[Chancery] Rules and Registrations December 2019 GE

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Nov 8, 2019 7:16:03 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

It is also possible this means your seat (if you are elected) will be vacated after two clarks in which you are not allowed to vote, but I'm not 100% sure of that interpretation.

I would like to request a legal opinion from the Attorney-General, Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu, whether this is true. I would also like to hear from other legal experts, including Açafat del Val, Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun, Sir Alexandreu Davinescu, Viteu Marcianüs etc.

I'm talking to the King about some kind of knighthood, but if this interpretation of the law sticks and the King's not keen on that, I don't see any way around this but to declare a Month of Recess in January so that Alex will only miss one Clark.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Dec 4, 2019 16:51:29 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Nov 8, 2019 7:16:03 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

It is also possible this means your seat (if you are elected) will be vacated after two clarks in which you are not allowed to vote, but I'm not 100% sure of that interpretation.

I would like to request a legal opinion from the Attorney-General, Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu , whether this is true. I would also like to hear from other legal experts, including Açafat del Val , Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun , Sir Alexandreu Davinescu , Viteu Marcianüs etc.

I'm talking to the King about some kind of knighthood, but if this interpretation of the law sticks and the King's not keen on that, I don't see any way around this but to declare a Month of Recess in January so that Alex will only miss one Clark.

In fact, you would need a Warrant of Prorogation in January and a Month of Recess in March, as Senator Regeu would not be able to vote on the March Clark either.

[Lüc da Schir]

As I said in a Senate discussion we had regarding this problem, another option would be a "relay" arrangement where:

1) S:r Regeu immediately steps down, appoints another person as Senator and runs for Senechal
2) That other person serves until the third Clark and then steps down
3) S:r Regeu appoints himself as Senator and resigns as Senechal

Although this would entail triggering a special election in the next term, at least this wouldn't affect the operation of the Ziu, nor require John's intervention.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Dec 4, 2019 17:00:33 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

In fact, you would need a Warrant of Prorogation in January and a Month of Recess in March, as Senator Regeu would not be able to vote on the March Clark either.

You sure? I'm pretty sure his anniversary date comes before March 20th so he could vote after that?

I won't go for Lüc's suggestion above - far too complicated. Let's establish first if Alex loses his seat for not voting/not being allowed to vote.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

By email, the King gives his thought on the legal issues:

One quick thought that may be of help. OrgLaw V.5 says "A Senator vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or if he resigns from office, loses his citizenship or dies." I would argue that a Senator's not voting because he *can't* Organically vote does not constitute a *failure* to vote. Nobody would say that I, for instance, "failed" to vote in Canada's recent election. I don't think you'd need to use up your month of recess to handle this.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I don't think that is a particularly good comparison given that the King is not a Canadian citizen, but Senator Regeu is a member of the Senate. One way to fail to vote would be to fail to be qualified to vote, given that Senators, by virtue of being in the Senate, are expected to be able to vote and to do so.

I'm not a lawyer though.

Also, he became a citizen on March 26th.

[Açafat del Val]

Emphasized parts are bolded, underscored and italicized.

Dec 4, 2019 17:25:52 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

By email, the King gives his thought on the legal issues:

One quick thought that may be of help. OrgLaw V.5 says "A Senator vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or if he resigns from office, loses his citizenship or dies." I would argue that a Senator's not voting because he *can't* Organically vote does not constitute a *failure* to vote. Nobody would say that I, for instance, "failed" to vote in Canada's recent election. I don't think you'd need to use up your month of recess to handle this.

My two cents are this: I agree with King John 's interpretation in isolation, but find that the cited clause is unfortunately overridden by another.

IV.4 says also, in part: "No Senator, even though elected or appointed to the Senäts, may actually vote his seat until he has been a citizen for one year, or served for six months as Secretary of State or Prime Minister, or received an order of knighthood from the King."

By heart, when I interpret law, I like to take in both the intent of the author(s) as well as the consequences of the interpretation itself; in general, common sense prevails over a rigid textualist approach.

It seems clear that the authors understood and acknowledged the possibility that a person may be elected to the Senäts sooner than they would find acceptable, and thus they offered three remedies: wait a year, be so grand as to serve in a very high office for six months, or be so noteworthy that the King himself grants an urgent and rapid knighthood. Note too that a Senator may still miss one Clark without losing his/her seat. Heck, a Senator could miss half the Clarks and still keep the office so long as the misses are not consecutive.

The question at issue is, Does the precise cause of a Senator's failure to vote matter or make a difference with respect to Section v.5? My answer is no. We would not be having this conversation if a Senator missed two consecutive Clarks due to a family emergency, however unfortunate the situation may be, because V.5 is plainly clear that a Senator must vote. Plus, UNLIKE that hypothetical, the OrgLaw affirmatively offers three separate remedies to @Amada Merþedes's dilemma.

If there is any desire that the Senator-elect keep his seat, then he must be granted a knighthood or two Clarks must be postponed.

[Açafat del Val]

I do have an alternative suggestion, however. Though I could not find in either the OrgLaw or El Lexhatx any clause similar to the USA's Case or Controversy Clause, there was this part from XVI.13: "Any judge or justice may issue court orders or injunctions according to the generally accepted principles of Anglo-American law."

Are our Corts allowed to step in and issue their own opinions without a plaintiff, complainant, or otherwise? If NOT, then we very well could have it where @Amada Merþedes does NOT vote until April, we do NOT postpone any Clarks, the King does NOT grant any knighthoods, and despite it all the Senator-elect keeps his seat because he does not vacate it and no one files a lawsuit about it. To say it plainly in other words: even if a crime is committed, no injunctions or convictions or other remedies can be made without the judiciary, and if the judiciary does not hear a case because it was never filed, then it's a moot point.

All that falls apart, of course, if some cheeky tosser files the lawsuit anyways. Best bet is to postpone or to grant knighthood.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Well, it doesn't need a lawsuit. If Glüc da Dhi decides that Alex has lost his seat, he can just stop counting his Clark votes, and we would have to file suit to reverse that decision.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

In any case, I disagree with Afaçat del Val (Spencer K.) about the intention of the framers of the law. I think it's clear that their intention was that a new citizen could be elected to the Senäts, but not to have a vote until they qualified. If they really wanted to make it so a new citizen would be automatically deprived of a seat they won fair and square because not allowed to vote, they would have not allowed them to stand for election in the first place.

However, I must accept the conclusion of the Ministry of Justice that the law says what it says. So our only hope is for the King to agree to (a) a Knighthood; (b) one month's Prorogation and one month's Recess. In the meantime, I will Hopper an OrgLaw amendment to fix this.

[Eðo Grischun]

If January has a Clark, as scheduled, and February is announced as a month of recess, would the second Clark in March be considered consecutive or not-consecutive to the first?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Dec 5, 2019 5:56:39 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

If January has a Clark, as scheduled, and February is announced as a month of recess, would the second Clark in March be considered consecutive or not-consecutive to the first?

I would say "consecutive", but can I get the A-G or his Deputy to weigh in? Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu Açafat del Val

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I am a bit late to the party, because I was at my best friend's betrothal in Denmark, but this is actually a grey area within the law. And it all comes down to whether the intent of the authors of those laws in that time was to stop newlings from being active in politics too early on -- come what may, i.e. even if they are elected, they would be chucked out because they would not be able to vote anyway --, or whether they just did not want these new citizens unduly influencing the politics of a community wherewith they have not yet been intricately familiarised.

I actually think that IV.4. supports the King's interpretation; the author specifically makes a provision for non-"experienced" Senators, who shall still be eligible for a seat within the Senäts, but shall not unduly influence politics with a vote unless and until they are more familiarised with Talossa (the authors hoping that one year is ample time to achieve just that). This, I think, reigns over the provision "loses their seat if they fail to vote in two consecutive terms"; it all hinges on that verb fail. It does not say does not vote, it says fails to vote. An Organic injunction from an action is no failure to perform such action; it cannot therefore be applied to a young citizenship within the Senäts.

To ensure that the Senator in question prove that they would not have failed to vote if they had been allowed to vote, I think they have to vote present.

[Açafat del Val]

I agree that an individual vote of 'present' mitigates V.5 to the extent that it would not be a 'failure to vote'. However, IV.4 says very plainly that a Senator may not vote his seat until X, Y, or Z occur.

The seat is the very source of his membership, and his membership is the very right by which he may participate in deliberations and vote in them. These two things are inseparable. Under regular parliamentary procedure, which is an incredibly fundamental cornerstone of Anglo-American law, to vote is to affirm, negate, or abstain in a decision in whichever manner the conscience may desire. If a person may vote only 'present' (the equivalent of an abstention) without the simultaneous right to affirm or negate, then that person is not really a member of the body... or at least not a member of equal standing, a state of being which the Organic Law does not provide for and which would deprive the province of its EQUAL VOTE in the Senäts.

To say that another way: if he cannot vote 'yes' or 'no' until a citizen for a year (or the other two conditions) (and no one has yet disputed that he in fact cannot vote until March 26), then he also cannot vote 'present'. Either he can vote or he can't, and unfortunately for us if Amada Merþedes cannot vote then he also loses his seat altogether.

I stand by my earlier suggestion that two Clarks be postponed or a knighthood be granted.

---

King John is also the author of the original text and says that I am interpreting his clauses differently than he meant. If so, there are two questions which can clear up this whole debacle:

(1) When you wrote "vote his seat", did you envision that 'voting a seat' meant only 'yes' or 'no' and excluded a vote of 'present'? Alternatively, can a person vote 'present' without 'voting his seat'?

• If yes, then see question 2.
• If no, then the above interpretation stands.

(2) Does a vote of 'present' have the same effect in calculations as a vote of 'abstain'?

• If no, then we must adopt in the Organic Law (or maybe El Lexhatx) a clause, a section, or some sort of provision establishing these as unique in Talossan procedure, to the contravention of standard practice.
• If yes, then the above interpretation stands.

[Açafat del Val]

Dec 5, 2019 13:28:04 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Dec 5, 2019 5:56:39 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

If January has a Clark, as scheduled, and February is announced as a month of recess, would the second Clark in March be considered consecutive or not-consecutive to the first?

I would say "consecutive", but can I get the A-G or his Deputy to weigh in? Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu Açafat del Val

As unhelpful as it is to say this, I don't know. "Consecutive" in this instance could refer to either scenario, depending on the interpreter.

Ultimately it would be up to the judiciary to determine whether "consecutive" is inclusive of actual time passed (January and March are not consecutive because February intervened) or not (January and March are consecutive because for the purposes of Clarks the month of February never happened).