I'm not sure yet what I think about the substantive issue (who calls/runs the Conclave), but I'm glad other people have pointed up problems. I have two problems at first sight, one of which is probably a drafting error, the other of which is an issue of principle:
1) s.7, "This decree shall take effect upon approval of a two-thirds supermajority of the Ziu". This neglects that we have a bicameral system - is this supposed to require a 2/3 majority in the Senäts? I much prefer my simple proposal to mirror OrgLaw amendments.
2) The second issue is that this amendment is supposed to be an overall amendment of the whole Section II of the current OrgLaw, including II.4 (the piece on a legal overthrow of the monarchy), which is reproduced as paragraph 5 of the Amendment. I have long contended that this section is useless as it's a higher bar to clear than simply amending the OrgLaw to overthrow the King. So I wouldn't support it being "reaffirmed".
There is now a third issue, which I didn't think about until Brenéir mentioned it. My proposal was to split up the Abdication and the Succession. But Brenéir has pointed out that it is possible that the King will approve of the Succession law but refuse to abdicate. Which would be a tricky, sneaky way of putting us in exactly the situation which the TNC proposed before the last election - and the FreeDems would rather die in a ditch than accept. This is made weirder by the fact that the King is clearly here now and refuses us to give any clear view of his intentions.
If he's going to be like that, maybe it's better not to Clark anything yet and wait for a clear direction on abdication? Or alternative to write a term limit to the reign of King John into the Succession amendment?
1) s.7, "This decree shall take effect upon approval of a two-thirds supermajority of the Ziu". This neglects that we have a bicameral system - is this supposed to require a 2/3 majority in the Senäts? I much prefer my simple proposal to mirror OrgLaw amendments.
2) The second issue is that this amendment is supposed to be an overall amendment of the whole Section II of the current OrgLaw, including II.4 (the piece on a legal overthrow of the monarchy), which is reproduced as paragraph 5 of the Amendment. I have long contended that this section is useless as it's a higher bar to clear than simply amending the OrgLaw to overthrow the King. So I wouldn't support it being "reaffirmed".
There is now a third issue, which I didn't think about until Brenéir mentioned it. My proposal was to split up the Abdication and the Succession. But Brenéir has pointed out that it is possible that the King will approve of the Succession law but refuse to abdicate. Which would be a tricky, sneaky way of putting us in exactly the situation which the TNC proposed before the last election - and the FreeDems would rather die in a ditch than accept. This is made weirder by the fact that the King is clearly here now and refuses us to give any clear view of his intentions.
If he's going to be like that, maybe it's better not to Clark anything yet and wait for a clear direction on abdication? Or alternative to write a term limit to the reign of King John into the Succession amendment?