Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jan 29, 2017 8:53:05 GMT -6
The Advisory King Amendment WHEREAS Every citizen has their own concept of the perfect role of the King in Talossa today, andWHEREAS I realized that my own such concept was founded on a highly romanticized version of the King, in which he was omnibenevolent and respected the will of the people except in the direst circumstances, andWHEREAS Even if this were currently the case, it would be no reason to believe that the Crown would always behave this way, andWHEREAS I have just recently grasped the full consequences of an unelected head of state possessing such broad powers, andWHEREAS Despite this, misdeeds by one King is no reason to abolish the office entirely, andWHEREAS in a country as small as Talossa, retaining the same, heavily involved head of state is good for stability, even if the King is not as involved as we would like, andWHEREAS The Crown has, does, and will likely continue to provide valuable advice concerning matters of governance, so he should retain at least some amount of political power, andWHEREAS This is the heart of the matter: while an unelected official can offer new perspectives and encourage legislators to stop and think, someone without a democratic mandate should not have final say on anything, nor even be able to indefinitely put roadblocks in the path of the duly elected Ziu, andWHEREAS for all these reasons, applying the concepts of the ¾ Majority Amendment to regular legislation seems like a pretty good ideaTHEREFORE, Org.X.6, which currently reads: is amended to read: Noi urent q'estadra så; Ian Plätschisch (MC-MRPT) Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun (Sen-MM)
|
|
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 Jan 29, 2017 16:50:56 GMT -6
The Advisory King Amendment WHEREAS Every citizen has their own concept of the perfect role of the King in Talossa today, andWHEREAS I realized that my own such concept was founded on a highly romanticized version of the King, in which he was omnibenevolent and respected the will of the people except in the direst circumstances, andWHEREAS Even if this were currently the case, it would be no reason to believe that the Crown would always behave this way, andWHEREAS I have just recently grasped the full consequences of an unelected head of state possessing such broad powers, andThe Free Democrats kept telling you, and telling you, but you kept being influenced by the RUMP. Good to see you got the point eventually. Nice bill.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jan 29, 2017 18:22:06 GMT -6
Well, this bill is worth considering. However, I would like to change the whole passage to something more... accommodating to the reader:
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Jan 29, 2017 18:40:28 GMT -6
So, if I am reading this correctly, the bill would not only make veto overrides redundant (though I've not seen the Ziu take up a veto override, despite the "shall proceed...in the next Clark" language), but it would basically eliminate the King's very limited powers in the Ziu.
I respect the King's ability to veto a bill, as I would respect the ability of any executive in a country to do the same. (Keep in mind, he has in fact vetoed a bill that I was the primary author of before, something that can't be said very often around here.) But barring some drastic change in the makeup of a Cosa from one term to the next, the ability to veto would become simple delay mechanism for what will otherwise be the inevitable passage of a bill.
If you want to eliminate the King's veto, that's fine. Propose an amendment that cuts right to the point instead of something like this which does virtually the same thing while pretending not to.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jan 29, 2017 19:48:10 GMT -6
The Free Democrats kept telling you, and telling you, but you kept being influenced by the RUMP. Good to see you got the point eventually. Nice bill. I would beg to differ concerning the amount of influence the RUMP ever had over me, but that is beside the point. I'm glad you like the bill.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jan 29, 2017 19:49:37 GMT -6
Well, this bill is worth considering. However, I would like to change the whole passage to something more... accommodating to the reader: It looks like you omitted the Senate from the first veto override option.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jan 29, 2017 19:58:49 GMT -6
So, if I am reading this correctly, the bill would not only make veto overrides redundant (though I've not seen the Ziu take up a veto override, despite the "shall proceed...in the next Clark" language), but it would basically eliminate the King's very limited powers in the Ziu. This bill would not eliminate the King's powers; it would just convert the King's veto into a suspensive veto. The King will still be able to delay a bill for the length of a Cosa term (unless the veto was overridden by a supermajority), which should give him plenty of time to make his case against the bill and let legislators reconsider it. If the King had a valid point, then legislators in the next Cosa will not pass the bill. Basically, this bill lets the King retain an ability which seems very important to him; the ability to prevent the Cosa from acting on bouts of temporary fervor. The difference between the executives of other countries and the King of Talossa is that the King is not accountable to the people. While vesting an advisory role in such a figure is fine, if a majority of the Ziu consistently wants to pass a bill on behalf of the people, the King should not be a permanent roadblock.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Jan 29, 2017 20:25:27 GMT -6
So, if I am reading this correctly, the bill would not only make veto overrides redundant (though I've not seen the Ziu take up a veto override, despite the "shall proceed...in the next Clark" language), but it would basically eliminate the King's very limited powers in the Ziu. This bill would not eliminate the King's powers; it would just convert the King's veto into a suspensive veto. The King will still be able to delay a bill for the length of a Cosa term (unless the veto was overridden by a supermajority), which should give him plenty of time to make his case against the bill and let legislators reconsider it. If the King had a valid point, then legislators in the next Cosa will not pass the bill. Basically, this bill lets the King retain an ability which seems very important to him; the ability to prevent the Cosa from acting on bouts of temporary fervor. I disagree. There are already many who are concerned with the the King exercising his right to voice his opinion, and any time he opens his mouth is a cause for concern. (Which is probably one reason we don't seem him very often.) The suggestion that a suspensive veto would give him plenty of time to make his case against a bill erroneously assumes that his concerns would be heard by MZs with an open mind, much less considered. In practice, this amendment would eliminate his veto powers completely. Again, I disagree. First, the only time this King has ever vetoed a bill for reasons other than the bill's inOrganicity is when he was asked to earlier this year. In other words, this bill isn't correcting any problem, merely the perception of one. But even if he was to do so in the future, I disagree with it being considered a permanent roadblock. Actually, it would only be a permanent roadblock if the bill weren't able to sustain a veto override. While you are correct that the King isn't accountable insofar as he isn't an elected official, I question whether you can claim the bill should be passed on behalf of the people when you suggest that a bill should become law when it can't even muster the support of at least 2/3rds of a Cosa to override a veto.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jan 29, 2017 20:57:25 GMT -6
I disagree. There are already many who are concerned with the the King exercising his right to voice his opinion, and any time he opens his mouth is a cause for concern. (Which is probably one reason we don't seem him very often.) The suggestion that a suspensive veto would give him plenty of time to make his case against a bill erroneously assumes that his concerns would be heard by MZs with an open mind, much less considered. In practice, this amendment would eliminate his veto powers completely. Well, recently, whenever the King has opened his mouth, it has been to deny a ruling of the Court. Whenever he contributes to discussions about bills, on the other hand, I have never seen people get upset, as the King is Organically part of the Ziu. If this were so, why don't we require all bills to be passed with a 2/3 majority? My point is, the 2/3 threshold is a currently a roadblock which can be imposed indefinitely in the way of the majority of the people.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Jan 29, 2017 21:54:16 GMT -6
The scale of the problem of the King being a permanent roadblock is equivalent to someone failing to submit coversheets with their TPS reports.
The difference with this proposed amendment and the 3/4ths majority amendment is that there has not been a single demonstrable case of the King vetoing a bill for political reasons. Indeed, when he has vetoed citing Organicity, most of the time the bill is fixed and passed in a subsequent Clark, and it doesn't require a veto override because it isn't the same bill. In other words, his veto already acts as an advisory opinion. But by allowing the exact same bill with no changes to proceed to passage by a simple majority in the next Cosa, the King's advisory is meaningless because it didn't prompt the author to tweak the bill.
I'm also concerned about whether the will of the people would actually be reflected. If a bill passed 101-99, and a seat was given to a party as the result of a coin flip, can you really say it reflects the will of the majority of the people?
We already have a veto-override. If the King of Talossa has such significant problems with a bill that he feels the need to exercise his sparsely used veto power, then yes, a 2/3rds threshold should absolutely be necessary. This is because the King should advocate for all people, including those holding minority opinions. There would be no check to the Ziu's power if we did not have a higher threshold for overcoming a veto.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jan 30, 2017 7:42:22 GMT -6
Overriding a veto by simple majority after General Elections seems sufficient a check upon the Ziu’s powers, if you ask me.
Ián, please be so kind as to include the Senäts override in the first round into my modification, and adapt that version. And I would be happy to co-sponsor. Thank you.
|
|
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 Jan 30, 2017 14:15:36 GMT -6
As a good Republican, I'm going to have to disagree with my party leader on this one, in that any reduction in the unelected monarchy's power to do anything but hand out titles and wave nonchalantly at the opening of shopping malls is good by me.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jan 30, 2017 20:18:06 GMT -6
Ián, please be so kind as to include the Senäts override in the first round into my modification, and adapt that version. And I would be happy to co-sponsor. Thank you. Done
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Mar 23, 2017 20:43:01 GMT -6
|
|