[PROPOSAL] A Constitution for Fiôvâ

[Owen Edwards]

Well, whilst referring to Fiova's democratic roots emotively is not a good reason, to my mind, not to ensure the Constitution is Organic, I entirely agree with the reading that does NOT grant the Constable the power; the Organic Law does grant the King power to remove provincial premiers, so Constables can proclaim a constitution that does not grant them that power.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

I agree with the Admiral.

One Office is the Representative of the King. One Office is the Representative of the People.

I do not believe that either Office should be able to "Fire" the other.

More so, the Org Law does not allow it.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Apr 24, 2012 19:43:33 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

There are two powers we are discussing here. One is the removal of a Seneschal and the other is the right to dissolve a government.

You are treating the two powers as separate, rather than as an extension of one another.

When the legislature isn't elected and the head of government is elected in a secret ballot of the people for a fixed term, it becomes quite difficult to figure out how to cross-map powers from the national parliamentary system to this local one.

Which is why I didn't treat them as anything, I asked questions (posting them both in this thread and in an email to the King), and then quoted the King's response.

It is possible, of course, that I failed in correctly communicating the issues to the King, and should seek further instructions.

Apr 24, 2012 19:43:33 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

But a Seneschal cannot be removed without the Cosa being dissolved, at least as far as I am reading (please interject another bit of organic law if I missed something)

Sure. So, if the legislature can't be dissolved by any means (because it isn't elected, but includes all citizens automatically), does the power to remove the head of government go away, or does it survive independently?

Apr 24, 2012 19:43:33 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

The right to remove a Head of State is an extension of the right of dissolution which, according to Article XVII Section 9, is not required if the Provincial elections coincide with the national General Elections.

And since the provincial constitution draft does not have its only election (for the Capitan) coincide with national general elections, and has no legislative elections, this means?

In provinces with parliaments where the elections are not coordinated to the national general elections, the King must have the power to dissolve the local legislature (because it can only be denied him if the elections are coordinated).

In provinces with parliaments where they are coordinated, the King can remove a provincial head of government by dissolving the national Cosa, and thus the local parliament. An extreme solution, granted, but one that works.

However, the proposal for Fiôvâ is neither. So, does the King's ability to dismiss the head of government (indirectly, for sure), or is it retained?

[Owen Edwards]

Why must the King have the power to dissolve the local legislature?

[Istefan Perþonest]

Apr 24, 2012 22:24:02 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

Why must the King have the power to dissolve the local legislature?

The OrgLaw, Article XVII, section 9, says "except the provincial royal powers need not include a right of dissolution if provincial elections are held concurrently with Cosâ elections".

The existence of a specific exception means that there is a general rule in the cases not excepted; that's a concept of legal interpretation going back all the way to Cicero. Since there is a special exemption for cases where the elections are held concurrently with the Cosa, there is a general rule that the provincial royal powers need to include a right of dissolution.

[Owen Edwards]

You're right, in fact - the King must have the right to dissolve the local legislature unless provincial elections are held concurrently with the nationals.

HOWEVER:

Fiova only has one provincial election - for the Capitan (presumably; that needs clarifying in the text). Now, though the term can always expire on June 1st, theoretically the province could co-ordinate elections to it with the nationals - and indeed, given the distinction in language between the XVII.9 premable and the subsection quoted, the ballot for the Capitan need not be run by the Chancery (though indeed it could be, so long as the Chancery ran it by local law).

So :

1) Either Fiova doesn't co-ordinate and the King/Constable has a right to dissolve the GA - but presumably the Capitan can call it back into order, if the constitution provides for such. The Capitan's own activity/term is not, I don't think, linked to the GA's "term" - so the executive power of the province is not removed with each dissolution, as with other provinces. And that is perfectly Organic - the local system of executive/legislature is not required to legally mirror the nationals, so though your point about the King dissolving local assemblies is valid, your extension (or the King's extension) to this meaning removing local premiers is not.

2) Or Fiova co-ordinates its Capitan election with the General, but I don't think has to have the Chancery run it; and if the Chancery does have to run it, then they would have to abide by local law.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Would holding the Capitan's election at the same time as a General Election avoid these issues?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Wow, I've written many a Federal and Provincial constitution for Talossa and other Talossa-like entities, but never with this much outside legal help.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Anyway!

No election for Capitán may be held between February 1 and April 30.

What purpose does this serve? I don't quite understand why we'd need this, but if there's a reason for it then all's well.

Any veto by the Cunstavál may be overturned by a majority vote on an unaltered bill.

What about altered bills, can we not overturn a veto on that?

Other than that, the only issue I have is with the Constable's power of dismissal.

[Owen Edwards]

Apr 25, 2012 0:36:06 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

Would holding the Capitan's election at the same time as a General Election avoid these issues?

Yeah.

(And the Constable is not Organically able to dismiss a Capitan, only "dissolve" the GA, who could presumably be instantly recalled by the Capitan.)

And Miestra, I hope we're not too unwelcome!

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Apr 25, 2012 11:15:49 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

Apr 25, 2012 0:36:06 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

Would holding the Capitan's election at the same time as a General Election avoid these issues?

Yeah.

(And the Constable is not Organically able to dismiss a Capitan, only "dissolve" the GA, who could presumably be instantly recalled by the Capitan.)

And Miestra, I hope we're not too unwelcome!

Capital! Thank you for your response.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Apr 25, 2012 10:11:19 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

Anyway!

No election for Capitán may be held between February 1 and April 30.

What purpose does this serve? I don't quite understand why we'd need this, but if there's a reason for it then all's well.

Because it would be stupid to have a Capitán election in March and then another one in May. That's the thing about fixed terms.

Any veto by the Cunstavál may be overturned by a majority vote on an unaltered bill.

What about altered bills, can we not overturn a veto on that?

Then the clock starts again, as it were. It has to go up for another accept/reject.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Apr 25, 2012 14:46:01 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Apr 25, 2012 10:11:19 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

Anyway!


What purpose does this serve? I don't quite understand why we'd need this, but if there's a reason for it then all's well.

Because it would be stupid to have a Capitán election in March and then another one in May. That's the thing about fixed terms.

Any veto by the Cunstavál may be overturned by a majority vote on an unaltered bill.

What about altered bills, can we not overturn a veto on that?

Then the clock starts again, as it were. It has to go up for another accept/reject.

Thanks for clarifying these points. You have my support following the removal of the Constable's right of dismissal of our Capitan as a provision from our Constitution.

[Audrada Rôibeardét]

Personally, I find all of this to be boring. Come find me when it's time to vote.

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

I'm not really here yet, so all the legal issues aren't giving me the fever - yet. I mean, I like it here, but I'm still in a phase of checking out the place, trying to get to know the people etc. It's not my style to rush into a new house and start a legal debate before there's some comfy place near the fireside... or something.