Mariitimi-Maxhestic's Constitutional Convention Apr 21, 2008 13:28:11 GMT -6
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 21, 2008 13:28:11 GMT -6
That is true; a clause should be added stating that "the Premier shall also wield whatever power is additionally assigned to him by Organic and statutory law." I think that would solve the matter?
Further concerns have to do with the provision in the OrgLaw that a Provincial Constitution may not grant
"to the King (and consequently to the Cunstavál as the King's representative in the Province) royal powers less extensive than those granted to the King on the national level, except that the provincial royal powers need not include a right of dissolution if provincial elections are held concurrently with Cosâ elections".
The proposed Constitution, I believe, violates this provision in two specifics. First, a Provincial veto that can be overridden by a simple majority is a "less extensive" power than a National veto that requires two-thirds of the Cosa (and the Senate's concurrence) to override. And second, if Maritiimi-Maxhestic should establish a schedule for Provincial elections that's not concurrent with Cosa elections, the Cunstaval must have the power to dissolve the Provincial Assembly; but the proposed Constitution says he has "the following powers and no others" — and dissolution is not on the list.
As to the first, the King is not Organically granted the power to veto a provincial bill. An interpretation can be made that the King's power to veto a Ziu or PD bill should be interpreted that the Cunstaval can veto provincial bills, but I feel that a more direct interpretation of this clause is that the Cunstaval is wielding a subset of the King's authority, as granted to him in III.2, since the clause you state explicitly states the Cunstaval shall exercise "all executive authority granted to the Crown by the Organic Law nationally," rather than "all analogous executive authority." Because the OrgLaw further states elsewhere that all other such authority not granted to the Ziu (and the King) is reserved for the Provinces, and the King is not granted the power to veto bills in provincial assemblies, it is my firm belief that a reasonable reading of the OrgLaw does not grant the King authority to delegate to another power that he does not possess himself.
As to the second, I had imagined that dissolution was a point of order, and an appropriate motion to dissolve could be voted upon by the Assembly.
I'm slightly concerned, too, about the reflection (in the Provincial Constitution) of the King's powers of appointment at the national level. I have very little leeway, usually, in *whom* I appoint, but I do get to do a lot of appointments; and I think it would better if the Cunstaval had those same duties, mutatis muntandis, in the Province.
I appreciate and respect your concern, but it has been my general desire during the composition of this provincial constitution to vest as much power in the Assembly as possible within the dictates of law, in the spirit of democracy. M-M has had a long history of power-hungy cunstavals, and the stoutest of bulwarks possible is my intended strategy.