Speech from the Throne, Independence Day, 2015/xxxvii

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jan 2, 2016 6:42:24 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

This is the writ of Dissolution for the 45th Cosa, made on November 30th:


talossa.proboards.com/thread/9079/writ-dissolution-45th-cosa

The writ may say November 30th in it, but as you can see from the post date it was actually issued on December 16th--after the election had begun! So that's actually precedent for not delaying the election. In fact, before the writ was issued, there was a big discussion about the non-issuance here, where pretty much everyone agreed that delaying the election would not be necessary.

And elections were held under King Robert I without a formal writ of dissolution. That's one of the things that then-SoS Woolley pointed out in the Erni v. Talossa case.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jan 2, 2016 12:42:18 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jan 2, 2016 6:42:24 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

This is the writ of Dissolution for the 45th Cosa, made on November 30th:


talossa.proboards.com/thread/9079/writ-dissolution-45th-cosa

The writ may say November 30th in it, but as you can see from the post date it was actually issued on December 16th--after the election had begun! So that's actually precedent for not delaying the election.

Oh my God, you are right! I missed that!

In fact, before the writ was issued, there was a big discussion about the non-issuance here, where pretty much everyone agreed that delaying the election would not be necessary.

I am not a lawyer, so I will not weigh in on that. I am continuing in the possibility there is an election on January 15th, but can work with a February 15th election.

And elections were held under King Robert I without a formal writ of dissolution. That's one of the things that then-SoS Woolley pointed out in the Erni v. Talossa case.

I didn't know that! Back when I was SoS under Robert I, there was always a formal writ of dissolution, at least given on the phone (we used to talk several times per week him and I until the Halloween crisis or so).

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 2, 2016 8:44:10 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jan 2, 2016 8:25:24 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

You are correct MPF. It is too late to call for an election in January as today is January 2, 2015 and that leaves only 13 days. OrgLaw leaves no legal mechanism to prevent this situation.

The law is clear, but this is disgusting

And now you begin to see the case for serious OrgLaw reform, I hope. Heck, judging by his very sensible and level-headed comments, even the RUMP leader is realising that the Head of State is not doing his job, and this is a problem when he's not accountable in any way unless he commits some terrible crime.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Dec 30, 2015 19:17:16 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

There was once a man named Roland Burris.

Have you read the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in that case?

Jan 1, 2016 21:59:17 GMT -6 Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir said:

As if we continue to support a monarch who defies his people then the country is effectively supporting the loss of their rights and a dictatorship shall be born.

Even if you support further restricting the power of the monarchy, let's try to keep a sense of perspective. The King can't dictate anything. He can delay or block things, but he can't take any kind of positive action that could endanger anyone's life, liberty, or property. So comparisons to Chancellor Palpatine are a little silly.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

The King can't dictate anything. He can delay or block things, but he can't take any kind of positive action

And since the King's agenda is 100% conservative - indeed, "preserving the prerogatives of the Monarchy" is all he seems to be motivated to do anything about any more - that works out just fine for him, and for all other conservatives. Of course a conservative would see this as a feature, not a bug. But if so, we should put health warning on all our immigration material: "WARNING: All political reforms may be trashed if the King sees them as a threat".

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

And it may be of interest to some to know that I have advised the Seneschál to ask the SoS to apply the letter of the law and not organise the election for January 15. Cresti makes a good argument based on precedent - whereas my concern is that there is a Cort case which may affect the ballot for the election (i.e. whether 48RZ14 goes to a vote or not) and we really want to have that sorted out first, and several Justices seem to be on holiday. If, however, the Cort pulls finger and enacts a temporary injunction on that one referendum, I have no objection to going ahead without the King's say-so, which is good practice for... well, the future.

[Renalt da Fhamul]

Ok, I wish to make a few things clear... I do agree this is not fair that the king is not doing his job. I do believe that we MUST either have a democratically elected king( like the queen of Naboo in Star Wars) OR we have a king with no political power (like the emperor of Japan) Please note that legally the emperor of Japan's job is according to the 1947 constitution is that he is "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people." This is, my opinion the best option. I believe that we need a king as a symbol of our Talossan unity, it is this unity that we have that makes Talossa real. We don't need land or an army, we need to be united, and the best part is... We are! We are united. I think that the king is a symbol of this strong unity! I believe that the king is being negligent in his duties and should be held responsible, however I in no way feel we must have another "republic of Talossa". We need to stay united! I say we have a king with no real political power who is a symbol of our unity and strength as a people and country. For now and forever "Long live the king of Talossa!"

[Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben.]

Jan 2, 2016 13:34:41 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Dec 30, 2015 19:17:16 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

There was once a man named Roland Burris.

Have you read the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in that case?

Indeed I have. The decision deals primarily with the notion that Illinois state law requires the SOS to countersign and affix the state seal to gubernatorial commissions. The Supreme Court held, essentially, that the appointment of an interim senator to a vacated US senate seat wasn't a commission but merely a gubernatorial appointment. 

I'm a notary public in New York. I derive my authority from a commission established under state law. Charles Schumer, as senator of New York, does not derive his authority from the state of New York. He was not commissioned by the governor or any delegates. He isn't covered under New York's public employee laws. But if Mr. Schumer resigns, Gov. Cuomo can appoint a replacement. But that replacement derives his authority from the US Constitution, not the governor. So the governor isn't commissioning the new senator, merely appointing. 

Here, a question before the court is whether the King's proclamation is actually what makes the amendment law or whether that is simply a ceremonial task that can be sidestepped. "May proclaim" is not the same has "may veto." Like commissions versus appointments we are talking about the derivation of authority. 

The Organic Law says that the King may veto legislation. But it also gives the Ziu the ability to override his veto. That veto authority is clearly spelled out where it is relevant. So, if the King has the authority to effectively veto an amendment it would stand to reason that the government would have the same recourse to override said veto. Otherwise our system is absent a very necessary check to balance the power of the King. 

If if the King does not have the authority to veto an amendment then we must explore the consequence of failing to proclaim or, in this case, actively NOT proclaiming an amendment. Because if it has the same functional outcome as a veto then, again, it should follow the law concerning the king's established veto authority. If the consequence is null and the amendment becomes effective even without the consent of the king, then the king is simply holding his breath for no reason.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 2, 2016 13:52:43 GMT -6 Renalt da Fhamul said:

Ok, I wish to make a few things clear... I do agree this is not fair that the king is not doing his job. I do believe that we MUST either have a democratically elected king( like the queen of Naboo in Star Wars) OR we have a king with no political power (like the emperor of Japan) Please note that legally the emperor of Japan's job is according to the 1947 constitution is that he is "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people." This is, my opinion the best option. I believe that we need a king as a symbol of our Talossan unity, it is this unity that we have that makes Talossa real.

What would your reaction be to a "Gondor"-type situation where the throne is permanently empty and we have a Steward or Regent running things in a democratically-accountable manner in his absence?

[Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben.]

Jan 2, 2016 13:34:41 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Well, let's not downplay how detrimental this passive power is to democracy. That means if literally every single citizen in the kingdom wants to rename the monarchy the "grand duchy" one unelected person can block that change, forever and ever leaving the people with absolutely no recourse to change things. 

Now, on the one hand, why can't the King defend his monarchy? And the answer is that he can. But the idea that he can prevent any change to the organic law that he, personally, does not approve of and there's simply nothing that anyone can do about it is a bit extreme. 

Of course, we have indirect recourse. We can't force the King to proclaim the amendment. But we can, without the King's approval, remove the king from the throne and suspend his descendants from succession. 

So, if the law is as the King (and you) say and this is just the way it is, then perhaps the most logical recourse is to remove from the throne the King who refuses to proclaim amendments he does not, personally, approve of. 

[Renalt da Fhamul]

I would ok with that, as I said we have two options: A. be able to a elect a king or B. strip him of his powers. If we were to have a elected "king regent" it would effectively be using the first option. Now I believe that if this were to happen I would still want to have a the "throne" or position of kingship not abolished so we can have it as a symbol of our country and people. When you say steward or regent, do you mean that they are democratically elected to essentially be the king? That seems to me the same thing as having a democratically elected king.

[Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben.]

Jan 2, 2016 12:42:18 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jan 2, 2016 6:42:24 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

This is the writ of Dissolution for the 45th Cosa, made on November 30th:


talossa.proboards.com/thread/9079/writ-dissolution-45th-cosa

The writ may say November 30th in it, but as you can see from the post date it was actually issued on December 16th--after the election had begun! So that's actually precedent for not delaying the election. In fact, before the writ was issued, there was a big discussion about the non-issuance here, where pretty much everyone agreed that delaying the election would not be necessary.

And elections were held under King Robert I without a formal writ of dissolution. That's one of the things that then-SoS Woolley pointed out in the Erni v. Talossa case.

The law is pretty clear. 

During its last month the King shall issue a Writ of Dissolution ending its term.

It it doesn't say "or months later because he can just backdate it." In fact, it doesn't say anything about the dating of the writ at all. Nor does it state that the writ has to even be dated. What the law does state is that during the last month the king shall issue it. 

Considering how how much the King has been clinging to the plain text meaning of "may" and how much you, in fact, invested into a legal argument around that I'm a bit surprised that you seem to be asserting that "may" is a clear-cut rule but the word "during" can mean "whenever, or not at all, the last guy was really crappy about following the law so whatevs."

the he king has been on Witt. He was able to post a long winded speech basically saying the will of the people would be mob rule and he can democracy for us. Why not just issue the writ then? 

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jan 2, 2016 14:08:36 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

Jan 2, 2016 13:34:41 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Well, let's not downplay how detrimental this passive power is to democracy. That means if literally every single citizen in the kingdom wants to rename the monarchy the "grand duchy" one unelected person can block that change, forever and ever leaving the people with absolutely no recourse to change things. 

Now, on the one hand, why can't the King defend his monarchy? And the answer is that he can. But the idea that he can prevent any change to the organic law that he, personally, does not approve of and there's simply nothing that anyone can do about it is a bit extreme. 

Of course, we have indirect recourse. We can't force the King to proclaim the amendment. But we can, without the King's approval, remove the king from the throne and suspend his descendants from succession. 

So, if the law is as the King (and you) say and this is just the way it is, then perhaps the most logical recourse is to remove from the throne the King who refuses to proclaim amendments he does not, personally, approve of. 

Tim, you're just ignoring the facts. The 2/3 Majority Amendment, which I believe will be proclaimed without trouble, will stop this blanket ability to set aside amendments. It wasn't a perfect law, but I think it will definitely be affirmed by the citizens in referendum.

Renault, the monarch has an important role to play in the country -- more than just a figurehead. Talossa is very small, and in bad times, like this past term, our active citizens can still drop to only a dozen or so. And there have also been serious times of crisis, during which almost every institution that was elected failed. And in many of these times, the monarch's position as a bastion of stability and symbol of continuity has proven invaluable. The only reason that our legal system and constitutional government continued unbroken after the Great Abdication was because of the existence of the monarchy, ironically enough.

I would strongly prefer that His Majesty be more active, and I am going to try to work to make that happen (somehow, not sure how). But discussions like these, where the republican caucus of the ZRT rushes en masse to clutch their pearls, or when His Majesty has "dropped the ball" (to borrow the FDT phrasing), also illustrate how important it is to have institutions that aren't subject to moments of pressure.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

The 2/3 Majority Amendment, which I believe will be proclaimed without trouble

You mean "3/4 Majority". Why do you believe that? The King has said that he treasures his absolute veto over OrgLaw reforms. What makes you think he will make any concessions? He didn't give us any warning he would trash 48RZ27, just to fire a shot across the Govt's bows.

The Monarch is no bastion of stability or continuity if he doesn't do his job. I think that you can make an argument for a monarchy, but no longer one for this monarch. He's like Honey Badger now.

[Renalt da Fhamul]

I do agree, as I said before we need a king. I also believe it is time for the king to tell us what is going on! Why hasn't he dissolved the cosa? Before we do anything we need answers! The king needs to tell us what is going on!