View from a Royalist re: Royal Veto & its Override

[Hooligan]

I have become aware that the power of the King to veto, and the ability of a legislature to override that veto is an issue in the creation of the Fiovan constitution.

Whether my thoughts are wanted, or helpful, or not, I don't know (which is why I made it a separate thread, so you can ignore it), but here they are.

• The King has the power to veto any bill passed in his realm. This is given to him in Article III, Section 2, of the Organic Law. This power cannot be denied to exist.
  
  
• However, that veto is also not absolute (unless allowed to be by the legislature refusing to reconsider any vetoed legislation), since Section 6 of Article X of Organic Law explicitly says that if something is vetoed that the Ziu has passed, it can be overridden by a vote of 2/3ds the Cosa plus 1/2 the Senate. This means that any legislature in the realm can indeed constitute itself with the power to override a royal veto. This power cannot be denied by the Crown.
  
  
• This means that if a province wants to be able to override a royal veto, it can indeed say that it can, in its constitution. It has to be a constitution the King will approve, though, since the King approves constitutions. More on this later.
  
  
• Again, this means that your (Fiovan) constitution needs to have a way to deal with the veto (since it does Organically exist from III.2).
  
  
• Now, how to deal with it in a way the King will be cool with, since he has to approve your constitution.....
  
  
• The King obviously is cool with being overridden by 2/3ds of one house, half the other (since he's not bitching about OrgLaw).
  
  
• Anything at all less than that, though — anything that therefore diminishes his power more than OrgLaw has done at the national level, though —, and he's gonna say, "dudes, come ON!"
  
  
• My belief is that it would indeed be inOrganic for a veto to be more easily overridden by a provincial legislature than it is by the Ziu. If, as I have heard, Maritiimi-Maxhestic's constitution actually has a majority-override, then I am appalled, and I know for a fact that King John would never have promulgated such a thing. A majority-override is completely meaningless and makes the veto a non-power. I mean, bills already pass with majority, so what good would a veto be? The King has every right to get that part of the M-M constitution thrown out, and I am sure he did not promulgate it and it would fall in Cort if they ever tried to claim a royal veto was overridden by a majority vote in their legislature.
  
  
• The reason we have a royal veto is so that no province starts acting inOrganically. Not that we expect Fiova (or Florencia or Maricopa...or the Ziu!) to pass inOrganic laws, but the King and his Constables (doing for him at the provincial level what he's too lazy to do himself) are there to make sure of it. The veto makes sure that everyone plays by the same rules and can't go off half-cocked. Again, no one says you (or any other province, or the Ziu) will do so. But we have an APOLITICAL, THE-ORG-LAW-IS-ALL-THAT-MATTERS overseer who makes sure of it, and his name is John.
  
  
• Remember, his name is John, not Ben. If the OrgLaw says it can be done, John will not be vetoing it. And if he does, 2/3ds of you can override it and let the Corts decide if the King was right or wrong about inOrganicity. And if the Cort rules against John, I'll stand with you if he starts being Ben.
  

Long story short, the royal veto exists. If your constitution doesn't say what you're gonna do about it, then it's an absolute veto. And if it does say what you're gonna do about it, it has to be something the King will be okay with, since he has to approve your constitution before Fiova can spring into existence.

And he's not (and I don't blame him and I think the Cort would side with him) gonna accept any restriction on his power any more than the national legislature has claimed.

Them's my two-bits!

Hool

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I respectfully disagree with my good friend Hooligan on several points.

First of all, the Constitution of Maritiimi-Maxhestic was indeed promulgated, Organically and without caveat, by His Majesty's cunstaval in the province, Brad Holmes. His Majesty has stated that he intends to challenge the section in question if it ever comes into effect, but I want be clear on this point: the Constitution of the Most Glorious Province was proclaimed and established.

Further, I don't think your logic holds in your interpretation of the OrgLaw. The King is granted the power to "veto bills," of course, and through his representative the Cunstaval that power is extended to the provinces. But the provisions for overturning vetos are explicit in their reference to the different houses of the Ziu, saying "two-thirds of the Cosâ shall agree to pass the bill, with the approval of the Senäts." I do not think it can thus be argued that there is a requirement that an overturned bill be re-passed by 2/3, only that the Cosa's second vote must be 2/3. In other words, the OrgLaw completely legally allows for a bill, passed by 2/3 of the Cosa and a simple majority of the Senats, to be immediately re-passed over a royal veto. I would argue that the Assembly of Maritiimi-Maxhestic can be said to exist in imitation of the national Senats, and that lacking any strong conflict with this in the very vague nature of the OrgLaw provisions in question, the demand of the OrgLaw that all power not otherwise specified shall reside with the provinces should compel the most province-generous reading possible.

[Hooligan]

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement, and side with the King that the power to override a veto by a simple majority vote of a single house is anything but a denial of the very veto power itself.

Such a power to override is, the gentleman from Maritiimi-Maxhestic must concede, a more generous one than that with which the Ziu has been endowed Organically (sure, it's the same as the Senate's contribution to a veto by the Ziu, but the veto is not overridden simply by the vote of the Senate; the Cosa must consent in super-majority). I would side with the King that any restriction of the Royal power granted in III.2 which exceeds that restriction provided to the national legislature in X.6 is de facto inOrganic.

In the end, though, our own disagreement doesn't matter. It is up to the King to decide what Constitution he will and will not approve. As you confirmed, he did not personally approve Maritiimi-Maxhestic's, and I am sure he would consider the promulgation by his Cunstaval to have been a mistake, and his overruling of that royal decision made by his viceroy to Maritiimi-Maxhestic, invalidating your constitution, is, I believe, within his rights. As a benevolent King, though, he won't be doing such a thing, hoping you guys realise that if it comes to judicial blows, the Organic Law will likely side with him (so you might wanna amend it, though I also don't expect you to be overriding any veto anytime soon, which would be the only reason it would come to judicial blows).

Fiova is fun!

Hool

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Can I ask those "in the know" whether the King would really refuse to promulgate our Constitution because of a provision which he promulgated happily in another Provincial constitution? Would that not in itself lead to a Cort challenge?

May I also point out that I consider this proof that the office of "Cunstavál" is a complete waste of time, since this official gets in trouble for doing something the King doesn't approve of, so why doesn't the King just do the job himself.

On a political level, the more the King overrides the democratic will of the people, the better it is for Talossan republicanism.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement of my disagreement. The override is more generous than that with which the Cosa is endowed, but not the Senats, as we have both noted. This leads me to believe that the veto power does not inherently require a 2/3 contradiction. If this were the case, then the Senats could not help overturn a royal veto with a simple majority. The questionable nature of the King's power to override provincial bills, which are not specifically mentioned but only generously assumed to be included in the generic power to veto national bills of III.2, certainly makes it an even weaker case to argue that the King's veto may only be overturned with a 2/3 majority.

There is certainly no provision to allow the King to decide to rescind a democratically-decided and Cunstaval-approved constitution - otherwise it would not be any sort of constitution at all, it would just be a general-set-of-rules-unless-His-Majesty-decides-otherwise. The royal authority does not extend to rescinding royally-proclaimed constitutions with which he (years later!) disagrees, as I am sure he in his wisdom has realized. I believe His Majesty has taken the only legal course, which is to wait until he has standing to challenge the provision, and then to contest the matter in cort. The proud and noble people of the Greatest Province will humbly await such a circumstance.

Fiova is indeed fun!

[Hooligan]

May 8, 2012 15:29:44 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Can I ask those "in the know" whether the King would really refuse to promulgate our Constitution because of a provision which he promulgated happily in another Provincial constitution? Would that not in itself lead to a Cort challenge?

I think he would, yes. The reason is because he did not promulgate that provision happily for M-M. His Cunstaval made what I'm sure the Crown believes to be a mistake doing so. Since Fiova doesn't have a Cunstaval to make such a mistake yet, the King's your only approver.

Also, as I posted above, I think the King is hoping Maritiimi-Maxhestic realizes that it needs to change that provision or risk having him overrule the promulgation and take it to Cort, where I believe he would win, because it is a restriction of his veto power that is inOrganically strong.

May I also point out that I consider this proof that the office of "Cunstavál" is a complete waste of time, since this official gets in trouble for doing something the King doesn't approve of, so why doesn't the King just do the job himself.

John? Wanna explain why you were too lazy to pay attention when this was happening? (This may have been during his cancer treatments, actually, now that I think about it.)

On a political level, the more the King overrides the democratic will of the people, the better it is for Talossan republicanism.

I disagree, since I know that the King is apolitical, and has only the interests of the nation and all its people at heart in everything he does. Allowing political winds to carry the nation hither and yon without a tether to an Organic structure that protects the minority as well as the majority who may have power today is essential to a successful system of government.

EDIT TO THE ABOVE: I retract my disagreement now that I read your statement closer. I agree that the more times the King vetoes, the stronger the case might be for Republicanism. However, I will qualify that by saying that this would be the case only if the King is vetoing legislation that is Organic. Since that is the only reason any veto should be made, I don't fear his veto. He can (and should) use it til the cows come home to prevent anything inOrganic from happening, since we all live under OrgLaw. If ever this or any King does feel the need to veto a lot of things that ARE ORGANIC, then yeah, we'll have another Ben on our hands, and I'll be right with you pulling the throne out from under him.

Hool

[Hooligan]

May 8, 2012 15:36:33 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement of my disagreement.

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement with my disagreement with your disagreement to my statements.

The override is more generous than that with which the Cosa is endowed, but not the Senats, as we have both noted. This leads me to believe that the veto power does not inherently require a 2/3 contradiction.

Ah, but you also cannot, therefore, say that it leads you to believe the converse, that it requires only a 1/2.

If this were the case, then the Senats could not help overturn a royal veto with a simple majority. The questionable nature of the King's power to override provincial bills, which are not specifically mentioned but only generously assumed to be included in the generic power to veto national bills of III.2, certainly makes it an even weaker case to argue that the King's veto may only be overturned with a 2/3 majority.

I disagree vehemently that the King's power to veto any legislation in his realm if it is inOrganic is anything close to a generous assumption. If the nation, or any part thereof, is acting under laws that are inOrganic, it is the King's duty to get those things to the Court by vetoing them and, if overridden, making his case in Court. It is his very duty and therefore must be within his power. If the provinces can do things the nation itself cannot, then what is the point of having a national legislature at all? If the Ziu says "X" but a province says, "no, not X" and the King doesn't have the same power to veto "not X" as he has to veto "X", then something is wrong, because one of those two things is inOrganic. And if either of the two powers to override (provincial or national) is stronger than the other, it simply must be the national one, since the Organic Law is a matter that concerns the whole nation, and some single part of it cannot choose to ignore it (because it can override the King's screams of inOrganicity) while the others cannot.

There is certainly no provision to allow the King to decide to rescind a democratically-decided and Cunstaval-approved constitution - otherwise it would not be any sort of constitution at all, it would just be a general-set-of-rules-unless-His-Majesty-decides-otherwise. The royal authority does not extend to rescinding royally-proclaimed constitutions with which he (years later!) disagrees, as I am sure he in his wisdom has realized.

I disagree. If the King ever makes a mistake, would we not want him to correct it? If someone acting on the King's behalf makes something that the King considers a mistake, is it therefore a mistake the King has to live with? No, the freedom of the Royalty to act in all matters in which it is empowered to act (which are precious few, but which includes promulgation of constitutions) should and must not be "one and done, dude! You snooze, you lose."

I believe His Majesty has taken the only legal course, which is to wait until he has standing to challenge the provision, and then to contest the matter in cort. The proud and noble people of the Greatest Province will humbly await such a circumstance.

My opinion that the King likely has it within his power to correct a royal mistake in constitutional promulgation as described above may be only my own, or it may be that while John feels he probably has it within his power, his wisdom tells him it's better not to do such a thing unless and until that odious provision is actually put to use, because right now it's really not a big deal.

But just because the King (or someone exercising his powers as viceroy to a province) makes something the King considers a mistake doesn't mean that the King or any other Cunstaval should be forced to live with that mistake, let alone forced to repeat it.

Fiova is indeed fun!

Totally. Where would we be without you guys?!?

Hool

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

May 8, 2012 16:50:56 GMT -6 Hooligan said:

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement with my disagreement with your disagreement to my statements.

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement with my disagreement with your disagreement of my disagreement to your statements.

May 8, 2012 16:50:56 GMT -6 Hooligan said:

Ah, but you also cannot, therefore, say that it leads you to believe the converse, that it requires only a 1/2.

Of course, I can't say that, any more than I could say that it requires 2/3 of the vote to overturn a veto in the OrgLaw - it requires 2/3 of one body and a majority of another. I believe that there is no governing definition of overriding a veto in the OrgLaw, and accordingly the democratic will of the people of Talossa should prevail in providing a definition. In the case of M-M, the people have democratically chosen to democratically reserve as much power as democratically possible to their democratically-elected democratic representatives.

May 8, 2012 16:50:56 GMT -6 Hooligan said:

I disagree vehemently that the King's power to veto any legislation in his realm if it is inOrganic is anything close to a generous assumption. If the nation, or any part thereof, is acting under laws that are inOrganic, it is the King's duty to get those things to the Court by vetoing them and, if overridden, making his case in Court. It is his very duty and therefore must be within his power.

I am not arguing duty, but simply the provisions of that very OrgLaw. More to the point, though, M-M's constitution does indeed permit a royal veto, because I felt that this point - while ambiguous - definitely leaned in favor of royal power. The King is Organically enabled to veto bills for any purpose, though: we just have, happily, a King that only vetoes when some provision would be unlawful. But again, this is moot, because M-M provides for a form of royal veto.

May 8, 2012 16:50:56 GMT -6 Hooligan said:

If the provinces can do things the nation itself cannot, then what is the point of having a national legislature at all? If the Ziu says X but a province says, "no, not X" and the King doesn't have the same power to veto "not X" as he has to veto "X", then something is wrong, because one of those two things is inOrganic.

The national legislature has a very specific list of duties, enumerated in the Organic Law (Org.XVII.6), and all other power not otherwise specifically invested in national entities is reserved for the provinces (Org.XVII.8). In other words, the OrgLaw specifically and explicitly provides that the provinces can do many things that the national legislature cannot do. But the Ziu's enlisted powers are nonetheless wide-ranging and superior, within the specified areas, to those of any province.

May 8, 2012 16:50:56 GMT -6 Hooligan said:

I disagree. If the King ever makes a mistake, would we not want him to correct it? If someone acting on the King's behalf makes something that the King considers a mistake, is it therefore a mistake the King has to live with? No, the freedom of the Royalty to act in all matters in which it is empowered to act (which are precious few, but which includes promulgation of constitutions) should and must not be "one and done, dude! You snooze, you lose."

There is absolutely no provision in the Organic Law for the King to rescind a legally promulgated constitution. If such a power existed, then constitutions would exist only at the King's pleasure, and that does not appear to me to be a valid interpretation of the law - nor a particularly desirable circumstance. It would be, in effect, a perpetual and total authority over the provinces and an absolute and unassailable veto, because any law with which the King or cunstaval disagreed could be abolished by the simple expedient of abolishing the provincial constitution (thereby devolving total power to the King) and then repealing the law.

[Hooligan]

Before I respond, I notice you posted while I was editing, and I added this section; I'd like your response to it before I reply. (Also, okay, you caught me; I'm on my way to the bar.)

...And if either of the two powers to override (provincial or national) is stronger than the other, it simply must be the national one, since the Organic Law is a matter that concerns the whole nation, and some single part of it cannot choose to ignore it (because it can override the King's screams of inOrganicity) while the others cannot.

You can consider this in response to your "democratic" sentence, maybe, though I also refer back to the King's obligation to protect the minority from the simple rule of a majority, something that "we passed it once by one vote and we can do it again, Your Majesty" just doesn't provide.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Fair enough. Well, I would argue that your assertion depends on a perception of the Ziu as being superior in some way to the provinces, but this superiority extends only to a select enumerated list. I could just as easily argue that if any power is to be stronger than the other, it must be the provincial one, since single parts of the nation should be more free to devise solutions that suit their needs.

I think that it is noble and admirable that His Majesty the King wishes to protect the minority from the majority, but his intentions do not grant him extraorganic powers. In my view, the right of cort appeal is the way we ensure the interests of our minority, rather than relying on our sovereign.

[King John]

I disagree with everyone about everything.

A few points:

1. The Constable is IN NO SENSE in trouble for promulgating the Constitution of Maritiimi-Maxhestic. I objected to the meaningless veto at the time, but I now think I didn't object strongly enough (which I would have done, if I'd realized it would be taken as some kind of precedent); and indeed, if a veto in Maritiimi-Maxhestic were ever to be overridden by less than 2/3 of the Provincial Assembly, I would argue before the Uppermost Cort that the simple-majority veto is inOrganic.

2. OK, actually, I do agree with S:reu Davis that the Crown has no power to withdraw or amend a duly-promulgated Provincial Constitution.

3. Since Provincial legislatures tend to be unicameral, and so no exact procedural analogy exists between the Ziu's overriding a veto and a Provincial legislature's doing so, it is my position that the Crown's veto must be understood *functionally* rather than *procedurally* for purposes of determining whether a Provincial Constitution gives the Crown powers "no less" than those it possesses at the national level. Now, the Crown's veto in the Ziu can accomplish two things: it delays passage of a bill from one Clark to the next (i.e. for at least one month), and it requires a different, greater majority to override than was required to pass the Bill in the first place. Both are important, and both are essential to how the veto functions. If the Crown is to have the same *functional* power in Fiova, I don't see any better or simpler way to achieve that than a provision that the override of a veto can only be accomplished by 2/3 of the legislature, after a delay of at least a month.

4. My constitutional philosophy is *not* that "the Org-Law is all that matters". Certainly, I have a duty to veto inOrganic legislation, and not to promulgate inOrganic Provincial Constitutions. (And yes, in the case of Maritiimi-Maxhestic, I think I failed in this duty.) But other things matter too, and I might consider using the Crown's various powers to protect other rights than simply those enshrined in the OrgLaw. I will NOT use any royal powers, though, to favour one side or another in simple political questions (remembering of course that what seems simply political to one guy might seem essentially constitutional to another).

5. Constables are, from my viewpoint, not "a complete waste of time", any more than Governor Generals and Lord Lieutenants and such are in the Westminster system. As Talossa grows, especially, the Crown will require "specialists" in the various Provinces; even now, the Cunstavais can keep better track of what's going on in their Provinces than I can. And I value their knowledge and advice.

— John R

[Hooligan]

I disagree with the King that "a few" is five, but then, given that another King (Arthur) made the same claim in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I guess it's one of those King-things like the Royal We, so okay.

Otherwise, I agree with the King, even in the two places where he disagreed with me. I didn't mean to rope him into an Org-Law-Is-All-That-Matters cage as much as I did, and combining his points 1 and 2 (and having discussed this with other judicially-minded citizens overnight), I now agree that the Courts would be the only way to invalidate any part of a promulgated Constitution.

Hool

[Eiric S. Börnatfiglheu]

But is a simple-majority override for a provincial consistution actually InOrganic? What are the guidelines for a provincial constitution spelled out in the Orglaw? We can talk about structural and procedural analogs... but what does the law specifically say?

I would submit that if it is not forbidden in the Orglaw, then the case of M-M provides ample precedent for a simple majority override in the case of Fiova. Heming and hawing about what the King "should have done" at the time doesn't amount to nuts in this case since "What should have been done" isn't the law.

[Hooligan]

May 9, 2012 13:17:00 GMT -6 Eiric S. Börnatfiglheu said:

But is a simple-majority override for a provincial consistution actually InOrganic? What are the guidelines for a provincial constitution spelled out in the Orglaw? We can talk about structural and procedural analogs... but what does the law specifically say?

It doesn't say anything. Ben and the OrgLaw writers didn't really consider things like this.

I would submit that if it is not forbidden in the Orglaw, then the case of M-M provides ample precedent for a simple majority override in the case of Fiova.

Well, you can submit that, but the guy who has to accept that is the King, and....

Heming and hawing about what the King "should have done" at the time doesn't amount to nuts in this case since "What should have been done" isn't the law.

Correct. And the corollary is that it must also be the case, therefore, that what he did before can and should not be used as any basis to expect him to do it again in such a case as this, when he is saying that what was done before (by his Constable, for him) was not done the way he himself would do it, and that if the provision in question is ever put into play he would bring it to the Corts arguing its inOrganicity.

Given this, I would think any Constitution going before him for approval would want to be something he's all cool with so that he doesn't feel that he has to say "I can't approve that; I'm sorry if that seems unfair since MM's has it right now, but it's something I wish they didn't have, that I consider inOrganic, and that I really think the Courts would invalidate if M-M ever tried to use it, you see." (So basically, any "sorry, guys" that comes in response to a more severe denial of his veto power -- and a majority override is an absolute and complete denial of it -- than the national parliament has, would really be the King's way of saying, "the Court would slap it down anyway, so let's set up something we're all cool with".)

Hool

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

What if a provincial constitution simply didn't mention this issue? After all privileges of the Crown (and their representatives) are a matter of the OrgLaw, so why should we introduce and discuss provisions that are decided on a higher legal level, anyway?

(and on the other hand, why would the moon care if a dog is barking at it? That is, inorganic provisions in a provincial constitution are trumped by the OrgLaw anyway, so what?)