I have and putting it in the hands of the people through their representatives is the best way to go, I believe. I have faith in our legislators, and their continued adherence to Talossa and her traditions.

You make a good point. Especially since the three people are the same ones who would act as a Council of Regency should things go wrong with the line of succession. And we don't have enough of a population to justify creating another judicial tribunal just for this purpose.

[Brad Holmes]

siervicul said:

You make a good point. Especially since the three people are the same ones who would act as a Council of Regency should things go wrong with the line of succession. And we don't have enough of a population to justify creating another judicial tribunal just for this purpose.

Not to mention if there were multiple councils in need of senior citizens (hehe), you run the risk of possible campaigning to get on the councils.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I ask that the Secretary of State add this bill to the next Clark for the consideration of the legislatures. Thank you.

EDIT: Incidentally, I should mention that, as edits to the OrgLaw, this is a referendum to be referred to the people for a majority.