Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on Jun 3, 2015 13:30:26 GMT -6
The first such procedure that comes to my mind is that the Ziu can pass, with a veto override, a law requiring that the King proclaim the amendment by a specific date, specifying that failure to so proclaim is a "high crime". If the King chooses to defy that law and still does not proclaim the amendment, a conviction for his failure would allow Article III, section seven of the Organic Law to be invoked to remove the King. In order to secure a King who would then proclaim the amendment, heirs could be removed from the line of succession under section six in order to force a replacement election under section eleven. King Miestrâ I could be relied on to do so, I expect.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jun 3, 2015 13:45:20 GMT -6
(I grant that I am possibly biased in this interpretation of the law for any/all of the following reasons: Primus, I am currently a Cunstaval; secundus, I was head of the Benito government during my time as Cunstaval, and saw no reason to consider that an objectionable state of affairs; tertius, I voted against the amendment; and quartus, I fully expected in advance the King would find the amendment objectionable.) You are aware that is illegal, right? Distribution of Power Art 15. So that no conflict of interest may occur, or that no one individual may take over the province in a hostile attempt, no-one may hold more than one of the offices of Maestro, Viceré, or Noval Representanteu simultaneously. The Viceré also may not hold seats in the Provincial Chancellery. This is from the constitution that was proclaimed by Owen Edwards when he was the Cunstuval/Vicere. So, it's law.
|
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on Jun 3, 2015 13:49:21 GMT -6
(I grant that I am possibly biased in this interpretation of the law for any/all of the following reasons: Primus, I am currently a Cunstaval; secundus, I was head of the Benito government during my time as Cunstaval, and saw no reason to consider that an objectionable state of affairs; tertius, I voted against the amendment; and quartus, I fully expected in advance the King would find the amendment objectionable.) You are aware that is illegal, right? Distribution of Power Art 15. So that no conflict of interest may occur, or that no one individual may take over the province in a hostile attempt, no-one may hold more than one of the offices of Maestro, Viceré, or Noval Representanteu simultaneously. The Viceré also may not hold seats in the Provincial Chancellery. This is from the constitution that was proclaimed by Owen Edwards when he was the Cunstuval/Vicere. So, it's law. I was Cunstavál of Fiôvâ (not Viceré of Benito) when I was Maestro of Benito, which was perfectly legal at the time, but (IIRC) would not be under this OrgLaw amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jun 3, 2015 13:53:27 GMT -6
My apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying there (and I've been gone for a few months so, hey).
But to the rest of your point, it's fine that you don't like the amendment. But nearly 3/4 of voters supported it. And the King just struck it down leaving everyone with no recourse. At a minimum, that runs contrary to the spirit of Article III of the Organic law which states:
That it was narrowly focused tyranny doesn't make it any less tyrannical.
|
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on Jun 3, 2015 13:56:58 GMT -6
But to the rest of your point, it's fine that you don't like the amendment. But nearly 3/4 of voters supported it. And the King just struck it down leaving everyone with no recourse. Which I then specifically said was unwise policy on the part of the King (that is, despite my not liking the amendment, and thinking he's allowed to block it, I think he should have proclaimed it). I wrote concisely, with lots of nuance.
|
|
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 Jun 3, 2015 14:59:26 GMT -6
Whether I would support a change to Article XV is something I'm still thinking about Whether you think the King should have a veto on constitutional change is still something you're thinking about? Very well. Let me repeat: I would have never gone through with Reunision if I'd known that this was the case; and since it makes the republican agenda impossible, you leave no alternative for republican Talossans but civil disobedience. I can't imagine what the crusted-on reactionaries look like. I would have thought the "progressive cheek" of the RUMP would be the Ladîntsch Naziunàl and the Senator from Vuode. Heh. I'm more conservative than Alexandreu is. I just don't seem to ruffle some people's feathers the way he does. Ah, well, maybe I'm using "progressive" to mean "not a pompous trafistà da ciúl who can never admit when he's wrong". But this interpretation is, let me repeat, completely novel. I don't think even the most crusted-on monarchist, even the King himself, would have ever considered this before today. This really has been pulled out of where the sun shineth not. Not so. The King expressed this view of Article XV to me years before Reunision. In fact, we talked about this aspect of royal power before he was King. ... and none of you ever thought to inform the rest of us. You've been letting all of us vote on OrgLaw amendments for, by your own count, several years now, and never thought to tell us that your good buddy John could just trash any of them you didn't like. This just gets worse. I've heard of reserve powers of the monarchy, but secret powers?!?
|
|
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 Jun 3, 2015 15:04:57 GMT -6
What you need to remember is that your King is very legalistic. He loves learning and following rules. He probably would not let you take money for landing on "Free Parking" in "Monopoly". So just read the rules, and try to apply those rules: not what you'd like them to say or what you can argue they say, but what the rules actually say. Excuse me, Patrick, but even under this OrgLaw, the King does not get to declare "what the rules actually say". That's the Uppermost Cort's job, in the case of conflict. Again, the House of Lupúl shows its true colours in not wishing to stick with constitutional monarchy. BTW, I happened to talk to Adiens Glaçâ - one of the framers of this OrgLaw - about this situation, and his reaction was "There's still a King of Talossa?!?"
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jun 3, 2015 15:08:08 GMT -6
and none of you ever thought to inform the rest of us. You've been letting all of us vote on OrgLaw amendments for, by your own count, several years now, and never thought to tell us that your good buddy John could just trash any of them you didn't like. This just gets worse. I've heard of reserve powers of the monarchy, but secret powers?!? I guess it never occurred to me that the ordinary meaning of the word "may" could be viewed as a secret, especially when it's used in contradistinction to "shall" so many times in the OrgLaw, in accordance with normal legislative usage. I'm really surprised so many people see it otherwise. Istefan had the same understanding of the amendment process. I presume you don't think he was let into the secret meaning of Article XV as some kind of conspiracy with the King and the RUMP, do you?
|
|
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 Jun 3, 2015 15:08:27 GMT -6
Gosh, Tim, I don't expect a lot of agreement with you these days, but nasty name-calling? Really ugly. Now, you see, people think that I'm a fire-breathing blue-streak-swearing dragon woman, but I have just been saying what other people have been thinking for a long time. This recent attempt to circumvent democracy in Talossa is bringing a few matters to a head - not only has it brought the Admiral back from holiday to uncork a bit of repressed bitterness, but you've got "moderate monarchists" being shocked and appalled that you could do this. I'm not shocked and appalled, because I know that this is what Talossan monarchy has always done. Fools tried to tell me - that because Ben Madison behaved like a paranoid narcissist and you're a Nice Guy - things were okay now. But it's never been the person of the Monarch, but the institution of the monarchy. Thank you for showing the moderates exactly what monarchy means. You're the best recruiting sergeant the ZRT has.
|
|
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 Jun 3, 2015 15:15:37 GMT -6
and none of you ever thought to inform the rest of us. You've been letting all of us vote on OrgLaw amendments for, by your own count, several years now, and never thought to tell us that your good buddy John could just trash any of them you didn't like. This just gets worse. I've heard of reserve powers of the monarchy, but secret powers?!? I guess it never occurred to me that the ordinary meaning of the word "may" could be viewed as a secret, especially when it's used in contradistinction to "shall" so many times in the OrgLaw, in accordance with normal legislative usage. I'm really surprised so many people see it otherwise. Istefan had the same understanding of the amendment process. I presume you don't think he was let into the secret meaning of Article XV as some kind of conspiracy with the King and the RUMP, do you? There has always been an understanding here that some people are better trained in law and thus can read legal language better than others. I'm not one of them, but had I actually read that document in detail, I too would have noticed that there was a way that a slippery King could simply trash OrgLaw amendments. And I would have brought it up publicly and canvassed for an amendment.The fact remains that the consensus of the vast majority of Talossans 24 hours ago would have been that an OrgLaw amendment passed in accordance with Article XVI would be part of the law. Most of us haven't read the OrgLaw in detail. Many of us couldn't because legal English is a mystery to them. The whole purpose of having a Talossan Bar is to ensure that legal professionals in this Kingdom behave ethically, and don't use their specialist knowledge for their own private benefit by refusing to publicise it. Any of you who noticed that there was a way in which a dishonest King could simply refuse to enact OrgLaw amendments, and didn't tell the nation at large who don't read laws for fun, have behaved unethically or at least recklessly. And I accuse the RUMP in particular of deliberately doing so so their pet King could pull this card out when needed as a surprise.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jun 3, 2015 15:27:19 GMT -6
With respect. I've always had the idea that people running for legislative office had at least half a clue when it came to reading legal documents. It's kind of in the job description.
|
|
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 Jun 3, 2015 15:32:38 GMT -6
No other constitution in the world has provisions which they don't explain to ordinary people. Every other constitution in the world has an honest explanation of how it works in legal language.
The Eðo I knew before he joined the RUMP would have never thought that clever lawyers straining new interpretations which were unknown to the public was a good thing. Do they give you an ethics-ectomy when you join?
|
|
Ieremiac'h Ventrutx
Former Senator of Florencia ~ Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 990
Talossan Since: 3-1-1997
|
Post by Ieremiac'h Ventrutx on Jun 3, 2015 15:52:30 GMT -6
Talossa, it is a constitutional Monarchy right? I don't get why the sudden surprise of the King taking what he believes is a higher responsibility makes people get their panties (or holy undergarments) in a knot! The Senate is there to shepherd and protect the country (even from itself), shouldn't the King be expected to do the same? It is like people in the United States realizing they pledge allegiance to the "Republic for which it stands" and have no issue with that unless it goes against their wishes (or their food stamps) ... wait that is exactly what is happening, then people get all insanely political and start calling for heads and posting garbage rather than trying to figure it out.
Perhaps rather than looking to vilify the King someone should be looking at the objections the King raises and working on an Amendment that will be happily made law.
=========== And just for further clarification:
1. Yes, I realize my position in Benito. I have never been contacted by Benito folks, I tried to reach out multiple times then stopped. In my series of absences no one emailed me or called me, they have not contacted me on Facebook or any other ways. The Kingdom is NOT Witt right?
2. I do not receive pay as an employee of Marti-Pair Furxhier - I have worked on several projects mostly in exchange for web hosting or other benefits rarely cash. Need to be clear on this as it is a violation of US Law and I can not be employed in a VoIP service company based on other agreements in my life. However, I speak with MP often, none of this was mentioned by him, I chose to lurk today and what did I find? Cluck cluck.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jun 3, 2015 16:01:51 GMT -6
Any of you who noticed that there was a way in which a dishonest King could simply refuse to enact OrgLaw amendments, and didn't tell the nation at large who don't read laws for fun, have behaved unethically or at least recklessly. And I accuse the RUMP in particular of deliberately doing so so their pet King could pull this card out when needed as a surprise. I think it'd be more realistic to suggest that all members of the Bar lobotomise themselves to neutralise any possible advantage that their education, experience, or attention to detail might afford them over the least legally literate citizen. Harrison Bergeron, here we come. When people have legal questions, I'm generally happy to help, regardless of political advantage (see my responses to Glüc in the thread on early referenda). But given the sheer number of legal provisions that people have expressed surprise over at one time or another, I reject the idea that I or anyone else has some ethical obligation to write an exhaustive Layman's Guide to the Organic Law and Complete Statutes of Talossa in order to be able to participate in the political process. I thought Article XV was reasonably clear. I did not expect the King to withhold consent to this amendment, and I don't know anyone who did. No one was keeping any secrets here. In fact, I myself acted under the same understanding of "may proclaim" last year, when as Governor-General of Cézembre I refused to consent to a provincial constitutional amendment. There was a conflict with higher law that made a difference in that case, but I understand the provincial amendment process to be patterned after the national process in preserving an element of judgment in the decision to proclaim an amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Françal Ian Lux on Jun 3, 2015 16:02:07 GMT -6
Talossa, it is a constitutional Monarchy right? I don't get why the sudden surprise of the King taking what he believes is a higher responsibility makes people get their panties (or holy undergarments) in a knot! The Senate is there to shepherd and protect the country (even from itself), shouldn't the King be expected to do the same? It is like people in the United States realizing they pledge allegiance to the "Republic for which it stands" and have no issue with that unless it goes against their wishes (or their food stamps) ... wait that is exactly what is happening, then people get all insanely political and start calling for heads and posting garbage rather than trying to figure it out. Perhaps rather than looking to vilify the King someone should be looking at the objections the King raises and working on an Amendment that will be happily made law. =========== And just for further clarification: 1. Yes, I realize my position in Benito. I have never been contacted by Benito folks, I tried to reach out multiple times then stopped. In my series of absences no one emailed me or called me, they have not contacted me on Facebook or any other ways. The Kingdom is NOT Witt right? 2. I do not receive pay as an employee of Marti-Pair Furxhier - I have worked on several projects mostly in exchange for web hosting or other benefits rarely cash. Need to be clear on this as it is a violation of US Law and I can not be employed in a VoIP service company based on other agreements in my life. However, I speak with MP often, none of this was mentioned by him, I chose to lurk today and what did I find? Cluck cluck. The issue here isn't wether or not we agree or disagree with each other. The concept of a Constitutional Monarchy is not about the King's right or the government's right. It's adopted to protect the People's right. The amendment has passed the referendum regardless of wether or not we like it. The people have spoken. Yet his majesty denies it claiming semantics to justify his actions.
|
|