Can the Landsraad pass an act so binding..

[Ari Rahikkala]

... that the Landsraad can't repeal it?

I mean, it's certainly a problem with the law I wrote regarding the dissolution of duchies. You need full consensus of the Lansdraad to do it. According to the law anyway. But, you know, this is the Landsraad, it has full authority to amend the Lawbook (and needs only a simple majority to do that), so who cares what happens to be written in it?

Further, what's the point of having laws in the Lawbook that say that the Landsraad can do x? If the Lansdraad has the authority to make a law authorising someone to do x, they certainly have the authority to do x in the first place. Making a law that the Kaiser can do x seems even stranger.

Further, who wants to do the work of replacing the superfluous rules in LawBook II. C. and D. with, say, some neat procedures on how to actually go about creating and destroying duchies?

[Icebreaker]

SEE, YOU CAN STILL MAKE COHERENT SENTENCES AND EVEN APPLY SOME CRITICAL THINKING. YOUR NEURONS ARE FINE!!!

[b3n|<3r|\|]

No, like the UK constitution - "No parliament can bind its successor".

The laws you describe are there to stop the lazy/not particularly bothered from doing certain things. If they REALLY want to, they can of course. But those "guideline" laws are there for a reason.

[Erik Mortis]

Some used to be in the Decreebook, and thus had power Over the landsraad. but I moved them down cause I'm trying to empty out the decreebook as much as I can and make the unified book of laws that people want as much as possible.

[Malliki]

Ex.:
Chapter DCLXVI
1. All balls are blue.
2. All sticks are yellow.
3. No section of this chapter may be amended or repealed.

Okeydokey. The Landsraad needs a simple majority to amend the LawBook, regardless of what the text says. I would never uphold this sort of language in the Judex if it was brought there. As Benkern said, the Landsraad can't bind itself in this manner.

[Ari Rahikkala]

So, how about implied repeal, then?

* recalls there was a case where Ardashir mentioned it some time ago... ah, yes: http://shireroth.kuroshiro.net/forum/vi ... 86#p107286. We had a MCS claim in the Landsraad during the claims moratorium, and it passed. Seems it does work, then... *

[Malliki]

If I'm not mistaken, the moratorium was for claiming more land. The bill you refer to only modified Mar Sara.

[Erik Mortis]

He's right, it was just on claiming more land.

[Ari Rahikkala]

* considers trying to pass something that actually will have to cause implied repeal ... can't come up with anything right now, though *

[Erik Mortis]

Well, we have a Kaiser for a reason. To fix it if the Landsraad completely fucks itself. (unless it's in the procedures) *hint to Ari*

[Nick Foghorn Leghorn]

* considers trying to pass something that actually will have to cause implied repeal ... can't come up with anything right now, though *

1. Foghorn shall be the supreme ruler of Shireroth. No other entity may make laws within the land.
2. No law may challenge this assertion.

Would cause implied repeal of just about everything, no?

[Chrimigules]

Further, what's the point of having laws in the Lawbook that say that the Landsraad can do x? If the Lansdraad has the authority to make a law authorising someone to do x, they certainly have the authority to do x in the first place. Making a law that the Kaiser can do x seems even stranger.

We had the same sort of realization in Antica, so we never really put that into the latest constitution, causing some to argue that the Assembly really doesn't have those powers after all... So it's probably a good idea to just list them out anyway, just in case.

[Kaiser Loki III]

Well, if Foghorn wants to be Supreme Ruler of Shireroth, he needs to ditch (some) citizenships and be very, very nice to the Kaiser......
***********

As far as the MCS-thing goes, a lot of that was do to my mucking about with vaguely implied authority.
**********

BTW, when is a Duke going to introduce the MCS limitation bill into the Landsraad? Mike wrote it and got paid for it, and nothing has happened.

Of course I Could decree it, but this needs to be debated at length, and I'm running low on pages in my Decree Pad.

[Ari Rahikkala]

I would prefer to see the text of the bill first

[Kaiser Loki III]

Mike?

[Malliki]

Where do you want the text? I imagined that you would pass it on, but I can post it in the Front Gate if you want me to.

[Kaiser Loki III]

works for me....

[Erik Mortis]

I think some are also forgetting the Charter is above the Kaiser at this time.

[Kaiser Loki III]

Unless he makes a new one.

(Disclaimer - No plans for that at this time.)

[Malliki]

Ari said something about duchies and a unanimous vote in the Landsraad. Many countries have provisions for supermajority, and the Landsraad may amend this provision at any time by a simple majority, so I see no problem there.

[Erik Mortis]

The Kaiser cannot make a new one. It prohibits the complete replacement of itself. It may however be Amended with Praetor approval. And the Kaiser cannot be the Praetor (After Bill fucked us over by doing that). If there is no Praetor the Kaiser cannot get approval. The Kaiser cannot appoint the Praetor, whom is elected by the Landsraad. In the end a new/revised (sane) charter depends on a competent Praetor to know what he's doing with approving an amendment.

I was quite thorough when I wrote this last charter.

[Kaiser Loki III]

Checks and balances, backed by the unspoken ability of the Nobles and the People to make life difficult.

Are we evolving toward a Constitutional Monarchy? If so, is that a good thing?

[Ari Rahikkala]

Well... I think we're actually really more of a constitutional monarchy than an absolute monarchy already. Granted, when there are no protections on noble positions (so the Kaiser could always kick everyone but himself out of the Landsraad and vote in a papel as the Praetor - not that anyone we allow to be Kaiser would lower himself to that!), and no limits on the Kaiser's power aside that he can't appoint or be the Praetor or change the limits on his power, it's not really that much of a limited monarchy. Still, it's the Charter that's the source of all power in Shireroth, not the Kaiser, so I'll call it a constitutional monarchy.

[Kaiser Loki III]

Is this a good thing?

I think so. Any Kaiser trying the shennanigans above with any seriousness would most likely find himself skewered on the sword of Mahamatot III or Raynor XVI. And rightly so.

[Jonas]

Sword of Mahamantot III?

[Kaiser Loki III]

Metaphorical-hypothetical, of course!

[Erik Mortis]

The charter originally got its power from the Kaiser, then I switched the role when I started to be Kaiser less/not always, and knew that I would not always be around to keep things in line. After Aure it became VERY clear I needed to reign in the Kaisership for the future. With the botches of people like Bill holding the Kaisership and the Praetorship, I realized I had to make major jobs mutually exclusive.

The Kaiser can still rule absolutely. He could dismiss the Landsraad and appoint no Arbiter or Steward. And as long as the populace didn't overthrow him, he would be absolute. And in theory if the praetor was an idiot, the Kaiser could remove that part of the charter requiring the Praetor, with approval.

However, upon the death of the Kaiser, with the current charter, the landsraad automatically comes to session once again, to deal with if there is no heir, and so they can appoint a Steward if they need to.

I built systems upon systems.

[Jonas]

And in theory if the praetor was an idiot, the Kaiser could remove that part of the charter requiring the Praetor, with approval.

I'm not an idiot, but it sounds like a good idea...

[Erik Mortis]

It's a BAD idea.

[Ari Rahikkala]

Hey, all that's going on is that the highest officer of the only semi-representational legislative body in the nation is a monarchist. Quite a natural situation for Shireroth, really, but hopefully not one that any future Kaisers that Jonas will serve under will abuse .