Quote from: xpb on May 25, 2021, 01:49:27 PM
The King lives. To my knowledge he has neither renounced not lost his citizenship.
Thus it is incumbent upon those who wish to remove him to make that effort under existing law, not to move the goalposts
(Sorry about previous typos from phone entry)
Generally, I've become loath to weigh in on these public debates. When I do, it is sparingly but no less than a short novel. In keeping with that tradition, I submit the following for you to scroll passed:
I find the quoted post to be illogical and confounding and antithetical to democratic principles and our Organic Law. (While the claim appears to cast aspersions, I will attribute such to a poorly thought-out comment in lieu of a malicious implication.)
I digress. The Talossan State, and the entirety of its authority, stems from a single predicate—that certain individuals did "ordain and establish, by and through the consent of the People, as the supreme law of our Realm, this . . . Organic Law[.]" The most important clause in the quoted text, and, in my estimation, the preamble itself, is "by and through the consent of the People". For even the Organic Law at the outset recognizes that its absolute authority stems from the People's consent to be governed, and that the People limned that consent through the Organic Law, which continues to exist only because the People accept its validity. In other words, the Organic Law is, by definition, law onto itself—it is the Law that the People authorized. Acting within the confines of the Organic Law is, by definition, to act within existing law.
We ought not to confuse that because the Organic Law may permit a specific occurrence under its present wording, then no such other method is permissible. This is a folly. The Organic Law, for all of its rules and limitations or other issues, carries with it the mechanism for change—the amendment process. To utilize that mechanism, even if there already exist a possible avenue, is, by definition, acting "under existing law" because the amendment process is "existing law." To suggest that seeking to use this mechanism because something is already provided for in the Organic Law as "acting outside of existing law" is an anathema. You do not have to like how your political opponents play the game, but the rules are there for everyone to use. If the rules are already written, and your opponent uses a less obvious strategy, they did not change the goalpost, you simply did not read the rulebook. Ultimately, no matter what the Organic Law may say about an issue, the only thing that matters, in this context, is how can that be changed. So let us embark on that a bit.
Article XII of the Organic Law has five sections that set forth how the amendment process may be utilized. Any changes to the Organic Law must follow two consecutive, overarching phases: (1) the legislative process to become a proposed amendment; and (2) the referendum process for ratification (i.e. promulgation). Each phase carries general rules with explicit exceptions.
First, under the general rules, a proposed amendment to the Organic Law must receive (1) two-thirds support of the Cosa; (2) simple majority support of the Senate; and (3) royal assent as set forth. Although these rules each carry specifically enumerated exceptions, we concern ourselves only with the second prong. An act, meeting the other criteria, must carry two-thirds support in the Senate if it were to amend (1) the amendment process; (2) the Organic articles regarding the election to and composition of the Senate; or (3) those articles speaking to the territorial subdivisions (with some other caveats to this part). This is operative. None of these exceptions mention or allude to a proposed amendment that would modify or amend any article related to the King or the Crown directly. Such proposed amendments are subject to the most minimal procedure.
Assuming, arguendo, that the foregoing is satisfied, we turn to the second phase. The proposed amendment must be then ratified by a simple majority of the People no later than the next general election. To this general rule, we have two exceptions—(1) if such modifies the representation of provinces in the Senate, then a majority of voters in the impacted province must also support the amendment; or (2) a proposed amendment modifying any or part of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms requires two-thirds majority of voters participating in the referendum. Again, there lacks any mention or allusion to an amendment involving the King. This is terribly informative—at the end of the day, when the dust settles, it will always come down to one simple precept—the People consent to this State existing under this Organic Law, and any changes to that consent must be accompanied by their approval. That consent carries with it the means by which such changes may be proposed and adopted. These rules surrounding those changes (i.e. amendments) are, by default, "existing law." To suggest that something more is needed, that the amendment process is of no concern or not enough simply because the King is involved, is itself to ignore the "existing law" and to "move the goalposts" beyond what the Organic Law contemplated, and what the People contemplated upon adopting same.
I end with this: These are the rules. This is the existing law. This is the goal post. The supposition that those arguing for the Compromise are somehow not adhering to "existing law" or that they seek to "move the goalposts" is a mere projection and utterly without merit to the text of the Organic Law and the source of its authority.
