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?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 20, 2024, 12:28:28 PMI added, "No votes for ineligible candidates shall be considered."  That way the SoS can't be forced to recuse by nominating him, but also can't receive any votes.

Are you suggesting then that whomever the SoS is at the time of a convocation, he/she cannot be selected?

The change appears to force the SoS to resign upon nomination as king which I do not support. I support recusal (and note to myself this is another option to address conflicts caused by an SoS taking on partisan political positions...)

I also can't support the Baron's succession proposal without some connection with King John designating a successor and giving a timeline for abdication.

Quote from: Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on April 20, 2024, 11:56:57 AM1) Section 3, needs some capital K's for the King.

Fixed.

Quote from: Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on April 20, 2024, 11:56:57 AM2) I think there needs to be some provision in there that, in the announcement of the Convocation of Succession, the SoS proposes how the Convocation of Succession will be run/the rules (e.g. nominations periods, voting method, how long voting will be open for etc..) and that the first act of the Electors is to approve by majority vote (or 2/3rds) said rules. Like the way the SoS announces how a GE is run and the EC approves said. No point appealing to the CpI when there is no established set of rules.

I added, "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" and later "The convocation of succession's first order of business shall be to approve, with or without modifications, the rules under which it will operate."

Quote from: Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on April 20, 2024, 11:56:57 AM3) Another idea is that if the SoS becomes a candidate/get nominated for King, then the SoS should recuse him/herself as Chair and nominate another to take his/her place.

I added, "No votes for ineligible candidates shall be considered."  That way the SoS can't be forced to recuse by nominating him, but also can't receive any votes.

No, it's fine in a section on it's own, like in the old '97 OrgLaw. 


No major objections on my part, but a few points on the proposed text:

1) Section 3, needs some capital K's for the King. 
2) I think there needs to be some provision in there that, in the announcement of the Convocation of Succession, the SoS proposes how the Convocation of Succession will be run/the rules (e.g. nominations periods, voting method, how long voting will be open for etc..) and that the first act of the Electors is to approve by majority vote (or 2/3rds) said rules. Like the way the SoS announces how a GE is run and the EC approves said. No point appealing to the CpI when there is no established set of rules. 
3) Another idea is that if the SoS becomes a candidate/get nominated for King, then the SoS should recuse him/herself as Chair and nominate another to take his/her place.   

AUS

Juneau Day is 28 May, so I expect that will be the next awards.

-Dean

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 20, 2024, 06:59:01 AMIt would be polite to wait until you are officially awarded the arms at the next appropriate holiday.

-Dean

I'll wait then

It would be polite to wait until you are officially awarded the arms at the next appropriate holiday.

-Dean

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 18, 2024, 02:02:17 PMAfter consulting the requestor, I submit the following blazon:

Gules, a griffin segreant argent armed and beaked Or langued of the first bearing in its foreclaws a lyre of the second.

- TLF

Wonder when I can have it as my profile picture