Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jul 29, 2015 10:51:28 GMT -6
Most Honourable Ladyship,
most honourable Lordships,
if it please the Court, receive herein the brief of amicus curiæ, in support of the petitioners, in PDF-format, as well as the text of the brief written hereunder. Please note that formatting is accurate only in the PDF-document, and this is the document officially filed with the Court.
Amicus Curiae 47RZ28.pdf (545.89 KB)
most honourable Lordships,
if it please the Court, receive herein the brief of amicus curiæ, in support of the petitioners, in PDF-format, as well as the text of the brief written hereunder. Please note that formatting is accurate only in the PDF-document, and this is the document officially filed with the Court.
Most honourable Justices, esteemed Senator, Your Majesty,
honourable people of Talossa,
it is a sad time to be Talossan. The current debate about the King’s de facto veto, by virtue of non-proclamation, of 47RZ28 has caused many a Citizen to lose heart. I remember, as I was about to become a prospective to our Kingdom, the feelings I had about the Kingdom: romanticising Talossa’s Constitutional Monarchy; it felt as though a benevolent grandfather figure were watching over his children, making sure that their choices not affect them in a way, which would be detrimental to the family, i.e., the Kingdom. Indeed, this point of view was the reason I entered a non-conservative monarchist party, and not the parties of further reform.
Verily, I believe that the monarch sits in the Ziu, and possesses those veto powers, bestowed upon him by the People, exactly for that reason: to rescue the People from a moment’s insanity and fervour, which might arise due to temporary surge and shift in political power, and in which the People as whole have no say, since the representatives are largely independent while legislating.
The King himself has always advocated apoliticism, and defended that his reign were one of representation, and not that of politicisation of the People, which can be observed by him voting PRESENT in General Elections. In my time as a Citizen, and as a legislator, I furthermore do not remember the King using his vetoing powers to his own gain, at least not overtly. Whenever he vetoed a bill, which occurred very seldom in itself, he reasoned that the bill in question might well be inOrganic, and needed further consideration by the Ziu.
I have since lost this romantic view of Monarchy, by the King’s recent actions, which disregarded the very People he is meant to protect, and love.
We hold firm the belief that the King’s powers, be they as all-encompassing as they may, were never meant to supersede the ultimate Sovereignty of the People. The Organic Law proves this belief (which many fellow Citizens share) true in Article III, Section 2:
It is, then, this Sovereignty and democracy of the People, which the King seeks to undermine by not proclaiming an Amendment on grounds of self-preservation; an amendment which has been ratified by the Citizenry: the very Citizenry that gave him the power of veto in the first place. By ratification, however, the King’s power of veto becomes nihil, redundant. One should go as far as arguing that a plebiscite annul the King’s power of any kind of “veto”, that a plebiscite’s result were a direct order by the People which cannot be disobeyed by the King. A plebiscite reflects the will of the People in exact manner, and should be regarded as the Holy Grail of Legislation.
The King, along with defenders of the King’s refusal to proclaim 47RZ28, argues that every statutory body, be it the Senäts, the Cosǎ, or be it the provinces, have a way of protecting itself against changes via statute: either House must vote in supermajority to any changes affecting it, and the provinces must ratify any personal changes, as well.
However, the Crown comprises, in its functional entirety, only one voice, elected in perpetuity as the symbolic head of a nation. The stakes for a check-and-balance by the People against the Monarch are extremely high, and he can seldom be truly held accountable by the Nation for his actions. Its one-voice-existence stands in stark contrast to the Senäts or Cosǎ, these representing the People which directly elected them, and to which they are held accountable. As such, we contend that the interests of self-preservation of the Monarch are not as valuable as the interests of a multi-person-body’s self-preservation, representing the People.
Therefore, the Monarch’s interests of self-preservation should not be allowed to quash the will of the Citizenry as pronounced plebiscitarily.
In summary, then, we hold that Org.III.2 not grant the King right to refrain from promulgating an amendment to the Organic Law, which has been ratified by the Citizenry. In fact, it is imperative that it be recognised that a plebiscite oblige the King to promulgate, either actively or tacitly, any amendment it has ratified with immediate effect. We hope that the Court issue a declarative relief as requested by petitioners, stating that the amendment is lawful, and has been successfully enacted. We pray that the most honourable Justices make Talossa a content place to be part of, again.
Witness my hand and seal of this truthful amicus curiæ brief, written to the best of my knowledge, honour, and conscience, on this Wednesday, the 29th of July, in the year 2015 of the common era, and the XXXVI. year of Talossa’s independence, and the eighth year of King John’s I reign,
[Seal], /s/
Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac'hlerglünä da Lhiun
honourable people of Talossa,
it is a sad time to be Talossan. The current debate about the King’s de facto veto, by virtue of non-proclamation, of 47RZ28 has caused many a Citizen to lose heart. I remember, as I was about to become a prospective to our Kingdom, the feelings I had about the Kingdom: romanticising Talossa’s Constitutional Monarchy; it felt as though a benevolent grandfather figure were watching over his children, making sure that their choices not affect them in a way, which would be detrimental to the family, i.e., the Kingdom. Indeed, this point of view was the reason I entered a non-conservative monarchist party, and not the parties of further reform.
Verily, I believe that the monarch sits in the Ziu, and possesses those veto powers, bestowed upon him by the People, exactly for that reason: to rescue the People from a moment’s insanity and fervour, which might arise due to temporary surge and shift in political power, and in which the People as whole have no say, since the representatives are largely independent while legislating.
The King himself has always advocated apoliticism, and defended that his reign were one of representation, and not that of politicisation of the People, which can be observed by him voting PRESENT in General Elections. In my time as a Citizen, and as a legislator, I furthermore do not remember the King using his vetoing powers to his own gain, at least not overtly. Whenever he vetoed a bill, which occurred very seldom in itself, he reasoned that the bill in question might well be inOrganic, and needed further consideration by the Ziu.
I have since lost this romantic view of Monarchy, by the King’s recent actions, which disregarded the very People he is meant to protect, and love.
We hold firm the belief that the King’s powers, be they as all-encompassing as they may, were never meant to supersede the ultimate Sovereignty of the People. The Organic Law proves this belief (which many fellow Citizens share) true in Article III, Section 2:
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King and his successors certain Royal Powers: The right to declare national holidays, grant titles of nobility, make the annual Speech From the Throne on the 26th of December (or at other times when events warrant), to veto bills (or Prime Dictates), to issue Writs of Dissolution and Warrants of Prorogation for the Cosâ, to grant pardons and commute sentences, to confer awards and decorations, to appoint the Seneschál after elections, and to appoint Governors of Territories upon the advice of the Seneschál.
— Organic Law, III, Section 2 (emphasis added)
It is, then, this Sovereignty and democracy of the People, which the King seeks to undermine by not proclaiming an Amendment on grounds of self-preservation; an amendment which has been ratified by the Citizenry: the very Citizenry that gave him the power of veto in the first place. By ratification, however, the King’s power of veto becomes nihil, redundant. One should go as far as arguing that a plebiscite annul the King’s power of any kind of “veto”, that a plebiscite’s result were a direct order by the People which cannot be disobeyed by the King. A plebiscite reflects the will of the People in exact manner, and should be regarded as the Holy Grail of Legislation.
The King, along with defenders of the King’s refusal to proclaim 47RZ28, argues that every statutory body, be it the Senäts, the Cosǎ, or be it the provinces, have a way of protecting itself against changes via statute: either House must vote in supermajority to any changes affecting it, and the provinces must ratify any personal changes, as well.
However, the Crown comprises, in its functional entirety, only one voice, elected in perpetuity as the symbolic head of a nation. The stakes for a check-and-balance by the People against the Monarch are extremely high, and he can seldom be truly held accountable by the Nation for his actions. Its one-voice-existence stands in stark contrast to the Senäts or Cosǎ, these representing the People which directly elected them, and to which they are held accountable. As such, we contend that the interests of self-preservation of the Monarch are not as valuable as the interests of a multi-person-body’s self-preservation, representing the People.
Therefore, the Monarch’s interests of self-preservation should not be allowed to quash the will of the Citizenry as pronounced plebiscitarily.
In summary, then, we hold that Org.III.2 not grant the King right to refrain from promulgating an amendment to the Organic Law, which has been ratified by the Citizenry. In fact, it is imperative that it be recognised that a plebiscite oblige the King to promulgate, either actively or tacitly, any amendment it has ratified with immediate effect. We hope that the Court issue a declarative relief as requested by petitioners, stating that the amendment is lawful, and has been successfully enacted. We pray that the most honourable Justices make Talossa a content place to be part of, again.
Witness my hand and seal of this truthful amicus curiæ brief, written to the best of my knowledge, honour, and conscience, on this Wednesday, the 29th of July, in the year 2015 of the common era, and the XXXVI. year of Talossa’s independence, and the eighth year of King John’s I reign,
[Seal], /s/
Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac'hlerglünä da Lhiun
