|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on Sept 20, 2007 22:18:17 GMT -6
I am still not sure about the adopted children issue, but other than that it looks good to me. There is reason to be concerned that a king could adopt someone merely to make him his heir, but what about someone who was adopted as a baby? Is there reason to exclude him merely because he is adopted?
I think it ought to be that adopted children are allowed, and that they follow in the line of succession by their adoption date: their "birth" into the family, as it were. Of course we ought also to have a good definition of adoption, perhaps by making sure it is a real adoption by the laws of the country of residence.
This is what I have been thinking for a while, but had not gotten around to posting it until now. When Sir Siervicül mentioned this before there was not really a whole lot of argument against it, and it does not seem to me that there really has been a whole lot of discussion about this issue, or perhaps just not publicly.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 20, 2007 22:32:14 GMT -6
Don't forget that we can legislate again after this point... this needn't be the end-all on adjustments to the succession law. It is intended to reduce redundancy, simplify, and reduce redundancy. If you wish to make adopted children part of the line, you can easily introduce a bill to that effect at a later date.
|
|
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 Sept 21, 2007 0:25:19 GMT -6
If you wish to make adopted children part of the line, you can easily introduce a bill to that effect at a later date. No one wants to make adopted children part of the line. That's already the law. The proposal would change that. It's a little odd to say "if the current law is just, why don't we change it anyways, and you can always change it back later."
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 21, 2007 1:16:54 GMT -6
That's an excellent point. Ample arguments have already been offered for the current revision, though, and I am just indicating that if there is significant dissent later, we can change it back.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 24, 2007 20:00:18 GMT -6
Since I believe that the great deal of work on this issue has vastly improved the bill and, indeed, clearly illustrated the wisdom of the entire process behind legislature, but that all major points have been addressed sufficiently, I ask that the Secretary of State add this bill to the next Clark for the consideration of the legislatures. Should anyone else have any other issues they wish to bring up or problems with the bill, please let me know; enough time remains to address them. Indeed, if you plan to vote against the bill, please let me know why (if not now, at least then).
EDIT: Incidentally, I should mention that, as edits to the OrgLaw, this is a referendum to be referred to the people for a majority.
|
|
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 Sept 25, 2007 8:16:27 GMT -6
That's an excellent point. Ample arguments have already been offered for the current revision, though, and I am just indicating that if there is significant dissent later, we can change it back. I don't recall any arguments being publicly advanced on the issue of adoption, except for "deferring to the King's wishes." On the RUMP mailing list, arguments in favour of the succession of adopted children have been advanced without answer. For centuries, the trend has been to equalise the legal status of biological and adopted children. We should not attempt to reverse that trend without a compelling reason. And when a change to existing institutions is proposed, the burden of persuasion should rest on those who want the law to be different than it is.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 25, 2007 10:27:01 GMT -6
I withdraw my request for this to be Clarked for the moment to address his honour the Justice's comments.
S:reu, you are correct. But the arguments which have been privately exchanged are good ones, and I will repeat them and expand upon them here:
-Allowing adopted children to enter the succession line is something that can be badly abused, as King Robert I did, and is especially incompatible with the Al Act, which would offer no bulwark against such abuse if it was done swiftly. A quick adoption and abdication would allow a casual choice of a new King by the old monarch. -Furthermore, the concept of "adoption" does not exist inasmuch as I am aware within Talossan law. Our shortcut of adopting the criminal code of America's Wisconsin does not include it, nor does any statutory law. I cannot legislate the rules for adoption without lengthily defining adoption itself, a formidable task. -Lacking significant safeguards and legal mechanisms, therefore, adoption into the royal line cannot be safely allowed. These safeguards and mechanisms will needfully be complex and articulately phrased, and is far beyond the current scope of my legislation, since they would needfully define and regulate adoption itself (likely through further Cestour means) before they could even begin the task of controlling and administering royal adoption.
Should someone in the future wish to legislate adoption and royal adoption, I would support them, although it is a daunting task. But it is simply beyond our current focus, in my opinion, and the Tim Act, which strives to clear away the dead wood and unworkable from succession law, accordingly abolishes the abused and impossible royal adoption law.
|
|
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 Sept 25, 2007 14:16:51 GMT -6
-Allowing adopted children to enter the succession line is something that can be badly abused, as King Robert I did, and is especially incompatible with the Al Act, which would offer no bulwark against such abuse if it was done swiftly. A quick adoption and abdication would allow a casual choice of a new King by the old monarch. First, let us not forget that King Robert I monkeyed with the order of succession by amending the OrgLaw. If that is the standard of abuse we are to guard against, we are wasting our time trying to construct the perfect OrgLaw provisions, because frankly, another King Ben would just get them changed to whatever suits his needs. Second, the Al Act offers the same bulwark against a poor choice of adopted heir that it offers against any other unfit heir. They can be removed by the Ziu. The only difference is that with an adoptive heir, unlike a biological heir, we have a chance to keep them out of the order of succession in the first place. Because there is no "casual choice" when it comes to adopted heirs. The law requires any adoption affecting the order of succession to be approved by 2/3 of both houses of the Ziu. That's nearly as difficult as approving an OrgLaw amendment (and in one sense, more difficult). Here you go: 1. Adoption creates the legal relationship of parent and child between an adoptee and his or her adoptive parents, upon the entry of a final decree of adoption by a Talossan court of law. A decree of adoption terminates the legal relationship of parent and child between the adoptee and each of the adoptee's former parents, except as may be otherwise specified in the decree of adoption in the case of a stepparent adoption.
2. A decree or order of adoption entered by a court or administrative entity in another country acting pursuant to that country's law or to any convention or treaty on intercountry adoption which the Kingdom of Talossa has ratified, has the same effect as a decree of adoption issued by a court of the Kingdom of Talossa.
3. In the case of a minor who is not a resident of the Kingdom of Talossa from birth or for at least one year prior to the filing of an adoption petition, a decree of adoption under Talossan law will not be issued, or if issued will not become final, until the minor has been adopted pursuant to the laws of the country in which the minor resides (or resided prior to entering the Kingdom of Talossa), or until the Talossan decree of adoption has been formally recognised according to the laws of such country.Call it the "Inter-Country Adoption Act" or something, and that should take care of the problem. If Hoppered in October, it can be passed in November and effective before the Tim and Al Acts are ratified. The Seneschál could get it Clarked even before that, if he wants. But I don't think we have to rush that much. I trust His Majesty not to try to ram through a shady mock-adoption displacing his other heirs in favor of some corrupt sycophant or schemer in the next couple of months. As I see it, there is only one more safeguard needed, to avoid a common danger of royal adoptions. Just specify that adopted children take place in the order of succession according to their date of adoption rather than their date of birth. That could be as easy as changing section 4 to say "in order of their birth or adoption." Then an adoption cannot allow a chosen heir to displace a pre-existing heir. These are simple steps. If we take them, what is the reason for categorically excluding adoptive children from succession?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 26, 2007 8:24:38 GMT -6
You make some good points, but as I indicated, legislating adoption is entirely out of the province of this amendment, far beyond the scope of its intentions. Should such legislation get passed, I will happily consider further changes to the Act here.
|
|
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 Sept 26, 2007 9:56:26 GMT -6
You make some good points, but as I indicated, legislating adoption is entirely out of the province of this amendment, far beyond the scope of its intentions. Should such legislation get passed, I will happily consider further changes to the Act here. Understood. I won't argue any more about this. It's not like I have a vote in the Ziu anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 28, 2007 13:59:37 GMT -6
I would like to ask the Secretary of State to add this to the next pass of referenda, once more, and thank him for his indulgence.
|
|