|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jun 4, 2015 13:40:07 GMT -6
Only Senators can co-sponsor things at the moment, right? We don't have any MCs yet! Senators, the King and the Secretary of State. However, for now, I am allowing party members to co-sponsor in the hopper, but to be co-sponsored in the Clark, they would need to have a seat in the mean time. Sorry, yes. I meant out of our parliamentarians  |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jun 5, 2015 5:39:22 GMT -6
* If the King does not make such a proclamation within two weeks of the amendment being authorised, the amendment to the OrgLaw will be considered in effect and the OrgLaw accordingly amended." Noi urent q’estadra så: Sevastáin Pinátsch, Senator for Atatûrk Marti-Pair Furxheir, Secretary of State Lüc da Schir, Senator for Benito C. Carlüs Xheraltescù (MC-elect FREEDEM) Galen Zavala-Sherby (MC-elect TSP) Ian Plätschisch (MC-elect MRPT) What if the King makes a rejection after the amendment is ratified? |
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Jun 5, 2015 6:00:01 GMT -6
Come with the solution, not the problem. What's your suggested edit? |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jun 5, 2015 6:13:11 GMT -6
Do we want to allow the King to reject the amendment after ratification? I would propose that we allow him to reject the amendment as any non-amending bill, that is upon passing the Cosa and the Senäts, and before ratification. If he vetoes it, we can override his veto by putting it to vote again - but not with a higher threshold, since amendment thresholds are already quite high. And in exchange, he has no right to refuse promulgation of amendments when ratified by the citizenry (no matter whether it is along with the GE).
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jun 5, 2015 6:13:50 GMT -6
There is no problem. Nowhere in the OrgLaw does it say that the King can reject an amendment or that it would affect the amendment passing. A rejection would simply mean the King does not proclaim it. Nothing else is provided for organically. And this amendment removes any ambiguity on what might happen if the King does not proclaim an amendment: the orglaw will still be amended.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jun 5, 2015 6:15:01 GMT -6
Do we want to allow the King to reject the amendment after ratification? I would propose that we allow him to reject the amendment as any non-amending bill, that is upon passing the Cosa and the Senäts, and before ratification. If he vetoes it, we can override his veto by putting it to vote again - but not with a higher threshold, since amendment thresholds are already quite high. And in exchange, he has no right to refuse promulgation of amendments when ratified by the citizenry (no matter whether it is along with the GE). That's actually a good point. We might include a provision to make it clear that the King still has the right to veto it like any other bill before the referendum. (We might even make it so that we reduce the Senäts threshold to >50% for ALL amendments, which would subsequently be raised in the case of a veto to 2/3rds for ALL amendments. I always thought that would be a good idea anyway. Only that should be in another bill. Not a good idea adding extra controversial elements to this bill.) |
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jun 5, 2015 6:31:41 GMT -6
Do we want to allow the King to reject the amendment after ratification? I would propose that we allow him to reject the amendment as any non-amending bill, that is upon passing the Cosa and the Senäts, and before ratification. If he vetoes it, we can override his veto by putting it to vote again - but not with a higher threshold, since amendment thresholds are already quite high. And in exchange, he has no right to refuse promulgation of amendments when ratified by the citizenry (no matter whether it is along with the GE). That's actually a good point. We might include a provision to make it clear that the King still has the right to veto it like any other bill before the referendum. (We might even make it so that we reduce the Senäts threshold to >50% for ALL amendments, which would subsequently be raised in the case of a veto to 2/3rds for ALL amendments. I always thought that would be a good idea anyway. Only that should be in another bill. Not a good idea adding extra controversial elements to this bill.) I can get behind this. Though this kind of veto is the sort usually given to elected heads of state... |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jun 5, 2015 6:41:57 GMT -6
That's actually a good point. We might include a provision to make it clear that the King still has the right to veto it like any other bill before the referendum. (We might even make it so that we reduce the Senäts threshold to >50% for ALL amendments, which would subsequently be raised in the case of a veto to 2/3rds for ALL amendments. I always thought that would be a good idea anyway. Only that should be in another bill. Not a good idea adding extra controversial elements to this bill.) I can get behind this. Though this kind of veto is the sort usually given to elected heads of state... I see your point, but since the other kinds of veto are already vested in the King, why grant someone else vetoing powers? I mean - ideally, nobody should be allowed a veto for amendments, be it before or after ratification. This is a compromise that would at least make both sides happy: the Crown gets to protect itself from undue scrutiny once, and the people get to have the final say. |
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Jun 5, 2015 7:01:39 GMT -6
Do we want to allow the King to reject the amendment after ratification? I would propose that we allow him to reject the amendment as any non-amending bill, that is upon passing the Cosa and the Senäts, and before ratification. That's actually a good point. We might include a provision to make it clear that the King still has the right to veto it like any other bill before the referendum. Added. |
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jun 5, 2015 7:07:53 GMT -6
I can get behind this. Though this kind of veto is the sort usually given to elected heads of state... I see your point, but since the other kinds of veto are already vested in the King, why grant someone else vetoing powers? I mean - ideally, nobody should be allowed a veto for amendments, be it before or after ratification. This is a compromise that would at least make both sides happy: the Crown gets to protect itself from undue scrutiny once, and the people get to have the final say. As I said, I can get behind this. I wouldn't want to grant anyone else vetoing powers, but the person who has them should in some sense have some mandate, which I think could be given to them in a system of an elective monarchy. However, until then, I would be very happy with the changes that this would make. |
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jun 5, 2015 8:49:18 GMT -6
Do we want to allow the King to reject the amendment after ratification? I would propose that we allow him to reject the amendment as any non-amending bill, that is upon passing the Cosa and the Senäts, and before ratification. If he vetoes it, we can override his veto by putting it to vote again - but not with a higher threshold, since amendment thresholds are already quite high. And in exchange, he has no right to refuse promulgation of amendments when ratified by the citizenry (no matter whether it is along with the GE). That's actually a good point. We might include a provision to make it clear that the King still has the right to veto it like any other bill before the referendum. (We might even make it so that we reduce the Senäts threshold to >50% for ALL amendments, which would subsequently be raised in the case of a veto to 2/3rds for ALL amendments. I always thought that would be a good idea anyway. Only that should be in another bill. Not a good idea adding extra controversial elements to this bill.) I don't think it's a good idea. There is a pretty good reason why you need 2/3 of the Senate to amend it's second. I am not sure the Senator who codified the current law would be happy to hear about that protection being removed. I hear he can sometimes be stubborn, but I don't remember if it's originally from him or if he just move it around from it's original location. I think the solution is this: To override the King's veto on an amendment, it needs 3/4 of the Cosa and 3/4 of the Senate. My reasoning is simple: If it takes 2/3 to override a veto on a 1/2 vote, shouldn't it take 3/4 to override on a 2/3 vote? |
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063 
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jun 5, 2015 8:58:09 GMT -6
To override the King's veto on an amendment, it needs 3/4 of the Cosa and 3/4 of the Senate. I can get behind this. |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jun 5, 2015 10:09:36 GMT -6
Because a 3/4 vote is a ridiculous requirement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Jun 5, 2015 10:18:35 GMT -6
Because a 3/4 vote is a ridiculous requirement. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm more amenable to Gluc's idea ("Senäts threshold to >50% for ALL amendments, which would subsequently be raised in the case of a veto to 2/3rds for ALL amendments...") as part of a separate bill. |
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jun 5, 2015 10:43:56 GMT -6
Because a 3/4 vote is a ridiculous requirement. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm more amenable to Gluc's idea ("Senäts threshold to >50% for ALL amendments, which would subsequently be raised in the case of a veto to 2/3rds for ALL amendments...") as part of a separate bill. Oh boy... I am not sure the guy who rewrote the senate amendment will like removing the 2/3 protection on the senate, and now that you are a Senator, you should protect your office more ;-) But more seriously, I have a better idea... 2/3 of Cosa and 1/2+1 of Senator for all amendments. King can Veto. It only take 2/3 of the Senator to override it. No Cosa needed: they already voted 2/3 for it, just 2/3 of the Senate, which would explain why the King can't enter the Senate. In that case, the Senate would be the last protection against a King veto, but only if 2/3 of the Senator support it. |
|
