"Compromise"

[Ian Plätschisch]

The question is King vs kingless or kinglike
The "compromise" is to transfer from a dynastic system [...]

The status quo Talossan monarchy is not hereditary. We have no dynastic system.

You are correct in terms of heredity.  The King does currently serve as follows:

"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."

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)

Heh, the way to remove the King under existing law would be to either get him to commit a crime, get him to renounce, or "take care of him" as they say. I'm sure he wouldn't want any of that (nor would I)

[GV]

Heh, the way to remove the King under existing law would be to either get him to commit a crime, get him to renounce, or "take care of him" as they say. I'm sure he wouldn't want any of that (nor would I)

Well,...yes.

[Viteu]

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. 

[GV]

A reading of the Big History will inform one the 1979 Constitution, which enshrined Ben as all-powerful in Talossa, was by the 1988 Constituziun overturned in its entirety.  The 1985 Organic Law was merely a corrolary and not a replacement to the 1979 Constitution, but again, 1988 did away with 1979 permanently.

It was at this moment in 1988 Talossa became democratic beyond the reach of King Robert I.  He gave away that unilateral authority to do with Talossa as he wished. 

Thus, Ben established Talossan law itself could be, within the context of its own bounds, be changed.  In 1997 and 2017/2019, this was done yet again.

Yes, we could make an attempt to overthrow the present king by current organic procedures, but that leaves in its wake the lifetime aspect of the monarchy, which is a dangerous state of affairs.

By 'changing the goalposts', we intend to kill two birds with one stone: fix the lifetime aspect and yes, dethrone King John by fully-democratic means.  If a lifetime-'Queen Miestrâ' would have gone 'AWOL' for six months and appointed, say, Viteu, as sole Regent, my oh my, how you all would have howled, and the conservative movement would have every right to have her sent packing from the palace.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Honestly, there are two interrelated issues:

1) that John has lost the moral authority to be King of Talossa because he performs his royal duties selectively, and the criterion for that selection seems to be "annoying the political majority"; none of the ultra-monarchists seem to want to defend this past pretty much arguing that a King can and should do whatever he likes, which is not a political BDSM game I'm happy being a part of. Since 1688, the British monarchy has explicitly existed through consent of Parliament, and that's the model that Talossa should follow, not some kind of "divine right of Kings" nonsense, which makes no sense as John was elected, he didn't create Talossa, he has absolutely no rights over it other than what the Ziu and people grant him.

2) that "an elected head of state" won the Ranked Choice Referendum; the Government was thus obligated to bring forward legislation enacting this, but there was no point doing so unless it was in a form tolerable to the monarchist Ziu opposition. Hence: Compromise.

My argument against the "Simulated Coup" approach would be that it would be just kicking the can down the road. John didn't start out as interested in Talossa only in terms of his own prestige, and actively contemptuous of democracy. But he grew into the role, just as King Robert did. So I would predict any other King with a life term would end up acting the goat after a decade or so, maximum. Best we avoid that possibility.

[xpb]

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.

I agree with your studied analysis, that the law indeed has the ability to change and evolve. 

The question remains whether there is a tipping point being achieved incrementally.  Through use of stacked options in ranked choice referenda (which is more appropriate for selection of representatives).  Through charges leveled (not in Cort) about thresholds of participation even when they are remedied during trying times.  Perhaps most significantly - movement away from courteous discourse. 

The resulting the sea change of demeanor and direction has the potential to both attract and repel.   Many may rejoice in an upending of long standing institutions, but my opinion is that the balance of power being shifted will significantly diminish the realm.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If a lifetime-'Queen Miestrâ' would have gone 'AWOL' for six months and appointed, say, Viteu, as sole Regent, my oh my, how you all would have howled, and the conservative movement would have every right to have her sent packing from the palace.

This is fascinating.  Just so I understand, can you clarify?  To most people, I think that this would lead to someone being accused of -- at worst -- poor communication.  After all, His Majesty did what he was supposed to do if he was unable to fulfill his duties.  Indeed, he did what you personally said he should do.  And you have also said I did a great job as regent.

What on earth is the point of the regency if it's not allowed to be used?  And do you really and honestly think that I would be calling for the removal of Queen Miestră for the terrible crime of just appointing someone I personally dislike if they went on to do a good job?

I just don't understand this point of view.  It seems an impossibly high standard.  After all, the Ziu can remove a regent at will, so if you really dislike me personally so much that my appointment is itself an act of unacceptable tyranny, why not call a vote, Senator?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

if you really dislike me personally so much that my appointment is itself an act of unacceptable tyranny, why not call a vote, Senator?

Because, as you explained at the time, you would have simply vetoed such a vote: and then we would have had to get 2/3 of the Cosa, and then John would have just picked someone as noxious as yourself. Much better to save our effort to get rid of the real problem: John.

It's interesting that you never, ever, for a second, consider that you could behave differently and we wouldn't dislike you so much. That you could just... stop being pompous, manipulative and arrogant, putting people down, smearing them as corrupt or having a secret agenda when they disagree with you, brown-nosing to the King no matter how badly he behaves so he'll give you rewards and treats and titles, then throwing your weight around as if you deserved such a title...

...and then we wouldn't have such an allergy to you. I tried to persuade you of this years ago, in a PM, and you just said to me something like: "I can't behave any differently. I just can't!"

[xpb]

if you really dislike me personally so much that my appointment is itself an act of unacceptable tyranny, why not call a vote, Senator?

Because, as you explained at the time, you would have simply vetoed such a vote: and then we would have had to get 2/3 of the Cosa, and then John would have just picked someone as noxious as yourself. Much better to save our effort to get rid of the real problem: John.

It's interesting that you never, ever, for a second, consider that you could behave differently and we wouldn't dislike you so much. That you could just... stop being pompous, manipulative and arrogant, putting people down, smearing them as corrupt or having a secret agenda when they disagree with you, etc, and then we wouldn't have such an allergy to you. I tried to persuade you of this years ago, in a PM, and you just said to me: "I can't behave any differently. I just can't!"

You seem to be spelling "King" as the name John, attempting not to expell only the person but the monarchy as well.  Which you are well within your right to attempt, but at least be forthright about it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

My theory is that power corrupts; that a life-term monarchy in the Talossan context encourages laziness, entitlement, and contempt for one's subject apart from brown-nosers. So any replacement of John would end up in the same place, unless held under periodic accountability.

[Eðo Grischun]

Could we also remember that this is NOT just about the events of the past several months where the King abandoned his role and then assigned the most divisive personality in the country to serve as his regent, and that those events are merely the most recent in a long chain of events leading to this point? (It's not even the most recent.  The most recent was his blatant disrespect to the government by not awarding a National Honour that we instructed him to award).

King John has repeatedly stonewalled his own government multiple times on multiple issues for quite some time.  He dragged his heels for months over releasing his personal control over the kingdom's website infrastructure by repeatedly ignoring his own Ministers.  He flat out ignored his Minister of the Interior when his input was requested during the drafting of the Investitures Act and the State Opening of the Cosa Act.  The list goes on...

It is no wonder that the we have reached the point of wanting to 'slam the door shut in Blackrod's face'.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

if you really dislike me personally so much that my appointment is itself an act of unacceptable tyranny, why not call a vote, Senator?

Because, as you explained at the time, you would have simply vetoed such a vote: and then we would have had to get 2/3 of the Cosa, and then John would have just picked someone as noxious as yourself. Much better to save our effort to get rid of the real problem: John.

It's interesting that you never, ever, for a second, consider that you could behave differently and we wouldn't dislike you so much. That you could just... stop being pompous, manipulative and arrogant, putting people down, smearing them as corrupt or having a secret agenda when they disagree with you, brown-nosing to the King no matter how badly he behaves so he'll give you rewards and treats and titles, then throwing your weight around as if you deserved such a title...

...and then we wouldn't have such an allergy to you. I tried to persuade you of this years ago, in a PM, and you just said to me something like: "I can't behave any differently. I just can't!"

I asked a senator of the Kingdom of Talossa a question, because I wanted to know what he thought.  I don't think you should presume to speak for him -- he's an independent person with his own thoughts and ideas.

I decline to engage with your personal abuse.

[xpb]

My theory is that power corrupts; that a life-term monarchy in the Talossan context encourages laziness, entitlement, and contempt for one's subject apart from brown-nosers. So any replacement of John would end up in the same place, unless held under periodic accountability.

Fair enough, your position is clear, as it appears you believe that King John is lazy, thus are all Kings or Queens lazy because they are not elected on a schedule.  It also appears you believe those who respect a monarch are automatically sycophants (or your more vulgar term)
I suppose you may believe we are not entitled to give respect we feel is due.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

It also appears you believe those who respect a monarch are automatically sycophants (or your more vulgar term)
I suppose you may believe we are not entitled to give respect we feel is due.

I mean, you're allowed to bow your heads before anyone you want to. But it's just like religion. It's unseemly to expect doing so to be the condition of entry into Talossan citizenship. If John Woolley is no longer King of Talossa - or if he's chosen for a 7 year renewable term - how does that stop you giving him all the respect you want? I just want him deprived to the power to ruin other people's fun, obstruct the workings of our elected Government, veto popular legislation etc., if we don't bow our heads.

[xpb]

It also appears you believe those who respect a monarch are automatically sycophants (or your more vulgar term)
I suppose you may believe we are not entitled to give respect we feel is due.

I mean, you're allowed to bow your heads before anyone you want to. But it's just like religion. It's unseemly to expect doing so to be the condition of entry into Talossan citizenship. If John Woolley is no longer King of Talossa - or if he's chosen for a 7 year renewable term - how does that stop you giving him all the respect you want? I just want him deprived to the power to ruin other people's fun, obstruct the workings of our elected Government, veto popular legislation etc., if we don't bow our heads.

I suppose that those who were not satisfied with (whatever titled) 7 year term executive leader after 3 months or 3 years would not have to wait and could act to remove, impeach, etc.  But is that not already the case now?