The Democratic Amendment

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

Jun 5, 2015 10:43:56 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

now that you are a Senator, you should protect your office more ;-)

Heh ... if I'm not worthy I should be pushed on my rolling chair to the street. I'm okay with that.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jun 5, 2015 10:49:58 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

Jun 5, 2015 10:43:56 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

now that you are a Senator, you should protect your office more ;-)

Heh ... if I'm not worthy I should be pushed on my rolling chair to the street. I'm okay with that. (rofl)

You shouldn't be... the Ataturk Senate office is on the top floor of the 5 story building, in the corner office... I should know, it was my office for 3 years.

That means you would pushed down 10 half-flights of stairs!

[Ian Plätschisch]

Given that I just submitted an amendment that deals with this Article, is it a problem that I am a co-sponsor on this one?

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

Not a problem.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 21, 2015 11:30:50 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

Not a problem.

That's great, but I don't see how it would work if both this amendment and mine passed.  They modify the same part of the Organic Law, but in different ways. 

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

It's very unlikely both will be passed. Having options is good, but only one is likely to get sufficient support.

[Glüc da Dhi]

A bit late maybe, as I'm assuming this will be clarked in three days, but the clause "The King retains the right to reject an amendment that has been approved by the Cosa and the Senäts before its ratification by referendum." seems a bit ambiguous. Maybe add "In accordance with Article X, Section 6" so its clear that the Ziu can overrule such a veto.

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

Done. I will be out of the country for the next two weeks but will try to keep in touch.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 26, 2015 16:43:41 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

A bit late maybe, as I'm assuming this will be clarked in three days, but the clause "The King retains the right to reject an amendment that has been approved by the Cosa and the Senäts before its ratification by referendum." seems a bit ambiguous. Maybe add "In accordance with Article X, Section 6" so its clear that the Ziu can overrule such a veto.

I also thought the "retains the right" language sounded odd because it does not seem to me that the King has any right to veto an amendment before its ratification by referendum. Adding "in accordance with Article X, Section 6" doesn't necessarily help if Article X, Section 6 doesn't say the King can veto an amendment.

I personally like Alexandreu's proposed amendment, but understand that a lot of people think any action to block an amendment should occur before the people vote on the amendment rather than after. Along those lines, I would start by changing "may" to "shall" in section 1 of Article XV, then add a new section 3 reading something like:

Notwithstanding Section 1, if the King objects to any proposed amendment approved by the Ziu, he may return the amendment, with the reasons for his objection, for reconsideration by the Ziu before it is referred to the people. If the Ziu approves an identical amendment a second time, a general election having intervened between the first and second approval, and the amendment is approved by two-thirds of the voters participating in a referendum held during the following general election, the King shall proclaim the amendment.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 28, 2015 18:48:34 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jun 26, 2015 16:43:41 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

A bit late maybe, as I'm assuming this will be clarked in three days, but the clause "The King retains the right to reject an amendment that has been approved by the Cosa and the Senäts before its ratification by referendum." seems a bit ambiguous. Maybe add "In accordance with Article X, Section 6" so its clear that the Ziu can overrule such a veto.

I also thought the "retains the right" language sounded odd because it does not seem to me that the King has any right to veto an amendment before its ratification by referendum. Adding "in accordance with Article X, Section 6" doesn't necessarily help if Article X, Section 6 doesn't say the King can veto an amendment.

I personally like Alexandreu's proposed amendment, but understand that a lot of people think any action to block an amendment should occur before the people vote on the amendment rather than after. Along those lines, I would start by changing "may" to "shall" in section 1 of Article XV, then add a new section 3 reading something like:

Notwithstanding Section 1, if the King objects to any proposed amendment approved by the Ziu, he may return the amendment, with the reasons for his objection, for reconsideration by the Ziu before it is referred to the people. If the Ziu approves an identical amendment a second time, a general election having intervened between the first and second approval, and the amendment is approved by two-thirds of the voters participating in a referendum held during the following general election, the King shall proclaim the amendment.

Sorry, but this seems even more conservative (and just as complex) than my proposed solution.   If the coalition is backing the Democratic Amendment for these reasons, it's unlikely your suggestion will be taken.

Still, we may as well look at all the options...

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Jun 28, 2015 18:48:34 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jun 26, 2015 16:43:41 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

A bit late maybe, as I'm assuming this will be clarked in three days, but the clause "The King retains the right to reject an amendment that has been approved by the Cosa and the Senäts before its ratification by referendum." seems a bit ambiguous. Maybe add "In accordance with Article X, Section 6" so its clear that the Ziu can overrule such a veto.

I also thought the "retains the right" language sounded odd because it does not seem to me that the King has any right to veto an amendment before its ratification by referendum. Adding "in accordance with Article X, Section 6" doesn't necessarily help if Article X, Section 6 doesn't say the King can veto an amendment.

I personally like Alexandreu's proposed amendment, but understand that a lot of people think any action to block an amendment should occur before the people vote on the amendment rather than after. Along those lines, I would start by changing "may" to "shall" in section 1 of Article XV, then add a new section 3 reading something like:

Notwithstanding Section 1, if the King objects to any proposed amendment approved by the Ziu, he may return the amendment, with the reasons for his objection, for reconsideration by the Ziu before it is referred to the people. If the Ziu approves an identical amendment a second time, a general election having intervened between the first and second approval, and the amendment is approved by two-thirds of the voters participating in a referendum held during the following general election, the King shall proclaim the amendment.

Still not sure about the language requiring an election to pass between the first and second consideration by the Ziu... If it's going to be considered by the people anyway, why delay it with an election which could prevent it from being considered by the wider populace. After all, people vote on a number of issues, not strictly that which pertain to the amendment in question.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 29, 2015 12:40:30 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

Still not sure about the language requiring an election to pass between the first and second consideration by the Ziu... If it's going to be considered by the people anyway, why delay it with an election which could prevent it from being considered by the wider populace. After all, people vote on a number of issues, not strictly that which pertain to the amendment in question.

The purpose is to ensure that the amendment has enduring, not just transitory, support. I kind of wonder whether this proposal of mine goes too far, in fact. All it does, really, is allow the king to trigger an amendment process that is only as stringent as the normal amendment process in Denmark: approval by two consecutive legislatures followed by approval by referendum. Several other countries require amendments to be approved by multiple legislatures with intervening elections (e.g. Finland, Sweden, Greece, Belgium, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands). Passage of legislation by successive legislatures is also a common traditional method for overriding executive vetoes (e.g. Norway).

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

The issue at the moment is just that a number of people did not interpret the current law as enabling the King to veto an amendment passed by referendum - I don't think we should make any great changes at this stage, especially not one which would delay often very uncontroversial changes to the Organic Law. If the King wishes to veto a proposal, that veto should happen before it is taken to the Talossan people. Once it's taken to the Talossan people, them affirming should be the end of it. I don't believe we ought to wait for another election to prove that, when we already require the Talossan public to vote for the amendment. After all, the legitimacy of the Cosa is derived from the Talossan public. As such, there's no real reason why another election would be normatively desirable unless it's one's goal to simply slow down the process. It's not as though we're struggling to keep up with these things.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

"FURTHERMORE, since this has been labelled a crisis by a reliable source, the Ziu recommends that this amendment, following the Ziu's approval, we taken to referendum within one month of the amendment's passing."

Belated promised text on holding an expedited referendum.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 30, 2015 4:53:50 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

The issue at the moment is just that a number of people did not interpret the current law as enabling the King to veto an amendment passed by referendum - I don't think we should make any great changes at this stage, especially not one which would delay often very uncontroversial changes to the Organic Law. If the King wishes to veto a proposal, that veto should happen before it is taken to the Talossan people. Once it's taken to the Talossan people, them affirming should be the end of it. I don't believe we ought to wait for another election to prove that, when we already require the Talossan public to vote for the amendment. After all, the legitimacy of the Cosa is derived from the Talossan public. As such, there's no real reason why another election would be normatively desirable unless it's one's goal to simply slow down the process. It's not as though we're struggling to keep up with these things.

I pretty much agree. If no one thinks an amendment is controversial, the process would be unchanged under my proposal. If the King wishes to veto a proposal, it would have to happen before the referendum. The goal is to slow down the process if the King thinks an amendment is seriously unwise and driven by temporary passion. The idea is that the people ought to be able to have the amendment if it can be shown that the amendment has enduring support from the people, and it's not just a flash in the pan.

Jul 1, 2015 3:33:30 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

"FURTHERMORE, since this has been labelled a crisis by a reliable source, the Ziu recommends that this amendment, following the Ziu's approval, we taken to referendum within one month of the amendment's passing."

Belated promised text on holding an expedited referendum.

That sounds kind of ... cryptic. Is there an anonymous informant involved here? What is the crisis?