Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Aug 1, 2015 9:07:41 GMT -6
That phrase actually means nothing at all in our current legislative system, where the Cosâ and the Senäts deliberate and vote at the same time. To the best of my knowledge, the Cosa and Senäts have deliberated and voted at the same time since the adoption of the Organic Law. Yet the principle that bills appropriating revenue or moneys may not originate in the Senäts must mean something, because it's right there in the OrgLaw. The only plausible interpretation I can think of is that it means such bills must be introduced in the Ziu by MCs, not senators.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Aug 1, 2015 9:31:01 GMT -6
Good point, Miestra.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 1, 2015 19:21:26 GMT -6
I wonder if it could be argued that Luc proposed it in his capacity as acting Seneschal and not in his capacity as a senator.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 1, 2015 20:20:36 GMT -6
Yet the principle that bills appropriating revenue or moneys may not originate in the Senäts must mean something, because it's right there in the OrgLaw. It's just "copypasta" from the US and Australian constitutions. It would only mean something if the two houses deliberated or voted separately. You weren't around when the OrgLaw was written, it was written by one constitutional lawyer, a bunch of well-meaning chuckleheads, and Mad Ben; don't assume that every section of it was given more than a second's thought.
|
|
|
Post by Françal Ian Lux on Aug 1, 2015 21:05:08 GMT -6
Yet the principle that bills appropriating revenue or moneys may not originate in the Senäts must mean something, because it's right there in the OrgLaw. It's just "copypasta" from the US and Australian constitutions. It would only mean something if the two houses deliberated or voted separately. You weren't around when the OrgLaw was written, it was written by one constitutional lawyer, a bunch of well-meaning chuckleheads, and Mad Ben; don't assume that every section of it was given more than a second's thought. I agree with Miestrâ on this one. Although it would make SO much more sense to have the Senäts and the Cosâ deliberate and vote independent of each other, by the way things are, that section is, in practice, meaningless...
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Aug 1, 2015 21:31:56 GMT -6
I wonder if it could be argued that Luc proposed it in his capacity as acting Seneschal and not in his capacity as a senator. If so, we'd have a different organicity problem, because the Seneschal as such has no authority to submit bills for clarking. You weren't around when the OrgLaw was written, it was written by one constitutional lawyer, a bunch of well-meaning chuckleheads, and Mad Ben; don't assume that every section of it was given more than a second's thought. I wasn't around as a citizen, but I was a lurker at that time. Anyways, it's true that a lot of us Talossans are well-meaning chuckleheads in many ways, but I believe that the laws we enact deserve to be respected anyways.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 1, 2015 23:28:28 GMT -6
If we want to enforce this provision, let us make the Senäts and Cosâ deliberate separately. We could do this very simply by just saying that a bill is presented to the Cosâ on the Clark after it passes the Senäts or vice-versa. This would also help by destroying the excuse for the King to ignore constitutional amendments because "they passed too fast without scrutiny".
Otherwise it's a dead letter, end of story.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Aug 2, 2015 8:07:04 GMT -6
If we want to enforce this provision, let us make the Senäts and Cosâ deliberate separately. I don't know. I think requiring that it be a member of the Cosa rather than a senator who introduces a bill in the Ziu by sponsoring it seems reasonable. It also seems likely to me that that's what was intended by the provision in Article V. And I don't think we should ignore organic requirements just because they seem inconvenient or not as meaningful as some alternative that could be adopted. Not that I'm pointing fingers at anyone. I assume it's the RUMP that sponsored and passed the law mandating that the Seneschal introduce budget bills, without consideration for whether the Seneschal is an MC, a senator, or not a member of the Ziu at all.
|
|
|
Post by Françal Ian Lux on Aug 2, 2015 9:31:24 GMT -6
It's only common sense to have the Seneschal and the Distain as members of the Cosâ. Is this not a requirement?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Aug 2, 2015 9:53:29 GMT -6
It's only common sense to have the Seneschal and the Distain as members of the Cosâ. Is this not a requirement? No. Usually the Seneschal is a member of the Cosa, but the current one and I believe the previous two have been senators.
|
|
|
Post by Françal Ian Lux on Aug 2, 2015 9:59:08 GMT -6
It's only common sense to have the Seneschal and the Distain as members of the Cosâ. Is this not a requirement? No. Usually the Seneschal is a member of the Cosa, but the current one and I believe the previous two have been senators. That's odd
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Aug 2, 2015 10:25:35 GMT -6
No. Usually the Seneschal is a member of the Cosa, but the current one and I believe the previous two have been senators. That's odd Actually, the current Seneschal (Carlüs) is an MC. But Lüc, Glüc, and Sir Iustì, among others, were senators during their premierships.
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Aug 2, 2015 10:28:56 GMT -6
also cf. Mario Monti of Italy (Prime Minister and senator), and all those British PMs up until the Marquess of Salisbury who were in the House of Lords.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Aug 2, 2015 10:57:06 GMT -6
It's only common sense to have the Seneschal and the Distain as members of the Cosâ. Is this not a requirement? No. Usually the Seneschal is a member of the Cosa, but the current one and I believe the previous two have been senators. I take it that "usually" means that since when Hooligan was to become PM in 2007 (or sometime like that) he resigned his Senate seat to accept Cosa seats, then every other PM should do that even if there has never been any provision barring Senators to hold the Seneschalsqab.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Aug 2, 2015 11:07:59 GMT -6
Actually, the current Seneschal (Carlüs) is an MC. But Lüc, Glüc, and Sir Iustì, among others, were senators during their premierships. Doh! You're right. When Lüc submitted this bill I assumed he was the Seneschal without thinking about it.
|
|