WHEREAS Cunstaváis serve for an indefinite term, which encourages a do-nothing attitude:BE IT ENACTED that Organic Law XI.4 be amended from the current:
QuoteThe King shall appoint a Cunstavál (or Constable) for each Province. Until such time as the King or Cunstavál proclaims a provincial constitution providing otherwise, a Province's Cunstavál shall serve as Military Governor and may exercise all the powers of the provincial government. No Cunstavál shall proclaim any provincial constitution, nor shall any province pass a constitutional amendment, which conflicts with any provision of this Organic Law or with any other national law, or grants to the Cunstavál 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). No Cunstavál shall proclaim any provincial constitution which has not been approved by a referendum in which at least either a majority of all citizens of the province or a two-thirds majority of votes actually cast is in favor of the constitution. No person shall be at the same time Cunstavál of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province.
to read in its entirety as follows:
Quote1. Every royal power that the King possesses as granted by this Organic Law shall also apply to the provincial governments; with the exception that the provincial royal powers need not include a right of dissolution if provincial elections are held concurrently with Cosâ elections.
2. The King may appoint a Cunstavál (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf, for a term not exceeding three years. The King may reappoint a Cunstavál. The terms of existing Cunstaváis shall expire no later than three years after the adoption of this amendment.
3. Until such time as the King or Cunstavál proclaims a provincial constitution providing otherwise, the King or Cunstavál shall serve as Military Governor and may exercise all the powers of the provincial government.
4. The King or Cunstavál shall not proclaim any provincial constitution, nor shall any province pass a constitutional amendment, which conflicts with any provision of this Organic Law or with any other national law.
5. The King or Cunstavál shall not proclaim any provincial constitution which has not been approved by a referendum in which at least either a majority of all citizens of the province or a two-thirds majority of votes actually cast is in favor of the constitution.
6. No person shall be at the same time Cunstavál of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province.
The effective changes between this and the status quo:
1) all existing Cunstaváis are dismissed, though the King may reappoint any or all of them if he so wishes.
2) the King does not *have* to appoint a Cunstavál, in which case he exercises the royal powers directly in that province.
2) all further Cunstavál appointments are for a three year, renewable term.
I do not think it's a good idea to start the term by reducing the powers of the king.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 08:59:21 AMI do not think it's a good idea to start the term by reducing the powers of the king.
This bill does not reduce any of the King's powers
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 05, 2023, 03:59:31 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 08:59:21 AMI do not think it's a good idea to start the term by reducing the powers of the king.
This bill does not reduce any of the King's powers
It would seem to reduce the King's powers to appoint a Cunstavál for any duration
Quote from: xpb on October 05, 2023, 04:57:20 PMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 05, 2023, 03:59:31 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 08:59:21 AMI do not think it's a good idea to start the term by reducing the powers of the king.
This bill does not reduce any of the King's powers
It would seem to reduce the King's powers to appoint a Cunstavál for any duration
There is no limit to the amount of times a Cunstaval could be reappointed.
If we are really concerned about overburdening the King by requiring reappointments once every three years, perhaps he should retire.
If you really want to be technical, it *sets rules* for how the King enacts a particular power; but in contrast, it *gives the King an extra power*, i.e. the power to not appoint a Cunstaval at all and to exercise the royal power directly in one or more provinces. Which you could argue he already had but this makes it explicit.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 05, 2023, 05:12:46 PMQuote from: xpb on October 05, 2023, 04:57:20 PMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 05, 2023, 03:59:31 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 08:59:21 AMI do not think it's a good idea to start the term by reducing the powers of the king.
This bill does not reduce any of the King's powers
It would seem to reduce the King's powers to appoint a Cunstavál for any duration
There is no limit to the amount of times a Cunstaval could be reappointed.
If we are really concerned about overburdening the King by requiring reappointments once every three years, perhaps he should retire.
Your argument tries to deflect the actual core concept -- that the King (or Queen) has the power to appoint for a day or indefinitely, as they alone should see fit to do.
And indefinite appointments lead to inactive Cunstavais. I know that some people think if John breaks wind loudly it should be praised as a brand new Top 40 hit single, but others don't think "The King Wills It" to be a good excuse for bad practice and the collapse of important constitutional offices.
If the limitations are set to the Cunstaval instead of the King's appointment, would that work too?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 05, 2023, 08:04:42 PMAnd indefinite appointments lead to inactive Cunstavais. I know that some people think if John breaks wind loudly it should be praised as a brand new Top 40 hit single, but others don't think "The King Wills It" to be a good excuse for bad practice and the collapse of important constitutional offices.
Could we possibly discuss this without such rudeness?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 09:13:24 PMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 05, 2023, 08:04:42 PMAnd indefinite appointments lead to inactive Cunstavais. I know that some people think if John breaks wind loudly it should be praised as a brand new Top 40 hit single, but others don't think "The King Wills It" to be a good excuse for bad practice and the collapse of important constitutional offices.
Could we possibly discuss this without such rudeness?
🙄
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 05, 2023, 09:17:45 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 09:13:24 PMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 05, 2023, 08:04:42 PMAnd indefinite appointments lead to inactive Cunstavais. I know that some people think if John breaks wind loudly it should be praised as a brand new Top 40 hit single, but others don't think "The King Wills It" to be a good excuse for bad practice and the collapse of important constitutional offices.
Could we possibly discuss this without such rudeness?
🙄
lol, I guess that's a no.
I think we can just agree to disagree on this concept.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 08:59:21 AMI do not think it's a good idea to start the term by reducing the powers of the king.
I think you'd be welcome to privately suggest to John he should consider reviving Cunstavals on his own accord, much like you/he did with the Privy Council, in which case this bill would be entirely moot :)
(Of course, the important matter is that the Privy Council is only useful to him, while Cunstavals (should) perform important Organic functions in their own provinces.)
Quote from: Sir Lüc on October 06, 2023, 05:48:28 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 08:59:21 AMI do not think it's a good idea to start the term by reducing the powers of the king.
I think you'd be welcome to privately suggest to John he should consider reviving Cunstavals on his own accord, much like you/he did with the Privy Council, in which case this bill would be entirely moot :)
(Of course, the important matter is that the Privy Council is only useful to him, while Cunstavals (should) perform important Organic functions in their own provinces.)
He actually must have been reading this stuff or heard about it, even though I've been scrambling with too much other stuff to bug him, since he emailed me a couple of nights ago and mentioned his intention to appoint some new cunstavais. The basic problem is 100% correct: we should have active cunstavais. They're one of those things like the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration that just gets overlooked when it comes to regular maintenance and attention, since they don't see that much action.
Really, it's on Txec and I, who should be more on-the-ball about it... monitoring and recommending appointments like that are one of the jobs we're supposed to be doing! The Sabor should maybe get slightly bigger, though, since Txec and I both already have a ton of stuff going on in Talossa. When I first took the position, I wasn't anticipating returning to partisan politics.
I do think there might be good stuff here in this bill and changes we might want to make, though, Luc. I'm going to take XPB's suggestion for now and just agree to disagree for the moment, but this general topic is something we should come back to.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 06, 2023, 06:10:30 AMQuote from: Sir Lüc on October 06, 2023, 05:48:28 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 08:59:21 AMI do not think it's a good idea to start the term by reducing the powers of the king.
I think you'd be welcome to privately suggest to John he should consider reviving Cunstavals on his own accord, much like you/he did with the Privy Council, in which case this bill would be entirely moot :)
(Of course, the important matter is that the Privy Council is only useful to him, while Cunstavals (should) perform important Organic functions in their own provinces.)
He actually must have been reading this stuff or heard about it, even though I've been scrambling with too much other stuff to bug him, since he emailed me a couple of nights ago and mentioned his intention to appoint some new cunstavais. The basic problem is 100% correct: we should have active cunstavais. They're one of those things like the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration that just gets overlooked when it comes to regular maintenance and attention, since they don't see that much action.
Really, it's on Txec and I, who should be more on-the-ball about it... monitoring and recommending appointments like that are one of the jobs we're supposed to be doing! The Sabor should maybe get slightly bigger, though, since Txec and I both already have a ton of stuff going on in Talossa. When I first took the position, I wasn't anticipating returning to partisan politics.
I do think there might be good stuff here in this bill and changes we might want to make, though, Luc. I'm going to take XPB's suggestion for now and just agree to disagree for the moment, but this general topic is something we should come back to.
One idea might be to have some Guaïrs that are ex officio examples being some of the following: PM, Leader of the Opposition, SoS, Túischac'h, Mençei, Senior Justice/Justices, Constables etc...
I've been acting in my role on the Privy Council and advising the king of the need to work on the issue. I only brought up Vuode for starters, but it also appears that Florencia is in need also.
If there was any law on the matter, I would think the best course would be some rule on inactivity, perhaps similar to judges to prevent the problem we now have.
I mean, let's go back to basic principles. Why do we need Cunstaváis? Some federal parliamentary democracies have separate "heads of state" for the various states/provinces (Canada, Australia); others don't (India). Why does the King need "glove puppets" in every Province? Why can't he do it himself, or why can't we shift the default to he does it himself unless there's a good reason to appoint a (term limited) representative?
Bureaucracy in action. I don't really understand why it's difficult to name people. There is a fear here that the monarchy is losing power with this amendement, yet the debate here is precisely about the lack of response to exercise of power. The province of Florencia needs an appointment of a governor by the Constable or the King following its constitution. Why this debate or even more the need to change the constitution of the realm when the solution is simple: Appoint someone.
Mximo Carbonèl
Quote from: Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on October 06, 2023, 08:02:05 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 06, 2023, 06:10:30 AMQuote from: Sir Lüc on October 06, 2023, 05:48:28 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 08:59:21 AMI do not think it's a good idea to start the term by reducing the powers of the king.
I think you'd be welcome to privately suggest to John he should consider reviving Cunstavals on his own accord, much like you/he did with the Privy Council, in which case this bill would be entirely moot :)
(Of course, the important matter is that the Privy Council is only useful to him, while Cunstavals (should) perform important Organic functions in their own provinces.)
He actually must have been reading this stuff or heard about it, even though I've been scrambling with too much other stuff to bug him, since he emailed me a couple of nights ago and mentioned his intention to appoint some new cunstavais. The basic problem is 100% correct: we should have active cunstavais. They're one of those things like the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration that just gets overlooked when it comes to regular maintenance and attention, since they don't see that much action.
Really, it's on Txec and I, who should be more on-the-ball about it... monitoring and recommending appointments like that are one of the jobs we're supposed to be doing! The Sabor should maybe get slightly bigger, though, since Txec and I both already have a ton of stuff going on in Talossa. When I first took the position, I wasn't anticipating returning to partisan politics.
I do think there might be good stuff here in this bill and changes we might want to make, though, Luc. I'm going to take XPB's suggestion for now and just agree to disagree for the moment, but this general topic is something we should come back to.
One idea might be to have some Guaïrs that are ex officio examples being some of the following: PM, Leader of the Opposition, SoS, Túischac'h, Mençei, Senior Justice/Justices, Constables etc...
For the record, I support this idea.
One main reason why the King appointed two new Cunstaval's is because, in my role as a member of the Privy Council, I realized that Vuode's Cunstaval was super inactive and the provincial government could not function without one. I contacted King John and asked him to appoint one. I didn't anticipate he would select me for the job, but I'm glad he helped with the problem. We do have other provinces (my own, in fact) that are in need of active Cunstaval's, but Vuode's situation was specific because their constitution requires the Cunstaval to perform certain functions. The Cunstaval for Maricopa is much more ceremonial.
Term limits or something like it is probably a good idea. Enlarging the Sabor with some ex-officio offices might be a good idea also, though I do believe that permanent membership should continue to be merit based.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 09, 2024, 11:24:07 AMOne main reason why the King appointed two new Cunstaval's is because, in my role as a member of the Privy Council, I realized that Vuode's Cunstaval was super inactive and the provincial government could not function without one. I contacted King John and asked him to appoint one. I didn't anticipate he would select me for the job, but I'm glad he helped with the problem. We do have other provinces (my own, in fact) that are in need of active Cunstaval's, but Vuode's situation was specific because their constitution requires the Cunstaval to perform certain functions. The Cunstaval for Maricopa is much more ceremonial.
Term limits or something like it is probably a good idea. Enlarging the Sabor with some ex-officio offices might be a good idea also, though I do believe that permanent membership should continue to be merit based.
Thank you Txec, these are excellent points.
I'm glad this idea has been rescued from the bit-bucket. Any chance we can get something together for the next Clark?
WHEREAS Cunstaváis serve for an indefinite term, which encourages a do-nothing attitude:BE IT ENACTED that Organic Law XI.4 be amended from the current:
QuoteThe King shall appoint a Cunstavál (or Constable) for each Province. Until such time as the King or Cunstavál proclaims a provincial constitution providing otherwise, a Province's Cunstavál shall serve as Military Governor and may exercise all the powers of the provincial government. No Cunstavál shall proclaim any provincial constitution, nor shall any province pass a constitutional amendment, which conflicts with any provision of this Organic Law or with any other national law, or grants to the Cunstavál 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). No Cunstavál shall proclaim any provincial constitution which has not been approved by a referendum in which at least either a majority of all citizens of the province or a two-thirds majority of votes actually cast is in favor of the constitution. No person shall be at the same time Cunstavál of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province.
to read in its entirety as follows:
Quote1. Every royal power that the King possesses as granted by this Organic Law shall also apply to the provincial governments; with the exception that the provincial royal powers need not include a right of dissolution if provincial elections are held concurrently with Cosâ elections.
2. The King may appoint a Cunstavál (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf, for a term not exceeding three years. The King may reappoint a Cunstavál. The terms of existing Cunstaváis shall expire no later than three years after the adoption of this amendment.
3. Until such time as the King or Cunstavál proclaims a provincial constitution providing otherwise, the King or Cunstavál shall serve as Military Governor and may exercise all the powers of the provincial government.
4. The King or Cunstavál shall not proclaim any provincial constitution, nor shall any province pass a constitutional amendment, which conflicts with any provision of this Organic Law or with any other national law.
5. The King or Cunstavál shall not proclaim any provincial constitution which has not been approved by a referendum in which at least either a majority of all citizens of the province or a two-thirds majority of votes actually cast is in favor of the constitution.
6. No person shall be at the same time Cunstavál of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province.
@Sir Lüc @Ian Plätschisch can the CRL have a look at this now plz?
Moved to committee as requested.
(Can I ask you to edit the original comment to reflect the latest version,
@Miestră Schivă, UrN ?)
Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 24, 2024, 05:46:49 PM(Can I ask you to edit the original comment to reflect the latest version, @Miestră Schivă, UrN ?)
If by that you mean "the first post in the thread", then that's done; but I'm not sure this is a good thing to do in future because it falsifies the historical record
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 24, 2024, 05:54:18 PMQuote from: Sir Lüc on January 24, 2024, 05:46:49 PM(Can I ask you to edit the original comment to reflect the latest version, @Miestră Schivă, UrN ?)
If by that you mean "the first post in the thread", then that's done; but I'm not sure this is a good thing to do in future because it falsifies the historical record
You're not wrong, but otherwise there'd be no way to reliably know what the current working draft is. It's an unfortunate byproduct of our very informal way of doing things.
(There's certainly a discussion to be had on what the draft-to-Clark pipeline should look like in the CRL era so we can strike a balance between clarity, complexity and preservation of all stages of debate.)
Approved.
Looks good