[PASSED] The Vacant Throne (We Really Mean Business Now) Amendment

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Oh and also I don't care that I can't sponsor it.  It is fine with me if you want to do so, or another MC has also offered to do so.

Miestra, to confirm, yes I would be delighted to co-sponsor the legislation now that it has the abdication decree. It also looks like there is now language to provide flexibility around the SoS chairing the convocation as the body is empowered to choose different leadership in the event the SoS is a potential selectee of the convocation.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Attention CRL: @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu , @Ian Plätschisch , @Sir Lüc . This bill is now ready for your perusal, as sponsored by myself and @Breneir Tzaracomprada .

Here is a version with your changes, Miestra, but incorporated in the traditional style.  The only thing I removed was this: "These proposed rules and procedures may be set by law or drawn up at the Secretary of State's discretion."

It is important that we not let the legislature meddle in this, inasmuch as we are able.  It should be a process set aside, as much as possible.  I do think it'd be a good idea to immediately draw up some suggested rules and procedures, though.  I already had in mind that basically the traditional rules of order could be followed -- familiar to anyone who's ever run a meeting or participated in a legislature that used them.  I'd be happy to take a crack at it next month, if that'd be amenable to Txec.

Beyond that, I would politely request that we really do need someone else to keep an eye on the voting.  If not the heads of the legislature, maybe the CpI?  We simply can't have a secret ballot for something so important that relies entirely on the absolute honesty of one person.  This is no reflection on anyone personally, but it's just good governance not to trust anyone so much.

The Succession Amendment and Decree

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:

Section 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:

Section 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.

FURTHERMORE, 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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

This makes me very happy.
I don't want to jinx it but if this issue is settled in an enduring fashion AND it is through the cooperation of former political adversaries then this is a great moment for Talossa.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I don't want to jinx it but if this issue is settled in an enduring fashion AND it is through the cooperation of former political adversaries then this is a great moment for Talossa.

Make no mistake, AD and I will probably be political adversaries to the end of time lol. :D But the co-operation of current political adversaries on a major project of constitutional reform is something to be treasured, and something I've wanted for a long time. It may well have the impact of causing a whole realignment in Talossan politics.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Putting my CRL hat on, I am a bit concerned about the supplementary decree that would bring about King John's abdication. It is on one hand an amendment to Section 3 of the Organic Law, which specifies that John I specifically is the King until "his demise, abdication, or removal". On the other hand it is ephemeral, simply describing an event that will occur at a specified time, and not something that becomes part of the legal code.

I think the decree would make more sense if Section 3 were amended as follows:

The King of Talossa shall remain on the throne until his demise, abdication, or removal. 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.

This change, combined with the decree, essentially would amend Section 3 as follows, but do so much more cleanly:

The King of Talossa shall remain on the throne until his demise, abdication, or removal, unless the King is King John I, in which case he is considered to have abdicated. 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.

I like this approach because a decree saying the throne is vacant "as though" the King had abdicated is not really the same as the King actually abdicating (in the case of Edward VIII, he signed the instrument of his abdication). Also, we will avoid the formality of needing to amend the Organic Law once a Heir Presumptive has already become the new King.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

My 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.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Upon rereading my post, I can see why it didn't come off the way I wanted.

I never meant to propose amending Section 3 to specifically call out King John's abdication. I was only trying to illustrate (with a failed attempt at humor) what the effect of amending Section 3 to remove any reference to a specific person, plus a decree of King John's abdication, would essentially be.

The (perhaps hypothetical) issue I see is that the amendment and decree kind of contradict each other. Section 3 as-is says John I is King until his demise, abdication, or removal, but the decree says the throne is vacant even though none of those things happened.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Sir Lüc]

Attention 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.

[Barclamïu da Miéletz]

This is good material for news. This topic is probably the most active on here.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

My 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).

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Attention 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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

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.

Yeah, I understand where Lüc's coming from, but how are you going to measure "earliest similar version"? That's pretty subjective.  IMHO the ten days should be the period of discussion of the proposal as a concept. Actual textual continuity should not be required.

I also understand where AD's coming from whereby you could totally replace a bill's text after CRL but before Clarking. But to require the CRL's say to be final would be giving the CRL too much power. A more difficult question. The CRL should be an advisory body that needs to have its say but should be able to be ignored (by a staggering coincidence that's my idea of the monarchy as well).

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

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).

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.