Changes to the Monarchy

[lashrash]

Article I. The Monarchy
Section 1.01 Definition
(a) The monarchy will consist of the Reigning monarch (King or Queen), and all the members of the Royal Family.
(b) The Reigning Monarch will be the official head of state for the United Kingdom of Luthoria. He or she will serve in that function at home and abroad, and will serve a life term, unless they decide to step down
(i) Should the Reigning Monarch step down, then the succession shall proceed as follows
1) Queen-if the Reigning Monarch is a King and is married
2) Crown Prince/Princess
3) Duke/Duchess- by number of posts
4) Baron/Baroness- by number of posts
5) Lord/ Lady- by number of posts
(c) The Reigning Monarch may also be removed from office by ¾ majority vote of the ENITRE population of the United Kingdom of Luthoria. Such a vote will require a majority of the Ministry of State to approve of it, and will be ran by the Minister of State.
Section 1.02 Powers of the Reigning Monarch
(a) The Reigning Monarch will be the overseer of the Royal Ministry of State, which the Monarch will have the power of veto over. (This can be overturned by a vote of the majority of the members of the Royal Ministry of State).
(b) The Reigning Monarch will have the power of veto over the Grand Parliament, when it is in session (This veto can be overturned by a majority of the elected members of the Grand Parliament)
(c) The Reigning Monarch will have the power to issue any decree on internal or external policies. Such decrees, however, can be vetoed by a majority of the members of the Ministry of State, with the approval of the Minister of State.
(d) The Reigning Monarch, with the permission of the Grand Parliament, may declare war.
(e) For a treaty to go into affect between the United Kingdom of Luthoria and any other nation/ entity, the Reigning Monarch, and the Minister of State, must approve of it.
(f) The Reigning Monarch will serve as State Electoral Commissioner during ALL elections, and will not be allowed to vote, or be able to show favor or preference to any candidate in any election.

I like most of this, but I do believe that the last part would be a violation of the same document that it comes from.

(f) The Reigning Monarch will serve as State Electoral Commissioner during ALL elections, and will not be allowed to vote, or be able to show favor or preference to any candidate in any election.

In my humble opinion, this would be a violation of a persons freedom to expression and opinion. I do not think that we should be able to limit a persons opinion, thoughts, speech or any other form of expression. Therefore I motion that we change it to read:

(f) The Reigning Monarch will serve as State Electoral Commissioner during ALL elections, and will not be allowed to vote.

[Kilikopela]

Well if you are going to allow them to show preference then they should also be allowed to vote.

[lashrash]

I would almost agree with you, but after thinking about it, I don't think they should be able to vote, they can endorse, promote, an candidate they want, but not vote for them.

You should not be allowed to participate in an election, by running or voting, when you are in charge of conducting it.

[lashrash]

I am also looking into the possibility of making the "Monarch" position an elected one. Lifetime seats in an online game is unfair, so they should have the longest appointment, but not a lifetime.

[Kilikopela]

I would almost agree with that. To the other point, if they can endorse a candidate and possibly influence votes for that person then isn't it about the same as them actually voting for them, in a de-facto kind of way?

[Mo'i Kakali]

Here is my two cents:

I don't care whether the monarchy can vote or make support for a candidate. Personally, although I see Mr. Clark's point, I like the way things are right now. I think that the Monarch should be the "Solid Rock" on which Luthoria is sort of built on. A steady, unchanging figure, that all sides can rally around.
That being said, I must say that having the monarch elected defeats the purpose of having a monarch. It doesn't help the whole "solid rock' image if you chagne monarchs every so often.

[Kilikopela]

I agree with what the King said.

[lashrash]

I do as well, but for a person to have a permanent seat of power in an online game is ridiculous.

I personally would rather have no Monarchy and keep the rest, it makes a whole lot more sense.

[Mo'i Kakali]

To remove the monarchy all together would completly destroy all that we've currently established. We would even have to change the name of this nation, for if we don't have a King, then how could we be a kingdom.
We would have to completely rewrite the constitution, acctually we'd probably have to write a new one. The caos of removing the monarchy would be, in my opinion, disasterous and deadly for this nation.

[lashrash]

To answer Kilikopela:

I know that with this change the king can sway people to vote at anytime. He could still do it with the current. We are all involved, on different levels, macronationally. There is IM, PM, e-mail, all outside of the forum, AND all unusable in evidence to the contrary. When it comes right down to it, it is a matter of choice. There is nothing the King can do to guarantee anything to anyone, in the end there is the person. Do they have the ability, to use their sovereign right, or will they be tramped under the feet of inability?

[lashrash]

To answer the King:

This..... is an online game, we are not held in the principalities and boundaries of our world. We are given free flight, to grow, to roam, and expand beyond this limited thinking. Beyond the two dimensional box we keep ourselves in.

We must learn not to mimic our world, but to change it in order to form a more perfect union. This joining is not unlike the marriages that we have today, but so few last. Why? The union is perfect at first, then the newness and the excitement wears thin and the true vision is exposed. Nothing is perfect. When we begin to see this, the labor becomes too much and we buckle under the pressure. So few know that lasting through the pressure, will make you stronger than you were before. You have to find common ground, in peace, for a union to last.

I am not advocating for the release of the monarchy, not yet. I am still grasping how this government will operate, and I am giving it a fair shot, I just don't feel that its right, good, or acceptable, that it be only one person who has the seat. One or two years terms I can see but a life time? This thinking could still be from the part of me that is still in the box.

I ask only that it is considered that the King be allowed to voice his opinion all the time, just like the rest of us. I am only trying to guarantee him his right to free speech.

[Rodhlann Pierce]

Well I have a question for Mr. Clark. Why didn't you oppose this when I made this suggestion at the Constitutional Convention? That is what the Constitutional Convention was there for.

[lashrash]

I was on your side, and voted in your favor, we were just over ruled. I am trying to fix it now, just be patient.

[Rodhlann Pierce]

Ummm...thats a nice gesture and all, but I was the one that put the change in the Constitution to have the "clause" so to speak that you are trying to get rid of. In other words I am on the other side of this issue.

{This is the modification.}
Plus it can't be against the document it is on if it is part of the document. It is commonly called an exception to the rule. In other words a clause that allows for there to be some sort of contradiction in a document such as we have now. It does not if you notice stop them from being ecstatic if the person they want to win wins it just stops them from influencing the election toward the candidate they want to hold the position.

[lashrash]

OK then I apologise, I must be thinking of one of the other billion issues that you brought up.

I have always been against this issue, rather it is an exception of the rule or not, it violates the document. The king or Queen should be able to speak about whoever, whatever, whenever they want.

[Rodhlann Pierce]

Well you know I had a free day that day.

While I understand your reasons behind your position, if I didn't I wouldn't really have any ground to stand on, I must say that if it is in the document it CAN NOT violate the document.

*If you couldn't tell emphasis on can not.

[lashrash]

That is just not true, all it means is that we missed it, or that who ever wrote it was wrong in the first place and that we did not catch it in time. For that I am sorry.

The idea that a document is perfect is ludicrous. Rather than arguing about this here, lets wait for parliament to get up and running, then we can take it to the floor.

[Kilikopela]

I don't have a problem with the Monarchy being able to support people, but I don't see the difference if the Monarcy can vote. They are still a citizen of the nation and therefore not letting them vote would be a violation of their rights.

[lashrash]

They run the votes, that is a conflict of interest, not a violation.

[Kilikopela]

Exactly, they run the votes. They could easily say that some votes were invalid and give the election to someone who doesn't deserve it. That could happen if the Monarchy were allowed to show support. I think we keep it the same.