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 Feb 28, 2016 17:29:11 GMT -6
Well, to my reading, it means "to do the Seneschál's duties". Not to assume the Seneschál's job title on any kind of permanent basis. Like if you don't turn up for work one day a workmate may do your job (at least any urgent parts) until you get back, but it doesn't mean they take your job, until you don't turn up for a week and your boss formally fires you.
In this, what no-one is talking about is the role of the King. He gets to say who's Seneschál and who isn't, under the OrgLaw. The Distáin can "act in place of" an absent Seneschál, i.e. do their job, but they can't take their job. Only the King can do that. Charlie is Seneschál unless or until the King says differently.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 28, 2016 17:32:24 GMT -6
Or unless you say differently, apparently! There's no provision for "unless the Seneschal returns from the absence that leaves them unable to do their duties."
It's a conditional clause. If the Distain takes power, then they act until a new Seneschal is chosen.
I guess we can always embalm CCX and keep him in a special building for rote worship, while you take the position of Eternal Secretary to the Seneschal and act in his name forever.
|
|
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 Feb 28, 2016 17:32:51 GMT -6
Nice attempted avoidance of the precise wording of the law: Does not mean "take over from". Means "carry out the duties of". An acting, temporary replacement. You can try telling Charlie when he gets back that when he snoozes, he loses, but it seems, again, like grubby trolling. Why stop there with "the precise wording of the law"? The section specifies for how long the Distain will "act in place" of the Seneschal, doesn't it? It says "until a new Seneschal shall be appointed." How do you read that as meaning "until the Seneschal gets back"?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 28, 2016 17:36:31 GMT -6
Look, I don't know what the problem is. There's something urgent that you say needs to be done, and the Seneschal is absent and can't do it. So you're taking his place until the end of the term, deposing him and doing his duties.
If he's not absent and can be Seneschal, then let him do it.
If he is, and you're going to start making laws (!!!), then you're the acting Seneschal.
There's no provision in the law for "the Distain can exercise the powers of the Seneschal for a little bit if they really think it's important." If he's absent and can't be Seneschal any more, then ok. No argument. If he's not, then you're the Distain and the OrgLaw doesn't give you the power to make laws.
Let's note, by the way, that this would all be a lot simpler if the FDT Seneschal was around to issue urgent PDs, so the Distain didn't have to spark a constitutional crisis by seizing power.
|
|
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 Feb 28, 2016 17:40:17 GMT -6
This is just legal dickery and trolling, guys. Just like you did with the Proclamation Crisis, you are using an ambiguity in the law to force a meaning into the law which it never had in the past, for partisan advantage. I repeat: if this was something that AD wanted done, you wouldn't blink an eyelid. You guys do this all the time. The Cabinet majority thinks I'm right on this. You can play around until Charlie gets back, or you can take a Cort case, or you can get up the King's ciùl to get him to drop a veto - if you can find him. Your arguments are sophistic and I'm not engaging until you find one which isn't special pleading, or until you stop running your mouths and do something rather than drop insults.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Feb 28, 2016 17:56:29 GMT -6
Haven't there been many times where a Seneschal has had to be absent for one reason or the other, and notified the Distain who exercised the Seneschal's Organic duties in their stead, without a new Seneschal having to be appointed? (Such as here or here.) The Distain can only exercise this power through OrgLaw XII.8, and not by Lex.D.2.2.
|
|
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 Feb 28, 2016 18:13:22 GMT -6
Just like you did with the Proclamation Crisis, you are using an ambiguity in the law to force a meaning into the law which it never had in the past, for partisan advantage. For there to be an ambiguity in the law, there must be two or more reasonable alternative interpretations of the same language. What's your theory of how to interpret the language in Section 8 that appears to specify the duration of the Distain acting in place of the Seneschal? As for your point about a meaning the law was never understood to have in the past, that may be a very good point. Apart from the examples Dien mentions, I know Lord Hooligan issued a PD as Distain in 2005, when the Seneschal (Sir Fritz) was ill.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 28, 2016 18:26:07 GMT -6
I don't see any problems at all, Generalissimo. You took charge, the old Seneschal is deposed, and all is well. On the contrary, this is delightful. During the very election, the FDT Seneschal disappears and the FDT Distain seizes power through a legal ambiguity so that she can start making new laws?
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Feb 28, 2016 18:28:57 GMT -6
I don't see any problems at all, Generalissimo. You took charge, the old Seneschal is deposed, and all is well. On the contrary, this is delightful. During the very election, the FDT Seneschal disappears and the FDT Distain seizes power through a legal ambiguity so that she can start making new laws? Major eye roll.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 28, 2016 18:31:05 GMT -6
SORRY I DID NOT MEAN TO DISPLEASE
NO NO
NOT THE RATS TAKE THEM AWAY
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Feb 28, 2016 18:32:36 GMT -6
You are fully aware, no doubt, of how insulting the title "generalissimo" is?
|
|
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 Feb 28, 2016 18:42:52 GMT -6
Just like you did with the Proclamation Crisis, you are using an ambiguity in the law to force a meaning into the law which it never had in the past, for partisan advantage. For there to be an ambiguity in the law, there must be two or more reasonable alternative interpretations of the same language. What's your theory of how to interpret the language in Section 8 that appears to specify the duration of the Distain acting in place of the Seneschal? As for your point about a meaning the law was never understood to have in the past, that may be a very good point. Apart from the examples Dien mentions, I know Lord Hooligan issued a PD as Distain in 2005, when the Seneschal (Sir Fritz) was ill. Thanks for finding the 2005 precedent for us. As to the 'duration' thing, it's clearly a drafting error. My guess would be that the Framers wrote up a provision for death, resignation, etc, and then added "absence" later without understanding that temporary and permanent absences might equally occur. The precedent you cite shows pretty clearly that a Seneschál can "come back" after the Distáin does things for him under OL XII:8. But the RCOR should definitely remedy this error, at least, unless AD succeeds in getting it closed down. Anyway, if a Cort were to rule 'no takebacks', you know what I would do? 1) Appoint Charlie as Distáin. 2) Resign.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Feb 29, 2016 1:37:41 GMT -6
So, we found 3 precedents (appointing peoples and issuing PDs) where the Distain simply stepped in and the Seneschal returned. No new Seneschal appointed. That's the "tradition".
If AD feels this to be inorganic, he can petition the Court. Unless the Court decides differently, the Gov. is follwing the tradition.
|
|
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 Feb 29, 2016 4:34:39 GMT -6
For what it's worth, OrgLaw XII:8 originally read:
It was amended to its current language by 42RZ23, The You're Fired; No, YOU'RE Fired Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Feb 29, 2016 5:20:42 GMT -6
Sorry there's been some miscommunication here but I wholeheartedly endorse this PD and would have done it myself were I not busy yesterday.
|
|