Still Into This Amendment

[Ian Plätschisch]

Apr 18, 2019 11:38:04 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

Alright, so I wanted to do a blanket review of stuff I don't like/would change in this amendment, but I don't have time to complete it in one go. In the meantime:

1) Article II Section 2 - "If at any time the King fails to perform a duty, he shall be deemed to have performed it."

I can see why this was added, but isn't there a better way to get around the issue of a King "forgetting" to do something than essentially "retconning" the failure to act? It just seems like an awful solution to me, even more so because it's a blanket statement and applies equally to (eg) granting Arms, appointing ministers and dissolving the Cosa, which are drastically different duties.

I'd prefer at least an alternate provisions that says the Ziu can pass legislation to address what to do case by case, or something similar.

I don't have a problem with that. I added this in place of what was previously there:

The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

2) Article III Section 4 - the whole Joint Sitting thing.



For a start, it's pretty odd that the King (and not the Government) gets to call a Joint Sitting, and it's not even suggested that it's on the PM's initiative. But more on point, why do a Joint Sitting at all? It's so Cosa-biased that at this point you could just replace it with "If the Senate shall twice reject a bill appropriating revenue or moneys, the same bill shall become law over the objection of the Senate."

I could go along with Miestra's proposal on this one, but I'm not sure how to word it.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I just did another read through and everything looks good (as soon as we figure out the budget stuff). Of course, it is notoriously difficult to check your own work.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I could go along with Miestra's proposal on this one, but I'm not sure how to word it.

Section 4
The Senäts shall have equal powers with the Cosa in respect of all proposed laws except as follows:

a) bills appropriating revenue or moneys shall not originate in the Senäts. In the event of the Senäts three times rejecting a bill appropriating revenue or moneys which is passed by the Cosa, such a bill shall not require the consent of the Senäts to be passed for Royal Assent upon being passed a fourth time by the Cosa.
b) and the Government shall require the confidence of the Cosa only to remain in office.

[Ian Plätschisch]

May 4, 2019 16:03:04 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I could go along with Miestra's proposal on this one, but I'm not sure how to word it.

Section 4
The Senäts shall have equal powers with the Cosa in respect of all proposed laws except as follows:

a) bills appropriating revenue or moneys shall not originate in the Senäts. In the event of the Senäts three times rejecting a bill appropriating revenue or moneys which is passed by the Cosa, such a bill shall not require the consent of the Senäts to be passed for Royal Assent upon being passed a fourth time by the Cosa.
b) and the Government shall require the confidence of the Cosa only to remain in office.

I'll add it as long as you are OK with me taking the letters out.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

May 4, 2019 16:04:32 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

May 4, 2019 16:03:04 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Section 4
The Senäts shall have equal powers with the Cosa in respect of all proposed laws except as follows:

a) bills appropriating revenue or moneys shall not originate in the Senäts. In the event of the Senäts three times rejecting a bill appropriating revenue or moneys which is passed by the Cosa, such a bill shall not require the consent of the Senäts to be passed for Royal Assent upon being passed a fourth time by the Cosa.
b) and the Government shall require the confidence of the Cosa only to remain in office.

I'll add it as long as you are OK with me taking the letters out.

What, all the letters?!

(I assume you mean the paragraph-heading letters, in which case, who cares.)

[Lüc da Schir]

That's not Miestra's proposal, though, it's more like an even more delayed version of Ian's, as it calls for the Senate being able to reject the budget *thrice* (my proposal was once, Ian's proposal was twice).

Miestra's first proposal would be:

Section 4
The Senäts shall have equal powers with the Cosa in respect of all proposed laws except that the Government shall require the confidence of the Cosa only to remain in office, and that bills appropriating revenue or moneys shall not originate in the Senäts. In the event of the Senäts rejecting such a bill, which is passed by the Cosa during a period of three calendar months from the bill being first presented in a Clark, it shall not require the consent of the Senäts to be passed for Royal Assent, upon being passed by the Cosa in any Clark subsequent to the period's expiration.


If we are nuking the N months clause and returning to a N Clarks/votes clause (like my first proposal), let's at least return the delay to a shorter version that can work with our parliamentary time scale.

[Lüc da Schir]

To clear all doubts, I'm fine with Miestrâ's latest suggestion, but the number of accepted failures is too long for our timespan. Are you open to changing it to two rejections before the third Cosa-only vote, Ian Plätschisch?

I'm doing a second round of checking from Article VI onwards. I hope to post my full findings soon, but for a start, in article VI section 3, for obvious reasons, "His advice to the King on these matters may shall not be refused.".

[Ian Plätschisch]

May 15, 2019 6:36:22 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

To clear all doubts, I'm fine with Miestrâ's latest suggestion, but the number of accepted failures is too long for our timespan. Are you open to changing it to two rejections before the third Cosa-only vote, Ian Plätschisch ? 

I would be fine with that.

[Lüc da Schir]

I have terminated my review of the amendment.

Article VII Section 8: The Clark must contain, in every edition, a Vote of Confidence. Each MC must answer this question in his Clark ballot every month, either with a "yes" or a "no." If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the King shall dissolve the Cosa and call new elections.

Given the recent talks about letting MCs abstain on confidence, is there any appetite for nuking the clause in bold?

It wouldn't be a huge change, and it has parallels with other countries, where MPs who wish to abstain on VoCs/VoNCs leave the chamber or stay seated. We can nod to that by not changing the voting system to reflect abstentions (it stays a simple yes/no), which would respect our tradition of having a different answer (Üc/Non) to VoCs in respect to normal bills.

Article VII Section 9: Every MC and Senator shall vote on every bill in every Clark (by post, telephone, or electronic device), and MCs and senators will have until the end of business on the twenty-first day of the calendar month to submit their votes to the Secretary of State. [...]

a) It has already happened that MCs have skipped bills without repercussions (I remember ESB did it recently). I strongly suggest that, if people forget to vote on a bill, we shouldn't punish them by throwing all of their votes away. The same spirit as the point on VoC abstention applies.

b) May I strongly suggest we forgo the list of voting requirements, and let the SoS determine (within reason) how Clark votes can be submitted? I don't think we can vote by post or telephone anyway - would a SoS that doesn't publish his phone number and postal address be breaking the OrgLaw?

As per both points, would it be possible to strike all of the text before the comma? It's unneeded, anachronistic and potentially harmful.

I think that's it. Pending reception of my two final proposals, I wish to cosponsor the amendment.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I'm good with these suggestions, although I don't understand what you mean by:

As per both points, would it be possible to strike all of the text before the comma? It's unneeded, anachronistic and potentially harmful.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Apr 16, 2019 7:52:17 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Apr 16, 2019 6:07:58 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

What is the current plan with regards to the timeframe? Will this be clarked this term? Is there a plan to write draft amendments to el Lexhatx to fill up the gaps (if any) before this gets clarked?

I plan to Clark it this term. I have included a provision that will delay its implementation by up to one year (though this period may be shortened by the Ziu) to allow new statutes to be put in place.

I don't really understand this. It is not more work to fix the Lexhatx before it gets passed then after.

We've seen before (like with the requirement that the sos propose a telecomuna plan or the civil service code) that the Ziu passed a reform first with the intention of doing the work later. Then, after the political goal is achieved nothing happens.

Doing both at once also ensures that we are clear in advance with provisions should return in the Lexhatx and which one should be scrapped all together, rather than assume the first and then find out that 50% of just either house has no intention of reinstating the provision.

If I were an MZ I would certainly feel very uncomfortable voting for a bill that creates legislative gaps with the promise they will get fixed later.

Please write a complementary lexhatx bill first. If it's not that much work, it shouldn't be much of a problem now either.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Why are: "• Grants to the King (and consequently to the Cunstavál as the King's representative in the Province) royal powers less extensive than those granted to the King on the national level, except that the provincial royal powers need not include a right of dissolution if provincial elections are held concurrently with Cosâ elections,
• Fails to provide a right to appeal decisions of the provincial court or courts (if any) to the Cort pü Înalt or such other national courts as may be created by the Ziu, or
" removed in the new IX.3?

The document lists them as relocate to lexhatx, but I'm pretty sure introducing those clauses in El Lexhatx would be inorganic. Or is the plan to get rid of them? I don't think that would be a good idea.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Also it might be a good idea to keep the Kings right to grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations. Seems like the kind of thing that needs constitutional backing to retain its value.

[Glüc da Dhi]

And a suggestion for a minor new change: can X.3 be amended so registration is with the chancery rather than minimm? Makes a lot more sense intuitively, because dandelions are citizens not immigrants.

[Lüc da Schir]

May 28, 2019 11:24:34 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I'm good with these suggestions, although I don't understand what you mean by:

As per both points, would it be possible to strike all of the text before the comma? It's unneeded, anachronistic and potentially harmful.

I'm just proposing to have the section read "MCs and senators will have until the end of business on the twenty-first day of the calendar month to submit their votes to the Secretary of State. [...]".

Also, I've just noticed that nowhere is specified that the Senate and Cosa may administer themselves as they see fit (ie., adopt rules of order). IMHO it would be wise to put that in now, lest the Senate's standing rules be found inorganic when this amendment is ratified.

(I've also noticed that the budget clause hasn't been modified yet, but maybe you meant to do that later.)