|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 21, 2008 13:28:11 GMT -6
Article VI section 10 of the OrgLaw provides that vacancies in the Senate will be filled on nomination by "the executive of the province". (Before the recent amendment to that section, it referred to "the executive officer".) I have always taken this to mean the Premier (or Grand General Secretary, in the case of Maritiimi-Maxhestic). This Organic power of the Premier would seem to contradict the provision in the proposed Provincial Constitution (III, E) that the Grand General Secretary shall exercise no power other than ceremonial. That is true; a clause should be added stating that "the Premier shall also wield whatever power is additionally assigned to him by Organic and statutory law." I think that would solve the matter? Further concerns have to do with the provision in the OrgLaw that a Provincial Constitution may not grant "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". The proposed Constitution, I believe, violates this provision in two specifics. First, a Provincial veto that can be overridden by a simple majority is a "less extensive" power than a National veto that requires two-thirds of the Cosa (and the Senate's concurrence) to override. And second, if Maritiimi-Maxhestic should establish a schedule for Provincial elections that's not concurrent with Cosa elections, the Cunstaval must have the power to dissolve the Provincial Assembly; but the proposed Constitution says he has "the following powers and no others" — and dissolution is not on the list. As to the first, the King is not Organically granted the power to veto a provincial bill. An interpretation can be made that the King's power to veto a Ziu or PD bill should be interpreted that the Cunstaval can veto provincial bills, but I feel that a more direct interpretation of this clause is that the Cunstaval is wielding a subset of the King's authority, as granted to him in III.2, since the clause you state explicitly states the Cunstaval shall exercise "all executive authority granted to the Crown by the Organic Law nationally," rather than "all analogous executive authority." Because the OrgLaw further states elsewhere that all other such authority not granted to the Ziu (and the King) is reserved for the Provinces, and the King is not granted the power to veto bills in provincial assemblies, it is my firm belief that a reasonable reading of the OrgLaw does not grant the King authority to delegate to another power that he does not possess himself. As to the second, I had imagined that dissolution was a point of order, and an appropriate motion to dissolve could be voted upon by the Assembly. I'm slightly concerned, too, about the reflection (in the Provincial Constitution) of the King's powers of appointment at the national level. I have very little leeway, usually, in *whom* I appoint, but I do get to do a lot of appointments; and I think it would better if the Cunstaval had those same duties, mutatis muntandis, in the Province. I appreciate and respect your concern, but it has been my general desire during the composition of this provincial constitution to vest as much power in the Assembly as possible within the dictates of law, in the spirit of democracy. M-M has had a long history of power-hungy cunstavals, and the stoutest of bulwarks possible is my intended strategy.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Apr 24, 2008 18:58:34 GMT -6
Friends,
The voting period for ratification of the Constitution has elapsed. It has passed 3 affirmative votes to 0 negative votes. Therefore, it appears we now have a governing document. Are there any objections to us moving forward?
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Apr 24, 2008 21:33:15 GMT -6
I'm all for moving forward
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 24, 2008 23:35:32 GMT -6
There are objections to the document raised above, but by a non-resident. I think I adequately addressed them and met all obligations of the OrgLaw, but we should all be careful to read them and analyze whether or not you think I am correct in my interpretation or the King. By my reading, the Cunstaval exercises all the powers of the King on a provincial level, and thus the limitations of his powers are those of the King. Since the King is not granted provincial veto, accordingly the Cunstaval is not either.
The King's interpretation, which is valid although not one I agree with, is that the Cunstaval is granted power akin to that of the King's, on a provincial level. He can say it better than I can, but I believe he feels the OrgLaw expresses the Cunstaval's power as analogous to that of the King's, and accordingly the Cunstaval should possess all the powers on the provincial level that the King does on a national level.
I feel that my position is the more defensible based on a strict reading of the OrgLaw, as well as logic (how can the King's representative possess a power the King does not?), but everyone should be aware of the matter and consider it solemnly. If someone wants to object and revisit that language, I think it would not violate the due process of this convention if we declared the previous vote null and returned to the document. But if we all feel confident, I personally am all for bringing it to referendum.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Holmes on May 7, 2008 18:26:11 GMT -6
Here, here!
That is masterfully artful manipulation of constitutional form and content, friend. I wholeheartedly agree with the document in its entirety .
Especially with the regard to the afore questioned "Emergency Dictator" title, if its purpose is merely to further instigate a mitigating response from the governing body. Or possibly deterring inaction from the start.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 7, 2008 21:58:48 GMT -6
Good to hear; I'm glad you like it. Vote yes on the referendum
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 12, 2008 2:37:52 GMT -6
Could we have a status update on the referendum, and perhaps a time upon which results will be announced?
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on May 13, 2008 19:01:26 GMT -6
The voting period closed at midnight TST on May 12th. With 5 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition the proposed constitution has passed.
Thanks to S:reu Davis for his eloquence and to all of those who took the opportunity to vote.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 14, 2008 21:18:30 GMT -6
Is that true? Oh, we need to make a formal announcement, then, don't you think? Also, we should petition the King to honor May 12th within the province, as the provincial holiday "Surety of Liberties Day"!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 15, 2008 2:02:48 GMT -6
As duly-appointed Scribe for the Province (a forgotten office of mine, granted a year ago or something like that, which we may want to officially assign) I have taken the liberty of parsing out a nice copy of the Constitution and putting it up on the site, linked from our provincial page. You can find it here.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 2, 2008 14:08:28 GMT -6
S:reu Grand General Secretary, I am still waiting (some weeks later now) for your reply on my proposal for a formal announcement about the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 26, 2008 0:36:11 GMT -6
S:reu Grand General Secretary, while I do not wish to be rude, it has been three more weeks since my last question here about this matter, and a month and a half since I first asked it. Please reply.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Jun 26, 2008 6:03:46 GMT -6
While I cannot speak for the Grand General Secretary, and I do not mean to butt in on a convention that is not mine:
Breneir may be away for a while, while he tries to handle a Real Life problem.
Dréu
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 18, 2008 23:01:55 GMT -6
At this time and in the absence of the GGS, I am going to take it upon myself to call the Convention to order, and to dismiss and dissolve it as a body. I hereby declare this Convention's duty finished, and hereby declare all members of the Convention are dismissed and the Convention itself is dissolved.
|
|