I suggest that the ability of the two Chairs of the Houses of the Ziu to trigger his dismissal are a far superior guarantee against the SoS being incompetent, malicious or partisan. Very few Talossans are simultaneously active in the Kingdom and not politically active.

However: maybe we could sweeten the deal by a requirement for a new SoS's appointment to get 2/3 majorities in both Houses (or to be able to be "blocked" by 67 MCs or 3 Senators)?

Time for another trip down history lane. There was a lot of talk at the time about how the oath of citizenship as it existed back then made it treasonous or something for us former Republicans to continue to advocate for Republicanism. One former Republican forced the issue by saying "if you actually expect me to abide by this then I withdraw my oath". To which the SoS at the time* said "fine, your citizenship is cancelled". To his eternal credit, AD himself argued that this was totally illegal, and so it was affirmed by the Courts.

This is why I dearly wish we had a real Talossan history, written by real historians, so we don't have to keep forgetting our history and thus repeating it.

* Currently doing hard time for sexual assault.

Ha ha, I'm glad we changed that

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on August 04, 2022, 10:38:33 PM
Does anyone have the text of the Oath of Citizenship

El Lexhatx E.9:

QuoteFrom this day forward, I pledge my loyalty, allegiance, and fidelity to the Kingdom of Talossa and to His Majesty's government. I solemnly affirm that I will support and uphold the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa, defend the realm against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, faithfully observe its laws, respect the rights and freedoms of all my fellow citizens, fulfill all my duties and obligations as a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa, and humbly appreciate the benefits granted unto me by my King, most especially when those benefits take the form of Talossan currency.

I'd forgotten that it doesn't include a personal oath of obedience to the King, but specifically the King's government. And there was a huge controversy at the time of Reunision about whether making that oath made peacefully advocating for a Republican or even a less-monarchist form of government treason. Consensus was it didn't, and if it had Reunision would have been cancelled.

Here we go: change El Lex C.3.1 as follows:

Quote3.1 The Secretary of State is appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Seneschál, and removed by the King on the recommendation of any two of the Seneschál, the Túischac'h or the Mençei for professional misconduct, inability to perform their duties due to incapacitation or failure to perform their required duties.

Comments?

While looking for that picture of me taking the oath of citizenship on OldWitt, I came across this epic website, set up by certain members of the Talossan Republic who didn't "provisionally bend the knee" like we reviensadeirs. Good times. Wish they were still around.

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on August 04, 2022, 09:53:50 PM
Two points, first YOU chose to become a citizen of a nation that is now and always has been a monarchy

Firstly, Talossa has not "always" been a monarchy.

Secondly, attached is a picture of me swearing the oath of citizenship in 2012. Written on my hand is the words, in Talossa: "My oath is to the Talossan people".

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on August 04, 2022, 08:53:05 PM
Now as a member (sort of) of the TNC I will say that I do think that some sort of monarchy reform needs to be done. His Majesty does seem to be somewhat uninterested in performing any duties other than the occasional ceremonial duties such as granting CoA's and such (which I thank him for). I would personally be in favor of some sort of vote of confidence held at set times, it should be a fairly long time (7-10 years in my opinion)

Yeah. This is precisely the monarchy reform that the TNC voted down on the First Clark; a vote of confidence at 7 year intervals. But the TNC said that a King who had to face a VoC at regular intervals wasn't a King at all, but a "President".

You're absolutely right about the heated partisanship, which goes along with people simply misrepresenting what "the other side" are proposing. But maybe the TNC will surprise me and come up with something better.

Quotewith the possibility of some sort of impeachment in between requiring a very large majority to pass.

We actually already have that, Organic Law II.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."

The problem with this is IMHO it's a waste of time because it's a higher bar than simply amending the OrgLaw to name a new king or even to abolish the monarchy.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 04, 2022, 07:59:20 PM
pretty recently my own office of Túischac'h, an office elected or removed by simple majority of the Cosa (ie, the Government) was granted the power to manage and/or fire the Secretary of State.  It's not like some giant thing or huge disaster, and obviously I'm personally never going to abuse it, but I do think that probably it's a mistake that could be abused.

Well, I see you're backpedalling from your claim that the Goverment (defined as the Seneschal and Cabinet) "control" the Chancery, to pointing out that the elected leaders of the Houses of the Ziu have power to recall the SoS. That's a bit embarrassing for you, but forget that for a moment - I agree you might have a point that it's somewhat "unbalanced", on reflection. If I remember right, the original suggestion was that the Seneschál having sole right to hire and fire the SoS really would "put the Chancery under Govt control", and we added the chairs of the Houses to indicate that the SoS would have to account to the Legislative as well as Executive Branches. But I have, independently, wondered whether that's going too far.

If you want to change that - to perhaps a system where you'd need two or maybe even three of the Seneschál and the two Chairs of the Ziu to dismiss the SoS - then I'll write up the draft bill this very day. Or you can do so and I'll get the FreeDems in behind it.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 04, 2022, 05:37:01 PM
Take the example of the Senats: imagine that the TNC were to get majority control next term.  Would it be a good thing for us to be able to eliminate the Senats with that bare majority

Look, I was quite hoping you guys *would* support us abolishing the Senäts this term. (That's just my opinion, not FreeDems policy, though I note the Seneschal is not as bicameral-positive as he used to be.) We're not like you guys; we're democrats, not counter-majoritarians. If you win a majority, you should get to enact your programme; if you win a 2/3 majority, you should get to change the OrgLaw.

Quotethe entire OrgLaw was revised in its entirety, the hereditary monarchy was eliminated, the royal veto was made merely suspensive,

During that one term that the ultra-conservatives boycotted, and sensible forces had the mythical 3/4 majority  :D I'm glad we agree.

Quotewe eliminated literally every single statute and replaced them with a sweeping legal code,

With 100% support. Because we let you write it.  ;D I repeat my contention: substantive change is impossible if the King + a tiny, angry minority don't like it. That's great, if you're the King or part of a tiny, angry minority.

Quotethe Royal Household was almost entirely transferred in control to different Government offices... the Government has assigned itself the management of the Chancery, whereas elections used to have more of a buffer of independence.

*sigh* Look, we know you love playing that game where you tell a stream of outrageous lies and hope your opponents get tired of refuting them. But this is quite serious, now. Firstly, anyone can just read the OrgLaw and El Lex and realise you're fibbing again. El Lex C.2. does not say what you're going to claim it says. Secondly, we know that your party is hostile towards the SoS and has been making all kinds of accusations against him, which is a bit embarrassing on your part. I think for your own sake you have to "put up" with your accusations that the Government controls or manages the Chancery, or withdraw and apologise. Real people who work incredibly hard for Talossa are getting hurt here.

But more seriously, let's keep on topic, that topic being Monarchy Reform. The parts of this thread which are still relevant are the argument of the TNC "Chief of Staff" in favour of the monarchy as something which is necessary to stop a majority in the Cosa doing what it wants, which would be a Very Bad Thing; of course in combination with the Senäts, and with a Royal Civil Service which would be under no obligation to consult with or report to the elected Government. But let's focus like a laser on what we want the monarchy to do. There's the "ceremonial" aspect, and the "anti-majoritarian" aspect as explained above. I see an argument for the former, but the latter is IMHO noxious; it's embarrassing to me that the latter is what the TNC seems to be riding and dying for.

The Free Democrats are, as the name implies, a democratic party; we see the need for checks and balances against a majority, but those checks and balances should not privilege one particular person, chosen for life, or one particular "clique" which has formed around that person.

Quoteit's being administered by the Government after being created by the Government and graded by the Government with a list of success or failure held by the Government.

Replace "the Government" with "Miestra, personally" and you'd be right. And I just wanted to know whether the TNC leadership had an objection to the Civics Test that they actually wanted to make public, or whether it was "for internal consumption only".

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 04, 2022, 02:39:19 AM
The king can slow consideration of a bill at most.

Even by your standards that's a bit of a naughty fib. If that were true, either version of the Compromise would have passed and we'd be gearing up for the National Convocation now. The King can, at his whim, inflate the numbers need to pass a bill from a majority to a supermajority, or from a supermajority to an insane supermajority, or to require a fresh election before a revote. Which is great if you're part of the minority who agrees with him, I suppose.

Because that's what all this about, you'd agree? The principle of whether the majority of Talossans should set the form and the policy of the state, or whether a minority should get "special rights" to stop changes. I'm pretty unapologetic about the fact that I believe in majority rule with safeguards for minority rights, and that a stuffy, Byzantine system of government which makes big things almost impossible to do (if One Guy In Colorado doesn't like them) is only fun for a particular kind of warped psychology.

QuoteI think the government has too much power

So a TNC majority government would legislate to... do what? Make legislation even harder to pass than it already is? Require the Ziu minority and/or the Senäts to endorse Government initiatives? Meanwhile the FreeDems-led government brought in the CRL, where non-government officials get input into the quality of legislation - a system in which you've participated quite well, even though you were performatively dismissive earlier in the term. I also don't remember anything being different during the 9 terms you held power in a majority government.

QuoteI don't think officials with access to Government records should use that privilege as a political weapon.

The Civics Test is not a Government record; but nevertheless, I'm sorry. I didn't realise you were keeping it secret.

You're right! Sorry I missed that, because it contains this particular gem:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 02, 2022, 11:03:22 PM
But we use the Senats, and there are regular competitive elections.  It's also a pretty big feature of a system that is getting terrifyingly streamlined already, with power overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the two or three people that lead the Government coalitions.  A lot of people like politics and legislating, and already most of that process is just "convince these two people you're right."

As opposed to the current system, where serious change is impossible (in usual circumstances) unless you convince one guy in Colorado that you're right. Did you mean to make government by a majority of Cosa seats democratically elected sound like an oligarchic conspiracy against the people? There is an argument to be made against a strong party system, but not one by the leaders of the largest single party.

(If you're offended by questions about why the TNC are boycotting - blockading?!? - the ID card process, fair enough, but I thought maybe it was an actual political position - i.e. you intend to abolish the Civics Test and just give ID cards to all citizens if you take power, so why bother making an effort to study now, right?)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 03, 2022, 06:52:58 PM
So I guess when people in the TNC are having fun doing stuff, or offering possible compromises, that just looks like a trap to you?  Like, Breneir is putting together cookbooks and working with Tafi on translating them because he wants to score points,

The TNC leader turned against the Compromise on the Compromise, which he ran in the election supporting, and never gave any explanation of his actions. He has also repeatedly accused the Free Democrat President who is also the Secretary of State of dishonesty, or even of using his role to promote partisan political interests. This is not an environment conducive to bipartisan trust on the constitutional issue.

It's your party's right to play hard politics. It wins votes, at the expense of causing lasting resentments among your opponents, and publishing cookbooks and working on heraldry doesn't "pay" for that. The Seneschál is running a competition where in return for wiki edits you get a Day of Observance - but I don't remember a "Do This Many Cultural Events And You Get To Behave Badly In Politics And No-One Is Allowed To Get Upset" competition. (Speaking of cultural events, the fact that neither you nor the TNC leader have done the Civics Quiz and applied for your ID card has provoked comment.)

If you've really got a proposal and this isn't some bizarre fakeout, then really, I look forward to seeing the details, but you and your party have not behaved in a trust-building way, and I've given up trying to explain to you that people are actually hurt by your behaviour. Perhaps you could start by demonstrating some good faith and commenting on Mic'haglh's very well-written and substantive document?

The Provincial Túischac'h technically calls for Final Votes; let me alert him and if he's busy I'll do it

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 02, 2022, 07:38:19 PM
In recent years, a wholesale revision to the OrgLaw happened

Only because the monarchist opposition simply boycotted that Cosa that time, or to be precise, never assigned their seats, so a 3/4 majority was possible. If large numbers of hyper-conservative citizens flush their votes down the toilet, yes, things can happen over the King's objections.

QuoteI'm sorry, but it is flatly untrue to assert that big political changes are nearly impossible.

I'm sorry too. Let me re-specify: "big political changes are nearly impossible if the King feels threatened by them in any way."

QuoteI think there's a lot of potential for real and amicable forward motion, but if you're saying that the necessary "precondition" for a "lasting constitutional reform" just doesn't exist, it makes me wonder what the point might be.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the Free Democrats will support proposals on their merits (and I'm sure the same is true for our PdR colleagues). The point is you just can't wish away political mistrust and hostility. Let's put it this way. If the Government parties came up with a new Monarchy Reform proposal, I would simply assume you guys would vote it down, regardless of its contents, because giving us a political "win" would be intolerable for you. Is that not true?