Just an update: still waiting on the cards to return from the printer.  When they ship, I'll post an update.

If the CRL is retained, in the ideal this would be handled in the same way most legislature do: custom and majority rule.  The CRL wouldn't be in the law at all, but instead would be part of a package of rules adopted at the start of a term.  I don't know if this is practical at this time, though, since we would have a hard time with legislative motions or votes outside of the Clark system.

So for now, I think it should be left to discretion and norms.  People should absolutely be permitted to submit a shell bill to the CRL for review and approval, and then replace it with entirely different legislative text without submitting it for approval again.  But the CRL is allowed to be annoyed and point this out as a problem with the legislation, and that would be a flaw that might justify voting against the bill.

This allows leadership and time-sensitive things to be pushed through, while at the same time upholding a norm that legislation should be reviewed for form and function before going to a vote.  Most legislatures operate in this way.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 28, 2024, 09:32:09 AM(I would honestly be even more radical and get rid of the CRL entirely,)

Indeed, this would also be my recommendation.  If you care so little about a bill that you refuse to check it over carefully or seek out others to do so, then it's probably not a necessary piece of legislation.  We're not big enough to need a CRL at this time.  There's like a small handful who ever write complex bills: you, Gluc, me, Miestra, Txecand Breneir.  Do we need a committee of three to monitor the work of a group of five or six people?

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 30, 2024, 09:53:17 AMMy current idea is putting Lex.C.1.3.2-5 into practice and having the Scribery manage a pool of "proofreaders" (call them whatever you want) that can suggest amendments about form at any point between Hoppering and Clarking.

An enhanced Scribery might make sense in the future, but not right now, IMO. It's a fun idea for a busier future.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 30, 2024, 10:30:28 AM...get a CRL review and get it Clarked with no opportunity for a debate on merit. I was simply trying to avoid setting bad precedent.

It was the right call to point this out as a violation of norms, even if it might have been inconvenient.

Sounds fine to me.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 29, 2024, 03:47:59 PMSo: we worry that the succession will become a political struggle that will go on forever.

Well, you guys are wrong.  This is not where he's at.  He isn't signaling a fight, he's just agreeing to the offer on the table.  I can't speak for him, but I'm pretty sure.

I'm glad that sense has prevailed.  As we move forward with the Succession Act, please remember to take out the conditional clause before Clarking.

¡Vivetz els legeux, el Regeu, es els pleps!

I think you misunderstand.  In that quote, "inactive" refers to a lack of activity generally in Talossa, not the level of power assigned to the role.  His Majesty has not been able to devote much time to the country, regardless of what form that time takes.

I admit that I don't quite understand your point, honestly.  His Majesty specifically endorsed the process being considered right now and said he would abdicate as soon as a successor was chosen.  It seems quite backwards to suggest that a candidate must be named before the process can be established, so I assume that wasn't what you meant?

Look, as I understand it, the major point of contention was that republicans were generally in favor of an entirely inactive monarchy rather than an invigorated one, since an inactive monarchy would continue to lead to a decline in support for monarchy in general.  Likewise, monarchists were generally in favor of supporting the king, since lending any support to change meant helping destroy one of Talossa's oldest and most valuable traditions.  But both sides have agreed to give way, with monarchists accepting a pretty dramatic and historic shift in norms, while republicans are accepting the continuation of the monarchy for at least the near future.  The king appears to be endorsing the resulting deal, offering his own abdication once it has been accomplished.  It would be a shame to scorn that healing gesture!

What is the fear?  That His Majesty will renege?  No one thinks that King John I is going to do that.  Ask Dama Miestra if she thinks that the man can stick to a deal, and she will confirm.  Hell, my own principles are known to be made of cold iron.  And if the question is delay -- well, I don't think that's realistic.  Alea iacta est, and that can't be undone.

A hard and painful bargain has been struck, so let it abide.

Under these terms, when his Majesty is offering exactly what was demanded, it would seem particularly ungracious for the legislature to suddenly reverse itself and insist on forcible deposing. I would hope that this body would not be so shabby.

I'd suggest that under the circumstances, we can dispense with the circumstantial clause in the Succession Amendment. His Majesty has pledged to abdicate once things are set. We can also dispense with the other bill entirely. His Majesty would never renege on a public pledge of this sort.

It's two.

Here are two linked bills.  I would like to reiterate that I still think we need oversight on the balloting process -- if it's the most recent Electoral Commission, that'd be fine too.


Whereas, the monarchy is a central pillar of the country and its survival depends on its planned future as well as its activity, and

Whereas, this allows for democratic confirmations without becoming wholesale elections,

THEREFORE, the Ziu directs that Article II of the Organic Law, which currently read:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. 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.

Section 4
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 5
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 6
The King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations.

shall be amended to read as follows:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. In addition, the King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne.  Upon his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne, the new King shall be the Heir Presumptive, who shall be the duly-designated successor to the throne.  The new King shall likewise be succeeded in the same manner, and thus forever in perpetuity.

Section 4
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.  However, the King may abdicate without renouncing his citizenship.

Section 5
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 6
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 7
The King may nominate an Heir Presumptive by special decree to the Ziu.  This decree shall take effect upon approval of a two-thirds supermajority of the Cosa and majority approval of the Senäts, and by a majority of the people.

Section 8
Upon any vacancy on the Throne with no Heir Presumptive, the Secretary of State shall announce a convocation of succession.  This announcement will include details of the convocation of succession, as described by the Secretary of State. This announcement shall further include a list of all those who have been citizens no fewer than seven full years prior to that date, and who are therefore eligible electors of the convocation.  The Secretary of State shall shall immediately thereafter notify all of these electors of the convocation and their responsibilities. The Secretary of State shall also include in this announcement a set of proposed rules and procedures for the convocation of succession, for public debate and consideration. The convocation of succession's first order of business shall be to approve, with or without modifications, the rules under which it will operate, which may differ from the Secretary of State's proposals, but may not contradict this Organic Law.

Fourteen days after this announcement, the convocation shall be deemed to have commenced.  It shall be chaired by the Secretary of State in a fair manner designed to foster open discussion and faithful service, unless a different chair is elected by the convocation of succession by the expressed preference of an absolute majority of members, or by the expressed preference of a plurality of members within a period of seven days. The convocation shall vote by secret ballot on a King.  All electors' votes shall have equal weight, and whichever candidate first receives the support of two-thirds of the convocation shall be deemed the nominee of the convocation of succession.  No votes for ineligible candidates shall be considered. This choice shall be submitted to the people by referendum for their approval.  Should a majority of the people approve of the nominee, they shall be King of the Kingdom of Talossa.

Section 9
For the duration of any time during which the throne is empty, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

This bill shall only come into effect (a) upon the full passage and approval of the Decree Amendment of 2024/XLV or (b) upon the death, abdication, or removal of His Majesty King John I.




Whereas it is universally acknowledged that it is time for gratitude and progress forward,

THEREFORE the Ziu decrees, effective thirty days from the ratification of this amendment by the people, that the throne is vacant as though King John I had abdicated, and King John I is once more an ordinary citizen, with all of the rights and privileges of the same, released from his office and his duties with the nation's gratitude for his long service.  The Secretary of State is directed to begin immediate preparations for a convocation of succession.

This bill shall only come into effect upon the full passage and approval of the Succession Amendment of 2024/XLV; it shall be considered chronologically to have come into effect immediately after the Succession Amendment of 2024/XLV, rather than simultaneously.  This bill shall not come into effect if His Majesty King John I has died, abdicated, or been removed from the throne.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 23, 2024, 04:23:46 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2024, 10:48:00 AMMaybe the solution is just to do a separate bill?  That would be easiest, and I think trust would extend that far at this point.  If they were viewed as a joint package, I'd support that (not that I have a vote, but I am pretty noisy).

Can we do a separate bill as a joint package, i.e. the two go up or go down together? I would be worried that one would get vetoed but the other passed.

I really really really doubt you need to worry about a veto. And yes the provisions can be easily written so that they are contingent on each other. That is a good solution. That wouldn't go in the text, but in the therefore clauses. I can do it tonight if you'd like.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 23, 2024, 06:10:00 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 22, 2024, 06:19:53 PMAttention CRL: @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu , @Ian Plätschisch , @Sir Lüc . This bill is now ready for your perusal, as sponsored by myself and @Breneir Tzaracomprada .

I must note that this bill is substantially different from the one first presented when this Hopper thread was created; and its earliest similar version was posted on the 17th of April, meaning that if that's taken to be the time the current proposal was first Hoppered, the bill will only be ready for CRL consideration in three days's time.

It shouldn't be any issue clearing it in time for the next Clark, so I'm just trying to avoid setting a bad precedent.

Legally speaking, we could just affirm this right now out of committee and then any changes we want could still be made afterwards, but I agree that this would be a bad precedent and we should not do it.  As a general rule, (if we are going to have a CRL) then a bill should not go to a vote without CRL approval, and it should get re-approved if it is substantially revised after the CRL process.  It's not a legal necessity but it's good practice and something the Ziu can enforce on itself.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 23, 2024, 12:17:18 AMMy take on the "decree" is that it's a regrettable kludge necessitated by the fact that the King will neither abdicate gracefully nor indicate otherwise so we could proceed to "legislative decapitation". I would agree with AD that there is no need to be rude but we've got to make sure it "sticks" (and no need to bar him from a possible comeback although it's hard to imagine a situation where that could happen).

My idea as previously was to just draw up a Decree of Abdication that would take effect automatically if not signed, like any other law, but I was worried whether an ordinary Act of the Ziu (as opposed to an OrgLaw amendment) would do the job.

Maybe the solution is just to do a separate bill?  That would be easiest, and I think trust would extend that far at this point.  If they were viewed as a joint package, I'd support that (not that I have a vote, but I am pretty noisy).

Wouldn't it be much easier to simply remove "as though King John I had abdicated" from the decree section?  I can see a hypothetical problem, but I frankly see no real practical problem and I'd like to avoid such a clumsy bit of phrasing if we can.  Also, it's possible that His Majesty might be asked to resume the throne one day -- stranger things have happened! -- and it'd be kind of weird to prohibit only him.  It's also kind of an affront to the man's dignity -- we're barring him but not his predecessors?

I'm not necessarily opposed to any changes, but I think we'd at least need to find a more elegant and less rude one if we're actually worried about this, if it's okay.

I do not think there is any reason to amend the OrgLaw upon the succession of a new monarch -- they would be the new king, as the text says, and "thus succeeded unto perpetuity."  We could make such a change if we so felt like it -- maybe on an anniversary of some time on the throne -- but there's no actual need to do so.  The conditional clause in that bit substitutes in the successor (or their successor, etc.) neatly and with absoluteness.