Proclamation of Amendments

[Óïn Ursüm]

Jun 2, 2015 16:34:21 GMT -6 King John said:

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

No, recourse to the courts would ensure that the Scribe only enter amendments which have been validly proclaimed, as 47RZ28 surely has.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jun 2, 2015 16:34:21 GMT -6 King John said:

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

The irony is delicious.

[Lüc da Schir]

Jun 2, 2015 16:34:21 GMT -6 King John said:

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

How sweet, John.

[King John]

I think Óïn is arguing that when the law says "may" it means "must", and when it says "authorized" it means "required". Humpty Dumpty would agree.

— John R

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Jun 2, 2015 16:34:21 GMT -6 King John said:

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

With respect, Your Majesty, he has more of a popular mandate to make this change than you do to reject it. I am not in favour of absolutism, but I never thought you personally would go this far when I expressed a desire to see a more constrained head of state.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I say again: if the OrgLaw says that the King may set aside OrgLaw amendments he doesn't like, then the OrgLaw gives the King dictatorial powers over our constitutional fabric. If this is true, Talossa is not a constitutional monarchy, and those who want a constitutional monarchy must solidly line up (alongside republicans and 'agnostics') for a new OrgLaw based on the will of the people and enforced in the King's teeth.

Is this Talossa's 1215 or 1649?

[Glüc da Dhi]

or we just change the one clause that grants the King absolute power... (If his interpretation is right)

[Óïn Ursüm]

Jun 2, 2015 16:38:13 GMT -6 King John said:

I think Óïn is arguing that when the law says "may" it means "must", and when it says "authorized" it means "required". Humpty Dumpty would agree.

— John R

I argue that there are two types of 'proclamation': (1) silent proclamation, the usual practice in recent times, and (2) explicit proclamation, as has been done from time to time. The king has already silently proclaimed the amendment, as authorised by the Ziu and the people, and therefore the amendment is law.

[King John]

So, when the King says "I hereby explicitly refrain from proclaiming", what he REALLY means is "I hereby silently proclaim". Humpty Dumpty again.

— John R

[Óïn Ursüm]

Jun 2, 2015 16:48:19 GMT -6 King John said:

So, when the King says "I hereby explicitly refrain from proclaiming", what he REALLY means is "I hereby silently proclaim". Humpty Dumpty again.

— John R

I can think of no other way to charitably interpret the OrgLaw. The framers weren't so short-sighted.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jun 2, 2015 16:48:50 GMT -6 Óïn Ursüm said:

I can think of no other way to charitably interpret the OrgLaw. The framers weren't so short-sighted.

Given that one of the framers was KR1, I wouldn't put it past him.

Glüc, even if this is the only absolutist timebomb in the OrgLaw which allows the King dictatorial powers, the problem is that if we just amend that clause, John can refuse to proclaim it.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Yeah, exactly. If thats true, Talossa is broken. Completely broken. Still it would be that particular clause that is the source of it. The rest of the OrgLaw is irrelevant.

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

The statute in question, of course, is 47RZ28, which reads thusly:

RZ28 - THE ORGANIC LAW AMENDMENT (Provincial Government) BILL #1 OF 2015
Published in Clark #5

Statute
The Ziu resolves to amend the Organic Law to add a new section to the end of Article XVII: Territorial Subdivisions of the Organic Law:

No person shall be at the same time Cunstavál of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province.

<end of statute>

The Organic Law Article (at www.kingdomoftalossa.net/index.cgi?lingo=&page=OrgLaw) in its entirety is...

Article XV: Amendments to the Organic Law

Section 1. An amendment to the Organic Law may be made by proclamation by the King where so authorized by:

A vote of two-thirds in both chambers of the Ziu, and
Approval of the majority of voters participating in a referendum on the question of the amendment no later than during the next scheduled general election following the approval of the Ziu.
Proposed changes to this Organic Law that affect the representation of a province in the Senäts, or of the territory or equal sovereignty of a province, shall only be passed with the approval of a majority of participating voters in that province.

Section 2. The Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, being sacred and necessary to the defence of our free society, are entrenched provisions of this Organic Law. They may only be amended if the referendum required by Section 1 passes with a two-thirds majority of voters participating in the referendum.

<end of OrgLaw citation>

John Woolley explains himself, "While it has been our usual habit to allow Amendments to pass into the Organic Law without explicit proclamation by the King — according, I suppose, to the general legal principle that qui tacet consentire videtur [he who is silent is taken to agree] —, I have long felt that a more formal adherence to the Law on this point would be better practice. Therefore, since I *may* proclaim the Amendments recently approved, I hereby proclaim all of them except referendum number 3, 47RZ28, which I hereby explicitly refrain from proclaiming even though I am *authorized* to do so.

My reason for NOT proclaiming 47RZ28 is simply that to do so would limit the Crown's freedom in exercising the Royal Organic prerogative to appoint as Constable — that is, as the Crown's personal representative to a Province — whomever the Crown pleases. This action is in concert with my general intention vigorously (but always legally!) to defend the Crown's several privileges and prerogatives."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_procedure

Well, well, well, this is interesting. John reads the rules of the game well and uses them to keep up his powers contrary to the will of the voters. My understanding of legalese is above all-else, we must look to the text. The 'spirit' of this part of the OrgLaw I have always understood to be the royal proclamation of a constitutional amendment to be purely ceremonial. However, the 'spirit' of the law is subjective to each person, but the text apart from all else is the most-objective part of all things legal. It is the part we can all read, and assuming the language is accessible to all, we can agree on the meanings of whatever words and phrases our eyes can see.

And the meaning of this Organic Law text is clear: 'qui tacet consentire videtur' is not enshrined in our constitution, and the Monarch can veto any constitutional amendements he likes. And he has done so exclusively (according to his above reasoning) to keep his powers as Monarch intact over the will of the majority of the voters and the legislature. This is perfectly legal. I do not like this, but again, it is 100% legal.

This can be spun in a number of directions. John, the Royal Usurper and Dictator of Talossa! John, who just knows how to read a rulebook well... The naïvete of Those who wrote the errant OrgLaw article in the first place... And on and on...

Is there any manpower shortage that John could have cited in his rationale behind the veto? Whether or not, he has stepped into scandal to be sure, as his rationale clearly speaks of a Monarch hell-bent on keeping at least his ceremonial powers intact over the wishes of his subjects. Servant of the People or Dictator for Life?

As soon as possible, I would suggest the Zui authorize a referendum to close this Organic loophole and bring to a vote a second time the vetoed amendment. If John vetoes these new referenda, then, I think, we will have more than sufficient reason to demand his removal as Monarch of Talossa. For now, though, it is abundantly clear the King has overstepped the bounds of royal propriety existant in today's Talossa. If he wants the best damage control he can get, he will proclaim this OrgLaw amendment as soon as possible.

GV

[Daniel Candee]

Godafruieu your plan has my support and the support of the TSP.