Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on May 9, 2012 14:59:25 GMT -6
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?) Deet makes excellent points. And well, if you wanted my honest opinion, not mentioning it at all in your Constitution would probably be my advice. Then, if you ever did something that the King or his Constable disagreed with (which I doubt you would ever do), and the Crown chooses to veto it under the fact that Article III Section 2 gives it the power to do so, you can decide at that time how to handle it. You could certainly then re-pass the same legislation (repeatedly, testing the King's obstinance, and I know that if he sees it pass with 2/3ds or more, he will NOT veto it a second time unless he considers it inOrganic, and even then he might just let someone challenge it in court), or deal with adding something to your Constitution then. Sometimes not planning for the probably-won't-happen is best. We have remedies in place that makes sure everyone is treated fair and right even without any mention of a royal veto in your constitution. Hool
|
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on May 9, 2012 15:29:26 GMT -6
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 don't think you can blame Ben for this one, actually. Section 9 of the article on Territorial subdivisions has undergone extensive alterations since 1997. The original text read, simply, "Each Province shall guarantee to its citizens a democratic, republican, or constitutional-monarchical form of government, and the full protection of their rights under this Organic Law." King Ben's amendment to this, 33RZ2, instead created extensive requirements, including each province to have a unicameral legislature the same size as the Cosa, with elections at the same time as the Cosa, which would elect a local Premier explicitly analogous to the Prime Minister, with a Cunsteval (appointed on advice of the national Prime Minister) who had all the same executive powers on the provincial level as the King had on the national level except the power to dissolve the legislature (which would happen at the same time as the Cosa). The intent of this was fairly clearly that provinces had to have the exact same system of government as the nation, sans a local Senate. 37RZ15 replaced that with the current language. Perhaps Sir Mick can explain exactly what he intended, since he is the one who proposed the amendment, and people can go into the archives to hunt down the debate over it. But I believe 37RZ15's clause on royal power intended to preserve the Royal/Cunstaval power at the level of 33RZ2 while unshackling the provinces from the other requirements of it.
|
|
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 May 9, 2012 16:40:49 GMT -6
That Act was primarily written to abolish requiring the Provincial elections to always be at the same time with General Elections.
If a Province wants to hold elections every 3 month, 6 months, year, or 2 years, that's their call.
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on May 9, 2012 17:40:38 GMT -6
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 9, 2012 20:14:15 GMT -6
Well, anyway. Would all parties be satisfied if the question of a Cunstavál veto were deleted from the constitutional draft altogether?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 10, 2012 0:17:33 GMT -6
Don't need to worry about satisfying me! I just wanted to provide the other side in favor of provincial autonomy.
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on May 10, 2012 1:48:33 GMT -6
Well, anyway. Would all parties be satisfied if the question of a Cunstavál veto were deleted from the constitutional draft altogether? I'd say so. By this we're neither repeating (and therefore, officially acknowledging) the veto, nor are we starting a longwinded legal dispute with the Crown, which may only delay the official foundation of Fiôvâ.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 10, 2012 3:16:41 GMT -6
Well, then, unless I hear any objections, I will delete the last sentence of Section 10 altogether in the final version?
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on May 10, 2012 8:34:06 GMT -6
Sure.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on May 10, 2012 9:24:15 GMT -6
Well, anyway. Would all parties be satisfied if the question of a Cunstavál veto were deleted from the constitutional draft altogether? Insofar as I'm a party here, no problem with that approach. We can hack it out some other time, if the question ever actually arises. — John R
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on May 10, 2012 9:29:49 GMT -6
I think that would be best too. At least then we can finally settle in Fiova as a provincial home!
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on May 11, 2012 0:19:06 GMT -6
I agree with all of you!
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on May 11, 2012 20:35:03 GMT -6
I disagree with GV's disagreement with...
Oh. Wait. Never mind. Force of habit.
Hool
|
|