|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 20, 2015 20:55:02 GMT -6
Whenever the King is made to assent, would it not be his explicit consent?
If not, could you please give me an example of how to implement better language?
Here is why a special election with your amendment would be impossible. Or, well, not impossible, but it would be extremely confusing: Section 2 If the King objects to an amendment, he may, after it has been passed by the Ziu but before the 23rd of the month preceding the last Clark of the Cosa term, send it back to the Ziu with his objections. The sponsor may then abandon the bill, amend the bill, cede the bill to another Member of the Ziu, or submit the original bill to the next Clark. In cases of modification, the bill shall constitute a new amendment. Otherwise, and in cases of unamended cession to another Member of the Ziu, the bill is considered a continuation of the previously rejected amendment. If the amendment passes the Ziu again with a three-fourths majority in the Cosa with approval of the Senäts, including at least five për votes, the amendment goes to referendum and the King must assent. However, if the amendment does not meet that threshold, it is placed unchanged into the first Clark of the next Cosa. If the amendment again passes the Ziu with a two-thirds majority in the Cosa with approval of the Senäts, the amendment goes to referendum and the King must assent. Whenever the King is forced to assent, he may issue a statement of no more than 150 words explaining his objection, will shall be included on the referendum. The King would still have until the 23rd of the month before the last Clark of the Cosa term to object to an amendment, correct? Therefore, if a special election was held only for referenda during a Cosa term (as in, while the Cosa is still seated), what would happen if an amendment passed the referendum vote? Doesn't the King still have the right to send it back to the Ziu under this language? In my opinion, according to Section 3, he would, as long as the amendment in question wasn't passed by the Ziu during the last Clark of a Cosa term, since that is the only other circumstance in which the King can reject the amendment before the next election begins. As I tried to point out earlier, the language seems to have been written under the assumption that all referenda placed on the ballot by the Ziu would be on the next General Election ballot, and ignores the fact that the Ziu can send an amendment to the people to be voted on during a Cosa term. It may not be that big of a deal since, as far as I know, that has never happened, but since we did have a fairly lengthy discussion about the possibility earlier in this very same Cosa--and we came close to doing so--I think it is an issue that does need to be addressed before this bill is Clarked. I can't think of any specific language changes this late, but when I think of something I'll post it.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 20, 2015 21:01:45 GMT -6
A special election could not be held unless the King gives explicit assent to the amendment, so it would be a moot point for the King to object after the referendum has already passed.
If you don't want the King to be able to hold up special elections, I could shorten the deadline for extensions.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 21, 2015 0:23:02 GMT -6
A special election could not be held unless the King gives explicit assent to the amendment, so it would be a moot point for the King to object after the referendum has already passed. If you don't want the King to be able to hold up special elections, I could shorten the deadline for extensions. After re-reading Section 1 about 15 times, I think I see where you are coming from. I don't care for the language that says amendments are made following "proclamation of the King", since he's already assented to the amendment before it is placed on the ballot. This is where a lot of my confusion was coming from I think, because Section 1 just reads strange to me--I dunno, it could just be me. The last half of Section 1 is where it starts to feel compressed, and eyes start to skim past all the heavy wording. Plus, this entire amendment sets several different deadlines and circumstances for the King to object or assent, but the only language that applies to special elections is the last eight words of the lengthy Section 1. As you sort of noted, the lack of a deadline gives the King a huge amount of leeway in determining the date of a special election, since he could pretty much delay his assent until the last minute. I would suggest three things: First, that Section 1 be reworded somehow. Maybe the language on when the amendment is placed on the ballot could be split into its own section, something like "The referendum on the question of the amendment shall be held no later than the next scheduled general election, following the approval of the Ziu and the assent of the King." Which actually brings me to my second suggestion, that the language should not read "approval of the Ziu and the King", because if the language uses "assent" everywhere else, it's wrong to use "approval" in only one place. And finally, I would suggest that there be some kind of a deadline for the King to object if a special election was called, maybe a few days before the election begins, in order to allow the legislature to retain some power to call such elections. (If the Ziu even has that power, as OrgLaw XX gives the Seneschal the power to call special elections, but as that section seems to be geared towards non-OrgLaw-amending referenda, I'm assuming it wouldn't apply. Either way, the Ziu or the Government needs to retain some power to call a special election for referenda if they so choose.)
|
|
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 21, 2015 4:03:25 GMT -6
Aside from Dien's point, I just realised that this amendment also appears to eliminate the requirement for 2/3 approval of the Senäts for amendments affecting the Senäts, etc. With that in mind, and with the objective of streamlining the amendment and improving its logical flow, here's how I would write it:
|
|
Gaglhen Fortaleça
Citizen of Talossa
Glory to the Proletariat
Posts: 394
Talossan Since: 4-23-2015
|
Post by Gaglhen Fortaleça on Aug 21, 2015 4:09:23 GMT -6
Quick question: Why does the King have ANY power? Like, at ALL?
|
|
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 21, 2015 4:17:44 GMT -6
Quick question: Why does the King have ANY power? Like, at ALL? Because this is the Kingdom of Talossa, a constitutional monarchy.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 21, 2015 5:16:26 GMT -6
I support the new language, will add it later.
|
|
Gaglhen Fortaleça
Citizen of Talossa
Glory to the Proletariat
Posts: 394
Talossan Since: 4-23-2015
|
Post by Gaglhen Fortaleça on Aug 21, 2015 6:24:08 GMT -6
We can have a king but why should his powers be anything but ceremonial?
|
|
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 21, 2015 7:00:47 GMT -6
We can have a king but why should his powers be anything but ceremonial? That's a little beyond the scope of this proposal (see the Hopper threads for previous bills proposing a mere figurehead monarchy, like the ones you proposed), but in short the crown is an institution that provides continuity and stability and serves as a check on the other branches that is insulated from partisan politics.
|
|
Gaglhen Fortaleça
Citizen of Talossa
Glory to the Proletariat
Posts: 394
Talossan Since: 4-23-2015
|
Post by Gaglhen Fortaleça on Aug 21, 2015 7:32:09 GMT -6
But wouldn't the king lean more towards monarchist parties because he is a monarch? I mean, he's human like the rest of us so he's going to influence politics somehow, like with the scandal.
|
|
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 21, 2015 7:43:03 GMT -6
But wouldn't the king lean more towards monarchist parties because he is a monarch? I mean, he's human like the rest of us so he's going to influence politics somehow, like with the scandal. The King's interests will be more aligned with monarchist parties on issues relating directly to the monarchy, true (but not necessarily on other issues). But I don't see that as an issue of partisan politics as much as an institutional issue. The monarchy will tend to preserve the monarchy, like the Senäts will tend to preserve bicameralism and the provinces will tend to preserve federalism. In a system with checks and balances, each institution that is designed to serve as a check on other institutions will tend to preserve its ability to serve as a check on other institutions. That's a feature of a system of checks and balances, not a bug. EDIT: Also, I don't know what you mean by "like with the scandal". What scandal?
|
|
Gaglhen Fortaleça
Citizen of Talossa
Glory to the Proletariat
Posts: 394
Talossan Since: 4-23-2015
|
Post by Gaglhen Fortaleça on Aug 21, 2015 7:49:14 GMT -6
But in this system of checks and balances there is a kink, and that kink is an undemocratic leader, if he is to remain why give him any power whatsoever? If he isn't elected then why should he have power?
|
|
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 21, 2015 7:53:18 GMT -6
But in this system of checks and balances there is a kink, and that kink is an undemocratic leader, if he is to remain why give him any power whatsoever? If he isn't elected then why should he have power? I feel like this is the same question I answered before.
|
|
Gaglhen Fortaleça
Citizen of Talossa
Glory to the Proletariat
Posts: 394
Talossan Since: 4-23-2015
|
Post by Gaglhen Fortaleça on Aug 21, 2015 7:59:19 GMT -6
I was referring to the proclamation crisis (so not reeeaally a scandal in the true sense of the word), why should the king have that power (and for that matter ANY power) if he's not elected?
|
|
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 21, 2015 8:07:53 GMT -6
I was referring to the proclamation crisis (so not reeeaally a scandal in the true sense of the word), Well, since you said "like with the scandal", which political party was King John favouring by refusing to proclaim 47RZ28? Are you aware that 47RZ28 received no contra votes in the Cosa or Senäts? why should the king have that power (and for that matter ANY power) if he's not elected? To quote something someone said fairly recently, because "the crown is an institution that provides continuity and stability and serves as a check on the other branches that is insulated from partisan politics." The fact that the King is unelected is the point of constitutional monarchy. If he were elected, he would not be insulated from partisan politics.
|
|