Organic Law (history): Difference between revisions
| (15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{main|Organic Law}}{{ | {{main|Organic Law}}{{Scribery}}{{working}} | ||
==2017 Reform Proposal of the Committee for Organic and Statutory Reform== | ==2017 Reform Proposal of the Committee for Organic and Statutory Reform== | ||
The [[Committee for Organic and Statutory Reform]] was a body tasked with amending the Organic Law that assembled during the [[50th Cosa|50th {{cos}}]]. The Committee produced the so-called '''2017 Organic Law Reform Proposal''' consisting of 13 articles which remained dormant for two years before being taken up under the [[#2019 Still Into This Amendment|Still Into This Amendment]]. | The [[Committee for Organic and Statutory Reform]] was a body tasked with amending the Organic Law that assembled during the [[50th Cosa|50th {{cos}}]]. The Committee produced the so-called '''2017 Organic Law Reform Proposal''' consisting of 13 articles which remained dormant for two years before being taken up under the [[#2019 Still Into This Amendment|Still Into This Amendment]]. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
In the meantime, three rivalling proposals were floated around: | In the meantime, three rivalling proposals were floated around: | ||
* an alternative wholesale rewrite by [[Viteu Marcianüs]] based on the Australian constitution, which wasn't voted on; | * an alternative wholesale rewrite by [[Viteu Marcianüs]] based on the Australian constitution, which wasn't voted on; | ||
* a more "softer" Mega-Amendment by the [[Alexandreu Davinescu]], which was only supported by his own party ([[RUMP]]); | * a more "softer" [[52RZ16|Mega-Amendment]] by the [[Alexandreu Davinescu]], which was only supported by his own party ([[RUMP]]); | ||
* and the [[52RZ19|2019 Organic Law Reform Proposal]], a more ambitious proposal by the [[First Plätschisch Cabinet]]. | * and the [[52RZ19|2019 Organic Law Reform Proposal]], a more ambitious proposal by the [[First Plätschisch Cabinet]]. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
===Voting the Still Into This Amendment=== | ===Voting the Still Into This Amendment=== | ||
[[53RZ14]] was passed by the Ziu with large majorities in both Houses ({{cos}} 129-10, {{sen}} 5-2), but | [[53RZ14]] was passed by the Ziu with large majorities in both Houses ({{cos}} 129-10, {{sen}} 5-2), but was vetoed by the King<ref>https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13470/53rd-cosa-clark-june-results?page=1#post-165225</ref>; the veto was then overridden with [[53RZ18]] ({{cos}} 129-20, {{sen}} 6-1). In both stages, the amendment was opposed by the RUMP (with certain members abstaining instead) and supported by the other parties. | ||
===Voting and the Ain't it Fun Act=== | ===Voting and the Ain't it Fun Act=== | ||
The amendment's proponents were criticised for not having published the necessary changes they wished to make to the [[Lexhatx]] before the amendment was moved for a vote, and for not having given any timescale on when exactly such an ancillary bill would be presented and voted on. The amendment generically mentioned that there would be a year of time during which the Lexhatx could be amended before the new Organic Law took effect. | The amendment's proponents were criticised for not having published the necessary changes they wished to make to the [[Lexhatx]] before the amendment was moved for a vote, and for not having given any timescale on when exactly such an ancillary bill would be presented and voted on. The amendment generically mentioned that there would be a year of time during which the Lexhatx could be amended before the new Organic Law took effect. | ||
However, discussions between the Government and the confidence and supply partners led to the work on the ancillary bill, dubbed the '''Ain't it Fun Act''' ("AIFA"), beginning early in July. [[53RZ22]] was thus passed ({{cos}} 136-48, {{sen | However, discussions between the Government and the confidence and supply partners led to the work on the ancillary bill, dubbed the '''Ain't it Fun Act''' ("AIFA"), beginning early in July. [[53RZ22]] was thus passed ({{cos}} 136-48, {{sen}} 7-1) just one month after the veto on the main amendment was overturned, with the RUMP again opposing the bill save for the lone switch of Senator [[Cresti Siervicül]]. The King again did not sign the bill, but allowed it to become law<ref>https://talossa.proboards.com/post/166531/thread</ref>. | ||
===Referendum=== | ===Referendum=== | ||
SITA was then subject to a referendum. Prime Minister [[Miestrâ Schivâ]] initially ordered the [[Chancery]] to hold a midterm vote right after another planned referendum, the | SITA was then subject to a referendum. Prime Minister [[Miestrâ Schivâ]] initially ordered the [[Chancery]] to hold a midterm vote right after [[September 2019 Midterm Referendum|another planned referendum]]. However, the Referendum on the merger between [[Florencia]] and [[Fiova]] was delayed by a re-vote in the assemblies of both provinces and a lawsuit, which meant the referendum for SITA would have to take place alongside the [[December 2019 General Election|General Elections for the 54th {{cos}}.]] | ||
The | The Referendum passed with 56 votes in favour and 17 against, a large margin of 78%, with 17 abstentions. | ||
===Coming into force=== | ===Coming into force=== | ||
SITA finally took effect on the 1st of March {{year|2020}} when [[54RZ12]] came into force (The King again did not sign the bill, but allowed it to become law | SITA finally took effect on the 1st of March {{year|2020}} when [[54RZ12]] came into force (The King again did not sign the bill, but allowed it to become law.) | ||
[[Category: | ==2023 Review of the text== | ||
During the month of March {{year|2023}} the Scribery carried out a revision of the text from 53RZ18 to ensure that the coordinated text was up-to-date and in line with all the changes required over the years by the various amendments passed. The result of the revision and the list of changes made can be found [https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2251.msg18479#msg18479 here]. The text ''[[Special:Permalink/29104|before]] ''and'' [[Special:Permalink/31662|after]] ''the revision. | |||
==See also== | |||
*[[Organic Law (text)|The text of the Organic Law]] | |||
*[[Organic Law (historical texts)|The historical texts of the Organic Law]] | |||
==References== | |||
<references /> | |||
[[Category:Law]][[Category:Organic Law]] | |||
[[Category:History]] | |||
Latest revision as of 08:38, 23 April 2023
- See our main article on this subject at Organic Law.
- See our main article on this subject at Organic Law.
| This page is a WORK IN PROGRESS |
| It will be changing soon and is not yet accurate! |
| Don't rely on it! |
2017 Reform Proposal of the Committee for Organic and Statutory Reform
The Committee for Organic and Statutory Reform was a body tasked with amending the Organic Law that assembled during the 50th Cosă. The Committee produced the so-called 2017 Organic Law Reform Proposal consisting of 13 articles which remained dormant for two years before being taken up under the Still Into This Amendment.
In the meantime, three rivalling proposals were floated around:
- an alternative wholesale rewrite by Viteu Marcianüs based on the Australian constitution, which wasn't voted on;
- a more "softer" Mega-Amendment by the Alexandreu Davinescu, which was only supported by his own party (RUMP);
- and the 2019 Organic Law Reform Proposal, a more ambitious proposal by the First Plätschisch Cabinet.
2019 Reform Proposal of the First Plätschisch Cabinet
The 2019 Organic Law Reform Proposal was an ambitious in-house reform proposal by the First Plätschisch Cabinet which passed the Cosă but didn't get the required Senäts supermajority during the 52nd Cosă.
2019 Still Into This Amendment
After the failure of 52RZ19, the 2017 proposal by the Committee for Organic and Statutory Reform was finally taken up by the Ziu in the 53rd Cosă. Ian Plätschisch, an original member of the Committee, resubmitted the proposal as the Still Into This Amendment ("SITA") with the additional input of Lüc da Schir and Glüc da Dhi, both of whom weren't in the original committee. Plätschisch claimed that the 52RZ19 didn't get the necessary opposition support because
- it made substantive changes to the substance of the Organic Law; and
- no list of changes was ever published.
The 2017 Organic Law was an already complete draft that defeated both those points.
In respect to the Committee version, some changes were made:
- Article XIII, mostly consisting of provisions for a new Organic Law, was removed since the new proposal was an amendment;
- The Ziu may establish lower courts, instead of the Cosa alone;
- The Ziu may regulate what happens in the event the King fails to perform a duty;
- Clarifications on elections to the Senate and the Seneschal's power to dissolve the Cosa;
- Changed procedure when the Senate does not approve the budget;
- Abstentions are allowed on VoCs;
- MZs do not have to vote on every bill;
- Dandelions will register with SoS instead of MinImm;
- Senate and Cosa may officially administer themselves as they see fit.
Voting the Still Into This Amendment
53RZ14 was passed by the Ziu with large majorities in both Houses (Cosă 129-10, Senäts 5-2), but was vetoed by the King[1]; the veto was then overridden with 53RZ18 (Cosă 129-20, Senäts 6-1). In both stages, the amendment was opposed by the RUMP (with certain members abstaining instead) and supported by the other parties.
Voting and the Ain't it Fun Act
The amendment's proponents were criticised for not having published the necessary changes they wished to make to the Lexhatx before the amendment was moved for a vote, and for not having given any timescale on when exactly such an ancillary bill would be presented and voted on. The amendment generically mentioned that there would be a year of time during which the Lexhatx could be amended before the new Organic Law took effect.
However, discussions between the Government and the confidence and supply partners led to the work on the ancillary bill, dubbed the Ain't it Fun Act ("AIFA"), beginning early in July. 53RZ22 was thus passed (Cosă 136-48, Senäts 7-1) just one month after the veto on the main amendment was overturned, with the RUMP again opposing the bill save for the lone switch of Senator Cresti Siervicül. The King again did not sign the bill, but allowed it to become law[2].
Referendum
SITA was then subject to a referendum. Prime Minister Miestrâ Schivâ initially ordered the Chancery to hold a midterm vote right after another planned referendum. However, the Referendum on the merger between Florencia and Fiova was delayed by a re-vote in the assemblies of both provinces and a lawsuit, which meant the referendum for SITA would have to take place alongside the General Elections for the 54th Cosă.
The Referendum passed with 56 votes in favour and 17 against, a large margin of 78%, with 17 abstentions.
Coming into force
SITA finally took effect on the 1st of March 2020/XLI when 54RZ12 came into force (The King again did not sign the bill, but allowed it to become law.)
2023 Review of the text
During the month of March 2023/XLIV the Scribery carried out a revision of the text from 53RZ18 to ensure that the coordinated text was up-to-date and in line with all the changes required over the years by the various amendments passed. The result of the revision and the list of changes made can be found here. The text before and after the revision.