|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 29, 2016 5:26:41 GMT -6
Lol... would you mind issuing the PD again under your name, that way there's no legal ambiguity? And congrats on the counter-coup, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 29, 2016 6:09:00 GMT -6
Lol... would you mind issuing the PD again under your name, that way there's no legal ambiguity? And congrats on the counter-coup, by the way. Can the Seneschal legally delegate powers, and instruct his subordinates to do things? Is the Distain, in hierarchy of the Cabinet, a subordinate of the Seneschal? If you can answer those two questions affirmatively, then I personally see no grounds for the Seneschal to have to reissue a PD which his subordinate has duly issued according to his wishes.
|
|
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 6:22:58 GMT -6
Can the Seneschal legally delegate powers, and instruct his subordinates to do things? Is the Distain, in hierarchy of the Cabinet, a subordinate of the Seneschal? If you can answer those two questions affirmatively, then I personally see no grounds for the Seneschal to have to reissue a PD which his subordinate has duly issued according to his wishes. I wonder if this is a situation where the doctrine of ratification might come into play.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 29, 2016 7:43:46 GMT -6
Can the Seneschal legally delegate powers, and instruct his subordinates to do things? Is the Distain, in hierarchy of the Cabinet, a subordinate of the Seneschal? If you can answer those two questions affirmatively, then I personally see no grounds for the Seneschal to have to reissue a PD which his subordinate has duly issued according to his wishes. I wonder if this is a situation where the doctrine of ratification might come into play. That would be relevant if the agent, that is the Distain, had acted without authority. But, as I have stated earlier, we must in good faith assume that the Distain always has authority to act in the name and according to the wishes — explicitly authorised or not; explicitly expressed or not — of the Seneschal. It is the office’s intrinsic, innate, inherent nature. The Distain is second in command.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 29, 2016 7:50:05 GMT -6
Note that I am not saying that the Distain can overrule the Seneschal:
As long as the Seneschal does not withdraw (implicit) consent, the actions of the Distain are assumed approved.
|
|
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 8:27:54 GMT -6
Note that I am not saying that the Distain can overrule the Seneschal: As long as the Seneschal does not withdraw (implicit) consent, the actions of the Distain are assumed approved. Is it your opinion that the Distain has equal authority with the Seneschal to issue prime dictates, unless and until the Seneschal tells him or her not to?
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 29, 2016 8:50:45 GMT -6
Note that I am not saying that the Distain can overrule the Seneschal: As long as the Seneschal does not withdraw (implicit) consent, the actions of the Distain are assumed approved. Is it your opinion that the Distain has equal authority with the Seneschal to issue prime dictates, unless and until the Seneschal tells him or her not to? That is an area where we have to tread carefully, so as not to allow for confusion arising out of miscommunication between Seneschal and Distain: Whereas we do not want the Distain to have too much leeway (effectively, nothing bad could come out of it, as the Seneschal could nix the Distain's actions — but it would result in a minor confusion for the Kingdom), we also do not want the Distain to be a hindrance to the Seneschal, because if the Seneschal in advance has to tell the Distain specifically, (in your opinion, publicly?) and exactly how the PD should be issued, then the Seneschal could, in my opinion, also just issue the PD himself. I think it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and I think it needs not be decided at all, if the Seneschal does not withdraw consent. In this case, the Distain and the Seneschal were communicating before this PD had been issued, and the Seneschal has since (to pick up your example, Sir Siervicül) ratified the Distain's PD a posteriori. Therefore, there was no miscommunication, but instead, the Distain has done her job, and taken workload off the Seneschal's hands.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Feb 29, 2016 10:22:03 GMT -6
Wow. Off-line for *one day*, and look what happens.
OK, I haven't communicated with anyone about this, except to read this thread. But I don't see the huge urgency. Either the present Seneschal can issue this or a similar PD, and I'll consent to it, or as soon as a new Seneschal is appointed, he can ditto, and I ditto. No biggie.
But I can't see having a Distain issuing PDs when the Seneschal isn't ill or incapacitated or anything, and just isn't answering email for a few days. Not answering email is a Talosan tradition, too. We just have to live with it.
— John R
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 29, 2016 10:42:02 GMT -6
|
|
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 29, 2016 12:44:19 GMT -6
The huge urgency, sir, is that the RCOR ceases to exist today without this PD.
Which is of course the hidden agenda here from the people who never wanted the RCOR to start with.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Feb 29, 2016 12:54:45 GMT -6
The Office of the Prime Minister of Talossa __________________________
L'Óifisch dal Seneschal del Regipäts Talossa
RCOR Deadline Extension Prime Dictate 2 Electric Boogaloo (48PD05) WHEREAS the Royal Commission dedicated to reform of the Organic Law was unfortunately slow getting off the ground, and WHEREAS the Royal Commission on OrgLaw Reform has an important duty to perform in this country, and WHEREAS it is important that the aforementioned Royal Commission has the time it needs to perform its duties effectively, and WHEREAS the energies of the members of the commission have been massively diverted over the last month with (a) the election; (b) Uppermost Cort cases and (c) the awful "Cannongate" scandal; THEREFORE 48RZ18 as amended by 48PD01, which specified that the Commission shall provide its recommendations no later than the 1st of March 2016, shall instead be amended to read that the Commission shall provide its recommendations no later than the 1st of May. CCX, Seneschal
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Feb 29, 2016 12:56:15 GMT -6
Seneschman for the resque! I'm glad the issue is resolved
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Feb 29, 2016 12:57:55 GMT -6
This whole thing was hilarious, I must say
|
|
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 29, 2016 13:01:08 GMT -6
Dank memes.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Feb 29, 2016 13:10:19 GMT -6
The cartoons were the best part.
|
|