Upon rereading my post, I can see why it didn't come off the way I wanted.

I never meant to propose amending Section 3 to specifically call out King John's abdication. I was only trying to illustrate (with a failed attempt at humor) what the effect of amending Section 3 to remove any reference to a specific person, plus a decree of King John's abdication, would essentially be.

The (perhaps hypothetical) issue I see is that the amendment and decree kind of contradict each other. Section 3 as-is says John I is King until his demise, abdication, or removal, but the decree says the throne is vacant even though none of those things happened.

Sorry for the confusion.

Putting my CRL hat on, I am a bit concerned about the supplementary decree that would bring about King John's abdication. It is on one hand an amendment to Section 3 of the Organic Law, which specifies that John I specifically is the King until "his demise, abdication, or removal". On the other hand it is ephemeral, simply describing an event that will occur at a specified time, and not something that becomes part of the legal code.

I think the decree would make more sense if Section 3 were amended as follows:

QuoteThe King of Talossa shall remain on the throne until his demise, abdication, or removal. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

This change, combined with the decree, essentially would amend Section 3 as follows, but do so much more cleanly:

QuoteThe King of Talossa shall remain on the throne until his demise, abdication, or removal, unless the King is King John I, in which case he is considered to have abdicated. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

I like this approach because a decree saying the throne is vacant "as though" the King had abdicated is not really the same as the King actually abdicating (in the case of Edward VIII, he signed the instrument of his abdication). Also, we will avoid the formality of needing to amend the Organic Law once a Heir Presumptive has already become the new King.

I appoint Tric'hard Lenxheir

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on April 15, 2024, 08:50:16 PMWhat is involved? I must admit I am not the most up to date person when it comes to the law but I can try if you need me.

Once the election is over, you would review the votes to ensure there aren't any irregularities.

Azul all,

We need a Senator who is not up for re-election this term to sit on the Electoral Commission. Any volunteers?

Have we considered just asking the King who he would want his successor to be?

A concern of a lot of FreeDems is that, if the King picks, his selection would be unpalatable. If we ask in advance, we could see if that person would have broad support and then we can just amend the Organic Law accordingly, without all the red tape.

Approved

AUS

An alternative is specifying after the tribe is vacant for a year (or however long), a random citizen is selected to become King and can be ratified by a simple majority in a referendum

An intentionally undesirable outcome designed to ensure we get something better done.

Quote from: Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on April 05, 2024, 08:30:24 AM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 04, 2024, 08:58:56 AMAlso, it should be "ascension" instead of "accession"

Nope, "Accession" is correct.

I stand corrected, you're right

Also, it should be "ascension" instead of "accession"

I like it.

I would reword the first sentence to make it clear that this happens every seven years, not just once seven years after the initial ascension:

QuoteA Conclave shall be called within three months of every seventh anniversary of the Monarch's accession to the throne

I think the last part should read "18 years of age"

Also, what does "proper" mean in this context?

Azul,

May the Minister of Defense provide an update on any activities related to the Zouaves? They appear to have become dormant last year.

Approved