Still Into This Amendment

[Ian Plätschisch]

I have not had time to make the changes yet but I will

[Ian Plätschisch]

May 28, 2019 14:51:36 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

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

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.

It will be quite a bit of work to write the complementary el Lexhatx bill, and I would rather not do it until I know that the amendment will take effect.

[Ian Plätschisch]

May 28, 2019 15:11:44 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

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.

I could add the first back in, but the second doesn’t seem necessary since the CPI can hear any case it wants.

[Ian Plätschisch]

May 28, 2019 15:17:19 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

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.

Why? It’s value comes from the King’s status, not the OrgLaw

[Ian Plätschisch]

May 29, 2019 4:02:17 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

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:

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.)

How would standing rules be found inOrganic? There’s no provision elsewhere suggesting they would be

[Ian Plätschisch]

Needless to say, I will be making final edits and Clarking this tonight, so now is the time to say anything else you have to say

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

May 30, 2019 8:45:30 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

May 28, 2019 15:17:19 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

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.

Why? It’s value comes from the King’s status, not the OrgLaw

I concur with Gluc.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

May 30, 2019 8:54:14 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Needless to say, I will be making final edits and Clarking this tonight, so now is the time to say anything else you have to say

I'll repeat what I said before:

Apr 2, 2019 18:23:39 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

On a brief read through, only three things are repugnant to me:

1) The hereditary monarchy.
2) The fixed 200 seat / "unreal" Cosa.
3) The Second Covenant which still embodies KR1's American conservative opposition to affirmative action.

But we need a 3/4 royal veto-proof majority on this - and a 2/3 Senats majority. So I would be prepared to "swallow the dead rat" on this one to push this OrgLaw through to promulgation, and then to deal with those issues through later amendments - assuming we do have the numbers in both Houses.

[Ian Plätschisch]

May 29, 2019 4:02:17 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

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:

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. [...]".

I think it would be better if those sections were not taken out, but I did switch "shall" to "may" so MZs do not have to vote on every bill or the VoC.

I added you as a cosponsor.