Proclamation of Amendments

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

A good question has been raised elsewhere - what does this do to all the other referendum the king didn't proclaim but were allowed to pass into law via his silence?

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jun 2, 2015 16:15:13 GMT -6 King John said:

Jun 2, 2015 16:00:07 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Just to make this 100% clear, the Chancery is in no way involved in this decision and it is the official position of the Chancery to be outraged at the King's action to reject the will of the PEOPLE.

I'm curious. Where in the Organic Law, or anywhere in Talossan law, is the Chancery authorized or permitted to take an "official position" on a controversial political question?

— John R

The secretary of state has no ban on taking positions on what affects his office, and I just consulted all of the citizens over an exhausting 2 weeks on that bill

Anything not banned by the law is de facto allowed.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

A bill in the Hopper, friends, won't do much good, since John can just ignore that one as well.

I would suggest that we have two options:

1) a case to the Uppermost Cort calling for a judgement that 47RZ28 is now part of the Organic Law, whether the King "proclaims" it or no. Which legal beagle wants to make that happen?

2) a strenuous appeal to all political parties to say we don't tolerate this crap in a constitutional monarchy. This includes the RUMP. Even Davinescù will be hard put to make a good case for such absolutism. What say you party leaders?

[Lüc da Schir]

Jun 2, 2015 16:15:13 GMT -6 King John said:

Jun 2, 2015 16:00:07 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Just to make this 100% clear, the Chancery is in no way involved in this decision and it is the official position of the Chancery to be outraged at the King's action to reject the will of the PEOPLE.

I'm curious. Where in the Organic Law, or anywhere in Talossan law, is the Chancery authorized or permitted to take an "official position" on a controversial political question?

— John R

I would be curious to know the same, John: given your long standing policy of not interfering with the will of the people and of your democratically elected Government, how do you explain your very own decision not to agree to what the people AND the Ziu have decided?

And lastly, do you really think that turning against the Chancery will fix your blatant overstepping of the people's will?

[Glüc da Dhi]

Immediatly after seeing this, I had a conversation with the King. I told His Majesty that I cannot support a society where one person can make change not just very hard, but completely impossible and this situation itself cannot be changed. I hope this means that even though it hasnt been proclaimed, the amendment would still be valid (even though I don't care a lot about this particular amendment). I hope that if it isnt, the government will challenge this in court. If it doesnt, or if the case fails, I will write an amendment, to be proposed by whatever member of the Ziu wants to to at least allow for some way somehow for the people to overrule the King. If that gets vetoed (or not proclaimed) I will break my oath and return my arms, as I would no longer be able to consider John Woolley to be my King. I sincerely hope it doesnt come to that. Especially cause I do actually very much respect our King.

This might effectively render much of the ideological discussion we've had in recent years completely useless. It cannot be true.

[Óïn Ursüm]

Jun 2, 2015 16:18:56 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

A bill in the Hopper, friends, won't do much good, since John can just ignore that one as well.

I would suggest that we have two options:

1) a case to the Uppermost Cort calling for a judgement that 47RZ28 is now part of the Organic Law, whether the King "proclaims" it or no. Which legal beagle wants to make that happen?

Do we have a Scribe of Abbavilla? They can just enter the amendment into law (as it should be according to standard practice) and see if there is a challenge from any quarters.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jun 2, 2015 16:22:11 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

This might effectively render much of the ideological discussion we've had in recent years completely useless. It cannot be true.

You see, sadly, yeah it can.

I've been saying for ages that the problem with the monarchy is not that John Woolley is a bad guy (he's not, he's certainly not a vicious man-child like Ben Madison). It's that the King+RUMP combination in Talossa have been acting as a backstop to prevent anything fundamental changing around here. A King who acted as a proper constitutional monarch (staying out of politics except in extreme crisis and handing out medals occasionally) would be harmless. That is not how the Talossan monarchy has ever acted.

We need fundamental constitutional change, I think. The OrgLaw of 1997, even as amended again and again, just leaves too much in the hands of the monarchy, who need not act in accordance with the will of the people or the elected Government; he may, in fact, act under the influence of his old buddies who keep losing election after election. This is what monarchy in Talossa means, and has always meant.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

If I recall, there is no prohibition against ex post facto law in Talossan jurisprudence. Is this correct? If it is, then does this rejection of the "assent by silence" doctrine on the part of the king invalidate everything else that has not been expressly proclaimed?

[Glüc da Dhi]

This hasnt got anything to do with the RUMP. And it doesnt need to have anything to do with the Monarchy either. If this particular option of vetoing everything forever, period, didnt exist, Id be fine with continuing to support the Monarchy like nothing happened. I dont know about before when I was a citizen. I know that since I have been a citizen change has been hard and needed to be fought for. But there was hope, it was not impossible. Untill now.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

I'm shocked and appalled that the sort of thing I (and others) have been worried about for years has proven to be quite true. This is no way for a constitutional monarch to act.

[Lüc da Schir]

Jun 2, 2015 16:29:17 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

If I recall, there is no prohibition against ex post facto law in Talossan jurisprudence. Is this correct? If it is, then does this rejection of the "assent by silence" doctrine on the part of the king invalidate everything else that has not been expressly proclaimed?

Good point. Technically... yes. But the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the silence=assent part has been brought up just as a random backdoor to allow this veto to happen.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Well, you see, I think it has something to do with the RUMP, the party which "defends the monarchy" no matter what. I really want to know what AD, Cresti et al have to say on this. I would hope to have a united front of all major parties in defence of the will of the people.

[Óïn Ursüm]

His Majesty's interpretation of the OrgLaw leads to the absurdity of absolutism, as Miestra points out. This surely was not the intent of the authors of the Organic Law, who ensured that it was ratified by the people in addition to being proclaimed by the king. There is no sensible and just reading of the Organic Law under which the king may refuse an amendment, and as such I argue that that the king has, as he has many times before, proclaimed 47RZ28 in the usual manner.

Nothing to see here, folks.

[King John]

Jun 2, 2015 16:24:37 GMT -6 Óïn Ursüm said:

Do we have a Scribe of Abbavilla? They can just enter the amendment into law (as it should be according to standard practice) and see if there is a challenge from any quarters.

Which would of course make the Scribe an almost-absolute dictator, since he could completely rewrite the Organic Law at his own whim.

Probably not a good plan.

— John R

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Jun 2, 2015 16:32:13 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

Jun 2, 2015 16:29:17 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

If I recall, there is no prohibition against ex post facto law in Talossan jurisprudence. Is this correct? If it is, then does this rejection of the "assent by silence" doctrine on the part of the king invalidate everything else that has not been expressly proclaimed?

Good point. Technically... yes. But the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the silence=assent part has been brought up just as a random backdoor to allow this veto to happen.

Regardless of the intent on bringing this up.  What the laws SAYs stands, as the King has kindly reminded us thus recently.  If the throne rejects assent by silence, which it seems to be doing, we have one heck of a mess.