Question Regarding the Election

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Hello, I know its strange posting a separate thread for this but I think the questions warrants it. And its a two part question.
Firstly, Has there been a writ of dissolution of the Cosa, as is required by Org Law Article VII Elections to the Cosa Sections 2 and 3
"Section 2

The Cosâ shall be the sole body elected by the whole of the nation. It shall be elected by universal ballot after each dissolution.

Section 3

All elections to the Cosa are to be conducted during a period beginning from the fifteenth day of the calendar month following the dissolution of the prior Cosa until 7:30 p.m. on the first day of the subsequent month. The first day of this period (the fifteenth) is called the "Balloting Day" and the final day is called the "Election Deadline." "

As this is supposed to happen according to Org law BEFORE the start of the next election, it is Essential that this has taken place, and if it has could you please tell me where?

Secondly, if it hasn't, does that not mean, as Org Law has not been followed this election is Legally null and void, and shall require a new election after a Writ of dissolution has been issued? I thought id ask this now as This could, if went un noticed until after elections, undermine the next Government as it would legally not have any authority as Org Law was not followed and the 45th Cosa would still be in Government. as they had not been dissolved.

Id appreciate any insights into this asap.
Thanks
Evan

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm not sure the King ever officially dissolved the Cosa, actually. You might want to send him a quick email to remind him to do so.

Small accidental violations of technicalities like this happen on occasion - we're a small nation with fallible people, and folks with responsibilities seldom have staff to remind them of stuff that gets lost in the shuffle. I don't see how this could be seen to undermine the real authority of the election or the succeeding government, which is taking place on schedule and in deference to the legitimate authority of the people. Indeed, those of us who were in the Cosa have been speaking of it in the past tense out of the acknowledgement that the session was over.

In other words, a dissatisfied political party could sue, in theory, if they think it hurt their changes, or someone who feels the government hurt them and wanted to sue to prove that the government was illegitimate could sue, maybe, but I think it would get dismissed out of hand.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

However Org Law specifically requires for it to have taken place before the start of the elections, its just by chance I spotted this, and I can understand small violations, however I would not consider this a Small violation, as elections are a key part of the fabric of our country, and I would consider ANY violation of Electoral law a serious thing, which if had gone unnoticed until much later, after the elections, technically anything the Cosa passed could be legally invalidated as technically the current Cosa is still in session, so the next Cosa would have not authority under Org Law to do anything as they would legally not be recognised by org law, and as this is the highest law in the land, it must be observed, and I understand that were a small nation, and people are fallible however, how long has the king been on the throne? how many times has he gone through this procedure? passing government Senchals etc, yeah that's understandable, even by the acting SOS however not by the King, as He should know the procedure well enough by now to know that he has to issue a writ of dissolution before an election. I don't have an issue with the King, as a person, but as he is the King of Talossa, he must be seen to fulfil his constitutional duties, otherwise why do we need a monarch? (then again as a member of the ZRT I believe we don't need one anyway). Also if you can easily dismiss a piece of Org Law, any piece, for any reason, then what's the point in having it? we may as well dis-guard the whole thing because it becomes meaningless. The law only means something if it is followed, and enforced, if its not, then it defeats the point of having the law, therefore undermines the whole organisational system in the country. you cannot pick and choose which parts of law to follow, if something isn't followed correctly, say in an election, then the whole election becomes meaningless as it has not been through the proper procedures required by law, therefore requires another election with the procedures set by Org and Statutory law and by the electoral committee. the reason to why does not matter, not according to Org law, therefore legally speaking, this election is invalid until the King issues the said writ, and redone at the next possible date set by Org Law. im not trying to annoy anyone or anything, however I believe that something as important as elections (and all laws really otherwise it defeats the point of them) MUST be followed to the letter, so there in no POSSBILITY of any illegalities which parties could sue for, as if the suite was successful and everything done in the next cosa was declared legally invalid due to this in the Corts, how would that make the Chancery look, or even the Country? it just makes no sense not to follow Org Law precisely, so we avoid this possibility. but this is just how I see it, and how I interpret the law.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I would agree that this is a minor technicality that needs clearing up, rather than something that might Shake The Kingdom To Its Very Foundations. It would require someone to actually bother suing and thus rolling back the whole election process; and the Cort to agree with that person that such action was appropriate; and I wonder who would do that. I certainly wouldn't.

But still, there should be someone whose job it is to remind the Head of State of his obligations under our Organic and other laws.

Also, I would like my party comrade Evan to learn to use paragraphs.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Sorry Miestra, I just didn't think to use them in writing the response, ill endeavour to use paragraphs in the future.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Also I see where your coming from on this, however for me its the principle of it, especially happening in an election. I just feel that there should be no grounds at all for a government, or an election to be proved invalid in the Corts for failing to follow Org law. For if that was to happen, it would be a problem for Talossa, as, as far as im aware, the corts have to follow the letter of the law, so if my interpretation of the law is how it would be interpreted in the corts (however I know it could go either way depending on the judge as both arguments have merit) however, although I disagree with stopping the elections, although there is questionable legality, I do believe that at the very least in the next Cosa legislation need to be passed to make sure that there is no questionable legality in regards to this specific issue

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I agree that it should have been done, but unless it's done early, it's a technicality - there's not going to be a seventh Clark and the election is proceeding apace. The solution is just that we should just remember to make sure it gets done in the future, probably by putting the date of the next dissolution of the Cosa on the public calendar (which we should start using). You can't seriously be suggesting we call off the election?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Ok, well, if you want to pass a law for something like that, you can propose one. To me, it's more of a "I should remember to put that on the calendar" sort of thing.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

at the end of the day the law states the elections have to be done in a specific way, and it may be a "technicality" but it is still against Org law, its failing to conduct the elections as stated set by it, and I know there isn't going to be a 7th clark, however legally, whether there is business or not, the Cosa is still in session, and the elections have begun, so legally speaking, by the letter of the law, the election should technically be postponed until the next date available set by Org law, so long as the cosa is dissolved, im not saying I think that should happen, however, it is a major flaw in our electoral thing, and it doesn't matter when then date is because Org law requires that the King has to issue the writ of dissolution, no one else can, and it cannot be automatic, as far as I can tell, and org law isn't something that we should follow only when convenient.

Anyway all im saying is that this is a flaw in the Org law that needs to be fixed before it has a chance to be tested in the corts or anything, because it could potentially undermine an entire governments term in the future if a case goes to the cort in the future and the person who filled the suit wins the case. it would invalidate the cosa's term, therefore all bills passed in the term etc. we need safeguards in the kingdom to prevent this from happening. im not saying it will happen but as it is there is the possibility there, as, as far as im aware the corts follow the letter of law, unless im mistaken. and all im saying is what the law says, and how it could be a potential problem as it stands.

[Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben.]

It is indeed a violation of Organic Law. I don't believe my esteemed colleagues and associates mean to diminish that in saying it is a "technicality" but are merely putting it into perspective.

Though this is a procedural violation, it is the sort of procedural violation that we, as a society, don't regard as being serious enough to invalidate an election (though one could sue and make that argument in court). The reason is that the dissolution is largely regarded as a formality. Now, if we said that an election COULD NOT be held UNLESS the King dissolved the Cosa, the potential for abuse would be pretty evident. All a King would have to do to seize the government would be to simply never issue a writ of dissolution during a favorable government (and always dissolve an unfavorable one).

This isn't being viewed as a huge, catastrophic event because the general consensus is that it is just a formality needing fixing. It isn't likely to infringe upon anyone's rights or diminish the democratic process. So, it is "against the Organic Law" in the same manner as a document referring to our fair nation as "The Royal Kingdom of Talossa" (which would be a blatant violation of Article 2 Section 2) as opposed to failing to honour the rights of the accused or trying to discriminate based upon religion. In evaluating any violation we should look at a) the severity, that is, how it negatively impacts a person, persons or the state b) what remedies are available. We can not have elections until the King does his thing, or we can just issue the dissolution sometime before seating the new Cosa.

No one is saying you are wrong in that a procedure wasn't followed or that a breach of the law occurred, but it is a violation which can and should be readily fixed. The alternative being that we allow a non-elected monarch to halt the democratic process. The only way a GE could be invalidated would be by the courts and that would require someone to sue. But instead of suing, I think all involved parties just want to fix it in the most equitable fashion which in this case is just allow the GE to proceed.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Why is it a major flaw? I suppose that failing to issue the write of dissolution, which is in almost every case a purely ceremonial affair, does weaken respect for the law to some small degree. And I agree that we shouldn't only follow the law when it's convenient. But there are still degrees of error, and there is a question of intent.

The writ wasn't ignored because it was inconvenient. It wasn't ignored because of malice. It was ignored because it is a generally ceremonial bit of documentation that the King and every single MC forgot about (until now).

I very much doubt a court would invalidate an election or a government or any bill on the basis of this omission. I very much doubt that anyone would even sue for such an invalidation, in the first place.

Clearly the validity of the law is very important to you, and for that, I salute you. We should all strive to follow the letter of the law, and seek to uphold its bonds on all the nation. But the law is a tool - we have to moderate the heat of our zeal, or else the result will be too brittle for use. So let's mark a calendar or (if you want) require a second person to remind the King of his duty. But let's also not forget what we're talking about, here.

[Ceváglh Scurznicol]

Instead of arguing about the legalities, can’t someone just e-mail or phone the King so he can issue the formal writ? Frankly I figure the Cosâ has self-dissolved anyway, since its natural term has expired and there wasn’t any legislation to extend it.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I assume that S:reu Cuntainça already has done that.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

I have contacted the King to issue a writ, however that is not the point im arguing, and in all fairness, with statutory law I would agree, however is not the Org law the constitution of this country? and as you (presumably) live in America, how would you react if any part of that was broken by the fault of the president, or of any other official of the state? you would presumably want something done about it, even if its just an area which needs to be legally clarified, or fixed.

and I thought I explained how it could be a major issue (note the word "could"). if at some point this is used in the corts, if someone sues, to illegitimate an entire election or government. and I never said it could be done any other way besides through the corts, Also might I point out in that in practice I can see your point, however on paper, in law, the cosa is not legally dissolved without a writ, therefore any election taking place when there is technically, legally, already a cosa in place damages the integrity of the electoral process which is all about rigidly sticking to procedure to avoid any legal questionability, and to neglect any detail of electoral procedure risks the results being legally compromised, and can be challenged in corts, and arguably successfully. and im not suggesting that its a good idea to stop the elections, however I do belive that this is an important enough issue to fix, due to the potential risks it poses to the democratic system in talossa, as it technically undermines the whole election, and the results.

I personally think that it is POTENTIALLY more serious than everyone is making it sound, as it could invalidate a whole term of a cosa if challenges in corts due to the current wording of org law. its unlikely that it would ever be challenged however the possibility of it happening is still there, and that possibility over this issue needs to be resolved, to remove the questionability. but as ive said, this is just how I feel on this issue, and I will come up with something to address this issue.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

If my opinion is worth anything -

I think this is much to do about nothing.

Tradition has always held that after 6 Clarks, the current Cosa is dissolved. It has always been this way. It is still this way. What has been involved in this is that the King would formally dissolve the Cosa, before the next General Election.

Yes, as of yet, that has not occurred. There could be reasons for this, that we are unaware of. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the current General Election. Our procedures have continued, in a timely manner. All of the requirements to conduct a General Election are now in place ( yes, with a few bumps along the way), To invalidate a whole General Election over the lack of one sentence is foolhardy at best.

If one was to build a mountain out of one small molehill because of this is - again, in my opinion - creating problems where none exist. We are progressing along as a Nation to conduct a regular General Election. All political parties have agreed to continue on, and are accepting the facts in evidence. None of the Political Parties have raised an objection before today, so it would not be a reach to assume that the all agree with the current status.

I do believe that a concept of "Good Faith" should be applied here. Everything is going as usual. All we are lacking is one statement? I am of the opinion that would not invalidate the current General Election.

And yes, I am in agreement with both Dame Miestrâ, Admiral Tim, and S:reu Davinescu. As this could be considered an "unholy trinity" , one might run to the hills, or at least take cover.