The Consent of the People.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Because I believe the King should not be able to veto amendments approved in a referendum.

Not giving him that power is just as good a way of ensuring he doesnt as creating a republic. No reason to throw away the baby with the bathwater.

[Eðo Grischun]

Much all right. I got confused with the rapid posting going on just now.

(response to Daphne)

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

We don't need to fight those we agree with, Miestra. We both know we were right, but we don't need to rub it in people's faces.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jun 3, 2015 15:41:12 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Because I believe the King should not be able to veto amendments approved in a referendum.

Not giving him that power is just a good a way of ensuring he doesnt then creating a republic. No reason to throw away the baby with the bathwater.

I have doubts that anyone would ever want to be a proper constitutional monarch in Talossa, because it's no fun. I worry that any written constitution could be circumvented by a sufficiently entitled and devious King. But reasonable people can agree to differ, as Carlüs rightly suggests.

[Françal Ian Lux]

The power of the monarchy in a constitutional monarchy stems from the consent and the willingness of the people. I'd suggest demoting the monarchy into a PURELY ceremonial role.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jun 3, 2015 15:36:21 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

I'm not sure I'm behind this Alex.

I can defend the King by saying he acted legally yesterday. The OrgLaw as written is the OrgLaw.

But, if you ask me, should the King have the power to block an amendment that has been written by an elected member of parliament, then hoppered for at least ten days, then co-sponsored by at least one other elected Ziu member, then gone under the scrutiny of the two legislative houses for 21 days, then passed those houses, then went to ratification by the population, then passes with majority vote? The answer is no.

I think the King should be compelled to sign that Bill into law.

Simply change "may" to "shall". Make the technical mechanism a ceremonial technical mechanism. That's my stance. (and fix the silent assent time limit thing just for good measure).

Etho, the issue is a wave election. A majority Government could pass an amendment, even if it was riding on a temporary wave of popularity... a very common thing in elections! This could allow them to cement their power in place with that amendment, especially since -- as frequently noted, and noted again at the beginning of election commentary recently -- referenda virtually always pass. I honestly am not sure if a referendum has ever failed its plebiscite.

I do not agree with the idea that the monarchy should have unlimited power, and neither does His Majesty, to all appearances. But on the other hand, should the entire institution of monarchy be at risk of a single wave election? Supposing that the Senats stood in the way, it would then only take two successive majorities, however temporary, to force through permanent changes. The basic principle is that we need some sort of brake, but it must be capable of being overridden. The status quo is not tolerable, but neither is a state where one or two successive strong majorities can force through massive institutional changes without any check, either.

[Eðo Grischun]

Alex;

But, isn't that the entire point of the election? It shouldn't matter if an election is a "wave election" as you put it. And bear in mind that it would take such a "wave election", followed by the legislative process of two houses, followed by a popular referendum at the next election. Are we really going to call the democratic will of the people during two separate elections a "wave"?

I'm not sure I can get on board with the "wave election" rhetoric. However, let's say your right for a moment: surely, then, if we view a given government as being the result of a wave election then every statute that government enacts in that session is invalid? That's the logic your using here.

We hold elections to gauge the current political feeling of the country. This brings us a government.

We hold referendums to gauge the opinion on extraordinary changes to how we do things. This gives that government permission to act out with it's original manifesto.

The final check and balance is, once again, the people.

If a wave election produces a B-team governments that trick us into passing crappy laws then we always have another election cycle coming to get rid of them and put into power a government to reverse those crappy laws. There's the check and balance.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

This is all special pleading on behalf of those institutions which AD likes, and against democracy.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jun 3, 2015 16:35:35 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Alex;

But, isn't that the entire point of the election? It shouldn't matter if an election is a "wave election" as you put it. And bear in mind that it would take such a "wave election", followed by the legislative process of two houses, followed by a popular referendum at the next election. Are we really going to call the democratic will of the people during two separate elections a "wave"?

I'm not sure I can get on board with the "wave election" rhetoric. However, let's say your right for a moment: surely, then, if we view a given government as being the result of a wave election then every statute that government enacts in that session is invalid? That's the logic your using here.

We hold elections to gauge the current political feeling of the country. This brings us a government.

We hold referendums to gauge the opinion on extraordinary changes to how we do things. This gives that government permission to act out with it's original manifesto.

The final check and balance is, once again, the people.

If a wave election produces a B-team governments that trick us into passing crappy laws then we always have another election cycle coming to get rid of them and put into power a government to reverse those crappy laws. There's the check and balance.

Etho, I am definitely not saying that wave elections are invalid. But consider any one of many bad scenarios... these aren't even worse case, they're just "fairly common bad cases that happen in governments all the time."

A wave election based on a single scandal puts one party into power with a very strong majority. This party passes a law saying that only a certain group of people may serve as Secretary of State or Seneschal, according to some criterion that favors them. There are any number of possibilities, but let's say that Maricopans want only Maricopans to serve. Should they get to do that on the basis of one election? Statutes can be changed in the next Cosa... but should a wave election be enough to make that change?

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Amendments are taken to a referendum anyway - I don't understand why we would need an additional election to prove that people like what's being brought before them. Or have I misunderstood something here?

[Glüc da Dhi]

One election, and a referendum. Such a bill would not get approved by the people.

[Eðo Grischun]

Jun 3, 2015 16:41:23 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

... but should a wave election be enough to make that change?

In short, Yes. No matter how hard it is to swallow.

[Ian Plätschisch]

A wave election based on a single scandal puts one party into power with a very strong majority. This party passes a law saying that only a certain group of people may serve as Secretary of State or Seneschal, according to some criterion that favors them. There are any number of possibilities, but let's say that Maricopans want only Maricopans to serve. Should they get to do that on the basis of one election? Statutes can be changed in the next Cosa... but should a wave election be enough to make that change?

Isn't this why we have the Court?

[Françal Ian Lux]

Change will occur because we want the change regardless of how much influence there is behind that change. If we consciously decide to make the change, then it's credible.
The courts is even less reliable in my opinion.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 3, 2015 17:00:24 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Isn't this why we have the Court?

No. The Cort can only interpret laws. It can't override OrgLaw amendments.