Maritiimi-Maxhestic Senatorial Debate

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

This touches more on national politics, really.

We have seen a ton of legislation passed over the past couple of years. Seriously, just a flood of new statutes and rules and changes. I've been responsible for this, in part. By codifying all the statutes into el Lexhatx, it has made it much easier to take in all of the laws at a sweep and make big adjustments to them. That's not a bad thing, either -- right now the Senator (and the moderator!) and I are in a committee that has already turned out one reform bill for the OrgLaw and will be working on more, hopefully; that is only possible because we have a place to put the stuff we're moving.

Now, I have to admit that I hope to serve in government and bring some of the organization and drive that I think has been missing on the national scene. But I would like to keep doing more reforms on the Organic Law, and that will be my legislative focus for the new term.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Dang, sorry about the delay! Time difference and all makes it so very annoying!

Reforms on the Organic Law (or even a complete overhaul) would be great, and I thing the Committee and Commission are a good place to start. But I would actually love to see the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms apply to every person under our jurisdiction, I cannot say it often enough!

I would also like to see a change in how the Vote of Confidence works, which is a big deal in other countries, but in Talossa we pop them like candy. I have a draft in the workings with a Constructive Vote of No Confidence to replace the VOC as we know it, which I hope to be able to propose to the Ziu as Senator of Maritiimi-Maxhestic!

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

No rebuttal.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Next question, to Senator da Lhiun first;

Interestingly enough, the moderator and the two candidates were the sponsors of the 3/4 Majority Amendment. What other steps, if any, need to be taken to ensure the accountability of the monarch and create a fair balance of power?

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Well, first of all, if the Uppermost Cort vacate its decision in in re: 47RZ28 and grant the injunction against the Chancery to not commend the 3/4-Amendment to the Citizenry for ratification (I have also submitted the same request to the Uppermost Cort, by the way), one major step towards ensuring accountability and democratising the Monarchy would be made, and that would be a great victory for a fair balance of power in Talossa.

I also think that hereditary Monarchy could be changed to an elective Monarchy, since... well, let's think about the ancient Germanic kings and kaisers, who were at first elected to their “Office” due to merit. I think that would ensure a wider support for Monarchy. Of course, the elective Monarchy would be unlimited; it would just be that regality wouldn't be passed down through the Royal Lineage, thereby ensuring that the Monarch is one such because s/he deserves it.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I must disagree with the Senator, myself -- I think it would set a dangerous precedent for the Cort to step in and prevent the citizenry from having their say on a bill that received the support of the Ziu. There is absolutely no provision in the Organic Law for the Cort to take such a step and act as a third house of the Ziu. The process of judicial review does not extend to a legislative veto.

Happily, our current monarch was elected with overwhelming support, although I'd hesitate to start calling him Kaiser... no matter our Germanic heritage here in Maritiimi-Maxhestic!

As for what steps we should take, I still believe in the hereditary monarchy. The Ziu already has the Organic power to suspend suspect candidates from the line of succession, after all. That said, I am increasingly of the opinion that there must be some democratic way to remove the monarch in extremis.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Sorry about that... the time difference is realllllly annoying!

The bill has received the support of the Ziu under false assumption — that being that the King was right in “anti-proclaiming” 47RZ28. But after pondering the dissenting opinion of Justice Edwards, I found the implications of the Cort's decision very unsettling — that every OrgLaw amendment not explicitly proclaimed might be null and void.

I did not think that far when I thought that the Cort might reject the petition of the Government in in re: 47RZ28 — that was why I had voted FOR the 3/4-Amendment. But now, thinking about it, I firmly believe that A-X Damă Schivâ's reasoning and Justice Edwards' Dissenting Opinion are entirely plausible and true; new information has come to light, if you so will — before the 3/4-Amendment is declared valid by the Citizenry. I think calling a “misvote” (analogous to a mistrial, although maybe “revoting” ↔ retrial would make more sense...), and putting the Amendment before the Ziu would be the right step.

I entirely agree that there should be a democratic way to remove the monarch in dire circumstances!

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

On basic principle, the Corts should not decide that the Ziu was "wrong" or "misinformed" when they passed a bill, and purport to overrule them. This is for very good reasons of good governance: if the Cort is allowed to act as a third house of the Ziu, then the branches of government no longer provide an effective check on each other. For example, if the Cort had the power to discard duly passed amendments, then they could discard any amendment that aimed to restrain the power of the Cort! Our most basic sense about how the government works should tell us that such an injunction is a terrible idea. Further, there is no power granted to the Cort to set aside an amendment simply because it thinks the Ziu was wrong. The corts exist to adjudicate justice under the law, resolve disputes in contradictory or vague law, or review laws under the principles of the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms. The Cort does not have an unlimited power to take any action it likes... it can't grant itself the power to call a "misvote" out of thin air.

I also think that the Cort seems unlikely to rule in favor of the plaintiff in the current case. A similar case was decided only a month ago, and it was based on the same principles. The notion of stare decisis should apply: presented with the same facts and same theories, then the Cort should uphold its prior ruling... not reverse it the next month! Would it make any sense for the Cort to decide that the amendment challenged last month came under His Majesty's power, but that every other amendment was different and should be discarded?

If you'll pardon my directness, it is poor judgment to hope for a permanent change in the shape of government to solve an issue of the moment.

[Ian Plätschisch]

On to the next question, to be answered first by Sir Davinescu.

What role do you believe the monarch should play in today's Talossa?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The monarch is an important part of our system, since he or she provides the benefits of a stable and removed presence to both guide the nation and to serve as a cultural touchpoint. Particularly in such a small and volatile country as ours, this is important. Talossa has the potential to be utterly transformed in a short span, making it difficult to form deep attachments or traditions, and a strong and independent monarch is one of the only protections against mercuric election cycles. While the monarch should still ultimately be accountable to the people -- indeed, the OrgLaw states that he or she derives their power from the democratic grant of the citizens -- it is almost important that the institution be able to serve as a check against the other parts of the government.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I personally believe that the Monarch should be one to represent and hold together the Kingdom, especially since, as Domnul Davinescu says, our nationette has a fast-changing political climate. I absolutely agree with Domnul Davinescu in that the King should be accountable for any- and everything he does in his capacity as such. But I believe that his political involvement should be reduced — he should, at least, not have an absolute right to interfere in Organic Law amendments.

And furthermore: yes, he is an important figure, but if that figure is not around to be important, and do his job, then do we need this particular important figure? The TNC’s platform says something similar, and I think their opinion has some merit.

Basically: a) the Monarch should be less political/legislatively involved
b) the Monarch should represent us, and be a pillar of continuity; maybe even help new Governments get settled in (with advices, and suggestions)
c) the Monarch SHOULD REPRESENT us, and not be fed up with Talossa

[Ian Plätschisch]

The time for rebuttals has passed. I will post the next question as soon as I can

[Ian Plätschisch]

Next question, directed first to Senator da Lhiun;

The Royal Commission on the Organic Law seeks a substantive overhaul of our nation's most important document. To what extent do you believe the OrgLaw needs to be reformed, and what specific articles need to be changed?

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Feb 2, 2016 15:24:12 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Next question, directed first to Senator da Lhiun;

The Royal Commission on the Organic Law seeks a substantive overhaul of our nation's most important document. To what extent do you believe the OrgLaw needs to be reformed, and what specific articles need to be changed?

This is a very large subject, and a very touchy topic for many old hand Talossans. But the fact is that the Organic Law in our nationette has always been a rather fast-changing document, and while the Spanish Constitución of 1978 has been changed merely twice in all these years (namely in 1992, and in 2011), our Organic Laws change after every plebiscite; it is safe to say that we are one of Planet Earth's human nations with the most changes to its highest legislative document.

I do believe that the Organic Law desperately needs a complete make-over. A change in style. Out with the old, in with the new.

I think that a three-tier system with a Constitution, an Organic Law, and regular Legislation, as is employed in France and Spain, and which Chief Justice Tamorán has proposed for Talossa, would actually be worth pondering. However, I could see how confusion would arise if we had three documents to look up things in; and one of the many reasons for a major OrgLaw-overhaul is accessibility and legibility.

But I also believe that some changes to the Courts, and maybe even to the legislative, should be made. Maybe instead of the Senäts and the Cosă voting simultaneously, we could have the Cosă vote on bills, which then would be sent to the Senäts for approval, or rejection. It never quite made sense to me that both Houses should vote simultaneously — but that is not the most important part!

The most important change to the Organic Law that is overdue is the application of the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms to every man, woman, and child under our Jurisdiction, be they citizens of the Kingdom or not.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Clearly, I think that OrgLaw reform is important -- I'm one of the members of the Standing Committee for Reforming the Organic Law (or whatever we called it) and we already produced a bill! Credit where credit is due, the Senator is also a member of that committee.

The overwhelming priority is assessing which elements of our laws need to be placed into el Lexhatx, and which need Organic protections. This is the cause of the frequent amendments, and now there's no reason for some of our fiddlier little requirements to be Organically mandated. The development of el Lexhatx has made it possible to put a great many of these sorts of provisions into statutory law, an advancement not previously possible... something I can say with some pride, as the person who took the lead and did a majority of the work on the construction of el Lexhatx.

I see no real reason to create a confusing third body of law -- it might be cool, but that's probably not the best reason for making such a change when we basically only just finished reforming and consolidating our law. I'd be curious to know what changes to the Corts are being proposed by the Senator.