Speaking to the King or Queen while they bear their Royal Regalia State of chaos EC declaration, court judgement. Rod and Ring Scepters --------------------------------------------------------------------- _3.1.c-1.8.3 Speaking to the King No person speaks to the King bearing Insignia, without the permission of the King. No person denies the King bearing insignia, its rightful immediate access. Whomsoever insults the King in either of these two ways, has attacked the Nation. Such as who get in the way of the pleasure of the King, are thrown in jail on tasteless food and water for one month. It has been a custom in the past (I'net), that when a Monarch would allow someone to speak, he would give that person his scepter to hold while speaking. That is a cute and clear protocol. The rod or scepter has the shape of a stick, a stick is also a weapon. At the same time it can be a lot of other things. It can also be seen as an extension of a helping hand. Say one person is in a pit and the other on the edge, but they just can't touch to pull out. A stick bridges the gap. It may help, if this old custom is revived for the sake of discipline and honor to rule in the nation, not to go back to using a scepter because this might be associated too closely with the absolutism of past Monarchs. Once the King or Queen has a scepter, will then the absolute power follow in due course ? Perhaps it will work better to use not a stick, but a ring. A round circle. For example with an inner diameter of 9 cm and a thickness of some 12.5 mm (which is such a kind of circle made from wood I'm looking at here right now - picked up from a store - which seems to be a good handy size for such). The King or Queen could have quite a few of these rings, and give them to people the King or Queen wants to give speaking power to at that time. For example during an inspection some of the top commanders can be given such a ring to be allowed to talk to the King or Queen unannounced and unasked (at the pleasure of the King or Queen). The ring stands for democracy, for caring, for wholeness of the nation. The ring is also an method to pull someone out of a pit, it works easier then a stick provided it does not break and is large enough. * How it could work The scepter can, for example, be used during times of King or Queen rule. Then the ring could be exchanged for a scepter. Because the nation is to be a nation of Law and honor, it may be useful to entrust the scepter at the high law Court of the nation, where it can be guarded by the highest judges. Then when the King is ruling over the elected Government (if any, because indeed they would be in "chaos"), it would be clear to anyone by seeing whether the King or Queen is associated with a scepter or a ring. This may be helpful, because it is quite a different situation. People who meet the King or Queen (bearing Regalia) may be startled and wonder in what function the King or Queen is at the moment (doubting whether they would have missed any latest developments of such status.) By seeing either a scepter or a ring, they would find reassurance. If it is a ring, they know the King or Queen is Head of State, and if they see armband Regalia, they know the King or Queen is also Sovereign Inspector. But that the King or Queen does not wield general Government decision power. If the scepter is located at the highest court, the law court, the procedure to procure the scepter from that court comprises a ritual that would signify the agreement of the law court to the King or Queen assuming that power. _1.4.a King Rule The Electoral Committee declares a state of chaos when the Country is in Chaos, at which time the King takes over the Government and the making of non-Constitutional Law. The Electoral Committee can end the state of chaos at any time. The state of chaos lasts not longer then one year and one day, after which there is one month of normal Governmental rule. One month after the end of the state of chaos, new elections for the Electoral Committee are being held, unless the condition of Article 1.4.a-2, King Rule, Stability, has been met. See Article 3.1.c-1, Electoral Committee. See Article 3.1.c-1.8, King Elect. Another sign of King Rule is the flying of a golden (or yellow) banner on all Constitutional flags owned by the Government. The King or Queen can not do that by his or her own hand either (hardly). The elected Governments can do it, and the police forces or military forces can enforce it; the people can also enforce it. Thus the loyalty to the situation of King or Queen rule over elected Government is being established by varies directions, from the high court (legal), to the governments, police, military and/or people (practical, the land), and by the King or Queen his/herself using the placement on the throne (center, see elsewhere) and carrying a scepter rather then a ring. I suppose these scepter(s) or ring(s) could be made with beautiful materials and designs (or not). It seems a good idea to make it nice. It is after all the nation, its order and honor, and an entire branch and function of Government represented there. By making it beautiful, it can inspire more respect for the nation then using an old rubber band that has worn out, or a plain wooden ring. A ring says "the whole," "the group," "the nation." The ring can be taken as representing the border of the nation, and looking through the ring is looking at all therein. It says "all." It says "solidarity." The Monarch looks at the hoop to care for the whole and see who needs help or who is crushed, to signal the problem and have it redressed, which is the normal procedures. A rod can be used for pointing at something particular, or to hit something particular, an individual thing. Thus the rod is also a symbol for anger on the part of the Monarch that the Government has not managed its stability and good works. The Monarch picks up the rod, the scepter, and uses it like a sheppard pushes the flock around, sometimes by gentle strokes and pushing or tapping on the rock, and sometimes by lashing and beating the wolves if needed, by blood and by rage, to save it from its own chaos. Like a weapon against chaos, disorder and suffering because the Government is not performing. The Monarch goes inside the hoop with the scepter in hand, alone, with great courage and determination, to root out and crush chaos, to restore peace and justice. If the Monarch does well, it is likely to be rewarded by maintaining the Kingship after the year is over by winning the new elections. In the final month of King Rule, it would be nice if the King or Queen returns the scepter to the high court, thus signalling that the King or Queen is willingly following the procedures of the Constitution. If the King or Queen persists with the scepter in the last stretch, this may signal illegal behavior and a preparation for revolution on the part of the people and Government, or (preferred) to detain the Monarch. The high law court should go to the Monarch and request the scepter. If the scepter is not returned to the high court, then the Monarch is acting illegally and is dethroned by force, its Regalia taken by force and the throne barred from the King or Queen. Since the Electoral Committee declares King Rule, it follows that after a proper declaration of King Rule, the Electoral Committee proceeds to physically travel to the High law court to receive the scepter. If it is given, by the grand chamber of the high law court, who need to assemble for the occasion (and vote, ruling by majority), then all is well. The Electoral Committee receives the scepter, say one of the King Rule voting members receives the scepter from one of the King Rule voting law court judges, and gives it to the King or Queen. Then all has gone well. If the high law court is unwilling to provide the scepter, the condition of "chaos of Government" has been rejected by the high law court. Since law is above all, there is no more recourse. There is no King Rule. Then the Electoral Committee has acted beyond its power, because it has to follow the requirement "chaos," and it is for the high law court to determine whether that requirement has been met. At that point, then, it is as if nothing has happened. This method of creeping into King Rule is useful, because it prevents a too sudden extreme shift under unexpected circumstances. Also, if the EC is unsure, but want to do what's right, the high law court can still step in and say "let's wait some more to see if we can resolve this." The requirement "chaos" can also function the other way around: the EC has the obligation to declare "state of chaos" when such chaos exists, since the proposed law says "they declare..." If the high law court then decide that the condition has been met, they could signal that by voting and handing the scepter to the EC (but not the King or Queen). But, since the Constitution has put the EC in charge of this decision, and not the high law court, the EC has the liberty to either give the scepter to the King or Queen (after the proper vote and declaration of King Rule), or return the scepter to the high law court (in which case it is as if nothing had happened). If the scepter so goes back and forth without resulting in King Rule, the people in the nation know that they are on the brink of, and this may be enough to scare the representatives into order at times. It is also a way of communication between the branches of government, and to test the other branches their estimates and will. Thus, the scepter would become a symbol for 1.4.a King Rule. Like the golden/yellow banner on the Constitutional flag. * Timing & technology in the Rod scepter ... To make it amusing ... it may be amusing if a scepter has some sort of indication as to when the one year and one day have passed. This should easily be possible with modern technology. When it is thus pre-computed, there will not be arguments about the exact duration of month/year/day. I think all the above would be quite nice, wouldn't it ? * Details/options of "state of chaos" judgement and declaration It may be a useful ritual when the scepter goes from the high law court to the EC to the King or Queen, that the scepter is passed from hand to hand by all the judges who voted in favor of King Rule, then to all the EC members who voted for King Rule, and only then it is passed into the hand of the King or Queen. This to make it clear how power is owned. The King or Queen does not rise above the supreme law court, or the EC, but exercises power unless the EC or high law court step in and block that power from continuing. It is however true that this is not precisely how the law usually works: if the EC declares King Rule then it has been declared, no reason to ask the high court for agreement. If the law court disagrees, then they would need to rule on the case, but King Rule has been declared already. Hence you could then say: if the procedure of asking the high court for the scepter is being followed, then it is as if a case had been brought before that court, challenging the situation of "state of chaos." If it is a legal case, it requires protocol and procedure. But there may be no time for this, chaos gets worse with time. Therefore it would at least be an emergency case, to be decided very quickly. This may seem to conflict with that the case against chaos can not again be challenged, would that not be trying to try the same case twice. If only the ritual is performed, it is a case without specific evidence. Then the case can still be brought later before the court (during King Rule), provided some (other) evidence is being presented (which should be a trivial matter). Although the supreme law court may not normally deal with "evidence," it is declared competent in "sensitive" cases, which normally would handle laws (presumably). What is more sensitive in a nation then the declaration of emergency rule ? Having considered this problem: when a King or Queen is supposed to rule by direct force, this will be greatly impaired if there are doubts about the legal status of such power. Thus these doubts may cause the whole purpose of King or Queen rule to be undermined. People would bring cases before the courts and so on, trying to undermine the King or Queen power, and in real life resist that power. It may be they are right, or it may be they are wrong, but if they are wrong they undermine the nation, while if they are right there are new King or Queen elections in the next year anyway, and King Rule can still be ended later (half way through). Thus, it may be a good idea in this case, to potentially incriminate the supreme law court to a degree, by making it complicit of making the King or Queen have more symbols of such a powerful status. If the supreme law court engages in such as perhaps a-typical behavior/act, then the people may feel a greater sense of urgency to follow the new power (temporarily) for the sake of order. The courts are also the typical directors of the Police (who are there to enforce the judgement of the court after all), and in case of chaos the police may be needed to restore order. If the supreme law court already said yes to King Rule, then the chance to win a case in court seems more limited (although technically it is still possible, technically the supreme law court would need to decide against its own former ruling if that is what justice says). A benefit of this ritual with the scepter at the supreme court, is that the King or Queen and EC are merely a very few people. If they suddenly declare King or Queen Rule, it seems thin. If the supreme law court backs that up, it seems more respectful. * Procedurally: The constitution does not mention any scepter ritual, therefore this is all extra-legal; the constitution only mentions the flying of a golden banner as the sign of King or Queen rule. The EC decides. If it was wrong, it can be brought post fact to the courts, who can end it (and that could also in theory be done within a few hours, thus it might not end up that different from performing the scepter ritual). Thus, if the EC declares King Rule but intends to solidify that by retrieving the scepter, technically there is already King Rule right at the moment of declaration. If it is then rejected, that can mean new EC elections, because King Rule has ended at that point (in a speedy trial at the supreme law court). If it is done that way, the EC could make a statement saying: "either it is King Rule now, or we want new EC elections." That is a strong statement, because the penalty may be high (re-elections for the EC). The EC could also attempt to do it the other way around: establish an intend between them to declare King Rule, but not declare it yet. Travel to the supreme law court to retrieve the scepter. They could file for "it may be a state of chaos, give us the scepter, we are the EC." Since the scepter is not listed in the Constitution at all, and not listed as to who it is in ownership, the EC may not have a legal right to claim the scepter, so they need to be given it, implying leisure on the part of the supreme court to give it or not. (Thus it might be an interesting idea to put into law that the scepter is owned by the supreme law court.) If then the supreme law court decides that, "we rule that 'state of chaos' is being met" (which is a fact finding decision normally reserved for the lower courts, but this is extremely sensitive thus redirected to the grand chamber of the supreme law court (who only have one court)): then they give the EC as a sign the scepter. At that point the EC can safely declare King Rule and hand the scepter to the King or Queen. Then the supreme court is on board, even before it is declared. Thus, if the supreme law court disagrees to "chaos," nothing unintentional has happened, unless the EC declares King Rule anyway. At that point there is King Rule anyway. Perhaps in theory the King or Queen could physically retrieve the scepter, per the force of access (in practice) and/or the force of ruling for Government (legal). An interesting thing in all of this is that the Sovereign Inspector has immediate and complete access to the scepter at any and all times. (Although access does not imply ownership; the intent of access is information, not ownership or theft of valuable goods.) The Sovereign Inspector may very well choose to inspect the scepter, and that may not be a bad thing to do - why would that be bad, if the King or Queen wants to, it is his or her pleasure, that is enough. Taking it for rule, to add to authority, technically it has no legal standing. If the EC and supreme law court are thus at odds, the supreme law court could rule after that again that the declaration was illegal. If they do then King Rule is ended again, and EC elections are up, and the EC can no longer declare King Rule. If the EC goes ahead and declares King Rule after having been denied the scepter, they could again attempt to get the scepter, and in theory they could get it (the court overturns its own previous decision). But if they do not get it the second time, then they have engaged in a court case against "state of chaos," which was denied ("no chaos"), and then the condition of King Rule also ends. This would mean that a post fact judgement by the court that the "state of chaos" was illegal ("no chaos"), that still state of chaos and King Rule have legally occured (which is typically the condition in reality, as after declaration there is King Rule and whether the court later overturn it, it has still happened in practice). Thus after an "illegal state of chaos" there are also new EC elections. That's an outgrowth of the court judgeing post fact, and not as an agency that needs to approve a decision before it becomes lawful. Doing the scepter retrieval *before* declaring state of chaos by the EC, can therefore still be overturned by the supreme law court, because they still rule post fact. In natural terms "in the few seconds between getting the scepter and declaring state of chaos by the EC, a new situation has occured, the supreme law court may again judge that new situation post fact. Seeing it this way makes it more dangerous for the EC and King Elect to engage in declaring state of chaos, because if it is declared illegal ("no chaos") then there is still election for the EC ("there was 'state of chaos' officially, until it was declared illegal" so there was "a period of time of actual King Rule and state of chaos," and then there was a "period of time where King rule and state of chaos where judged illegal, and its effect would be overturned", so it still *did* happen.) According the law, the state of chaos once declared and not overturned at that moment by the supreme law court, lasts one year and can be ended by the EC at any moment. So that would mean that if there is declared chaos, and 1 month later there is no more chaos, then the state of chaos still persists until either the EC ends it, or until 1 year has passed (constitution). The supreme law court can only rule on the declaration, but not on future state of chaos, because the requirenment is on the declaration and not on all further moments during King Rule. The proposed constitution also says the EC can end it any moment, and does not include the supreme law court in that. This is a good thing I think, because once the King or Queen has established order, that order may be thin; thus there would be order, but it needs time to consolidate. If the King or Queen has effected that order, it is not a bad idea to let it consolidate under King Rule further. Thus, if the supreme law court gives its fiat to the "declaration of chaos" then it can no longer legally be overturned, only by the EC (or of course the people in Revolution, as per the first article.) The courts may still get cases against King Rule, but these would likely crash at the highest appeal, which after all is the supreme law court grand chamber, who have already ruled on the matter. It seems that these things could be a little confusing :). Summary: there is no such thing as a scepter in the constitution, but there is a "chaos" requirement, and there is the declaration power of the EC. If you take the scepter to be a symbol of the supreme law court (the grand chamber of *all* highest judges), then you get these possibilities that - The EC King Rule declaration occurs alone, without any ruling from the supreme court on whether there is or is no "chaos" (of the Government). The ruling can still be made later, and if declared illegal then the "state of chaos" would have been illegal and naturally ends at that moment; but it needs to refer to the moment of declaration (judged the declaration itself, not the persisting conditions in the nation). - the condition that the EC has declared King Rule, but a case is running against it in the courts (which is not very helpful in case there is real chaos, as it undermines power and causes more confusion) - the condition that the EC has declared King Rule, and the high court has ruled that there was no chaos (in that case King Rule ends, thus new EC elections are up), - the condition that the EC has declared King Rule, and the high court has agreed that there is chaos (which is very helpful to concentrate power and authority in the King or Queen, as the people see more high level people supporting it.) - the (contrived) condition that the EC is asking the supreme law court on a ruling of "chaos" without there having occurred any crime or issue to rule post fact upon; but this weird behavior of the supreme law court to judge a condition whether it is fit for King Rule per "chaos," judgement does carry the benefit that such King Rule is immediately more respectful, and that can be helpful when there is chaos. Thus it is strange for judges perhaps, to make a ruling without there being a past act, and it is current politics as well, but ... "it is an emergency." If chaos is not redressed, then there may not be a nation after some time, and no law court, no nothing, who knows ... Thus it seems defensible to do it that way. A key point in all of this is: what has the EC "declared." By asking for the scepter from the high court, they have not declared a state of chaos themselves, although they seem to get ready for it. They ask the supreme law court whether they think it is "chaos." I think this is not without merit, to do it this way, have these possibilities. * The rod scepter location On a practical note: where else would this scepter have to be kept ? At the King or Queen palace ? Is that not a bit too much power concentration ? At the EC, but the EC is just 10 persons, regular persons, where do they store/hide such an object ? The logical place then seems to be the highest court. The crown and throne is then with the King / Queen, the central council of the People is in the Country Council, who have their own symbols and chair person hammer, and the scepter is at the Judiciary. Actual guns are with the police. In this vein: all the Regalia, when not in use, may be stored with the supreme law court, including the Sovereign Inspector insignia, and the crown. Different then with the scepter, maybe these should be handled by a regular chamber (7 judges). That way a second case about elections or the King or Queen having done the obligations for Sovereign Inspector or not, could be brought either for a different 7 judge chamber, or for the grand chamber. Since King Rule is so extremely sensitive, I think it still best to let that be handled by the grand chamber immediately. It is too important an issue, the nation is basically sinking and needs urgent rescue. Also: to whom will the EC look for help on making the decision, the delegates who are in chaos already ? The courts of justice are typically involved with the issue of order and justice already, they seem a useful candidate; particularly the highest court. There is of course one place where the EC must always also look: the people, who can vote using flags and banners, which is the way the EC can attempt to judge public will. The law court can also look at that, although it does not have to. Maybe the EC also doesn't have to look, but the EC must take into account popular will if it wants to push premature elections. In the spirit of things, changing to King Rule is a form of re-election, restructuring of Government. And in that sense one might argue that the EC should take public will into account (3.1.c-1.3). The EC also has its own responsibility though. (It is not the task of the EC to run the Government, by the way; they are a cut/renew mechanism and therefore typically should be at a distance.) Strictly following the letter of the law, the EC declares King Rule and does not need approval from the supreme law court. The law does not say "the EC can declare King Rule how it sees fit," or leave it unspecified. There is a condition: "chaos". It has to be there, the judge over lawful condition falls into the courts in case of disagreement. Thus it is a web of influence. It may be a good idea for the EC to talk about these things long beforehand, so that they are ready. That is after all their task, hopefully it will never be needed. * Ring and rod scepters If the King or Queen is using multiple ring-scepters given to people as a sign they can talk to the King or Queen, during King Rule these could stay in use while the rod scepter would increase the symbols of authority for the King or Queen. (Scepters are not mentioned in the constitution. It is not determined how the King or Queen establishes who can or can't talk -- a word by the King or Queen would legally be enough. If the King or Queen says: "these can talk, all the time" then that is enough, no scepters needed. If the King or Queen says the scepters mean allowance to talk, then that's the rule because the King or Queen says so and until the King or Queen decides otherwise. If the King or Queen wants it to be generally clear who talks and who doesn't, scepters may help; it makes it clear to everyone thus adding to discipline. The King or Queen is taken to be a great strategic commander, which can be a task that requires thinking and observing quietly, and it may be hampered by people starting to yap about whatever comes to their mind. The King or Queen on its part may feel bad by cutting people off, thus this burden is shifted to custom and law. Thus preventing the King or Queen from being perceived as an unfriendly person by not accomodating all kind of small talk when busying itself with strategic command of a whole nation. The talking restriction is naturally more relevant during King Rule, when the burden on the King or Queen is much greater.) * King Rule: delegating power Note: the King or Queen has the necessary authority for certain tasks, the King or Queen can decide someone will perform a task or these tasks on its behalf until decided otherwise. In the case of Sovereign Inspector this requires certain Insignia to be worn by that person. In the case of King Rule over the nation, the King or Queen may very well decide to put into place a person, a council, or a system of persons or councils making all the decisions while the King or Queen remains in the background (judging it). Not every King or Queen is the same kind of person, some may do better through this and others through that method of rule. One should not demand during King Rule that the King or Queen resolves to decide just about everything personally. The point is that the King or Queen has the ultimate responsibility, how it functions from day to day is not determined. It is determined that the King will not alter the constitution, and in that it is a given that much of the nation remains operational. Government councils and so on are not disbanded, elections still occur, etc etc etc. The constitution is not changed and can not be changed by the King or Queen during King Rule (only per article 1, which requires strong majority public support) * King Rule: article 1, outmoding the constitution ? If the King or Queen wishes to re-install new systems and so on, going through article 1 is an option perhaps, but it seems highly doubtful. The King or Queen is not supposed to change the Constitution, it is not part of the authority. Removing the constitution is altering it. It must truly be a strong mass will by most people, originating from the people, and when following this documentation it should naturally lead to bringing out the women committee to see where the whole nation is to go. This should then lead to strong public mass involvement, real people debating and expressing their views, not some thin voting procedure (which may be manipulated). It should be noted I guess that once the constitution starts to be outmoded, so does the King or Queen its position become outmoded. When the constitution itself starts to shake, so does the King or Queen starts to shake. When the constitution is decided to be outmoded, then the King or Queen has lost its authority of being King or Queen. I strongly urge that in actual fact a point is being made, when the constitution is being outmoded during King Rule, that the then King or Queen is stepping down or forced to step down, and is not again put into any position of such power again, ever. The new choice for the nation may be better for her, but if it is any good it will most likely not be depending on a single King or Queen to rule with absolute power. Thus, by having the King or Queen remove itself and be removed from power when the constitution is being outmoded, the King or Queen has a harder time using article 1 to solidify a grip on power beyond the constitution. Note that the King or Queen could solidify a grip on power by issuing a constitution changing referendum during King Rule (legal), and then trying to be in a position of King Rule again 5 years later, in order to vote the delegates' votes when the referendum is to be held, considering the condition that the Government is to follow the King or Queen commands during King Rule (which means voting as ordered, effectively). This does seem quite far fetched, considering that King Rule should only last 1 year after which a month of regular rule by the people's Government. Even if constantly a new period of King Rule for the same King is declared without needing more EC elections because 1.4.a-2 "stability" has been met, after each year there is a month of regular people's government rule, who then have the opportunity to remove that constitution changing referendum proposal from the roll. Thus breaking the 5 years requirement on the Referendum. Maybe in the fifth year during King Rule the King may force the Referendum even if it was removed from the roll, in which case the change should fail in court (the King never rules the courts (directly)). Such a referendum proposal can only succeed for malevolent intent if the people either vote wrong or do not show up for the vote allowing the King to vote the delegates. If the people vote wrong, they have themselves to blame. If they don't show up for the vote they have themselves to blame also. But there may be an atmosphere of fear created, or the vote may be manipulated. It should be noted that every new year under a King who may be trying to solidify absolute power, there still should be a "declaration of state of chaos," a chaos which might be fomented by networks in league with such a King. At some point, if all the defense mechanisms against absolute malevolent power have failed, the obvious will have to be done by the people: revolution. Erecting a new government, battle the forces of darkness and win. (It is not a solution to do away with the mechanisms for King Rule, because chaos in the nation tends to yield criminal absolutism / anarchy (actual chaos, which is not fun). A King or Queen may very well be a good natured well meaning individual. After all, that's why it is an elected official, and it is all set up in such a way that most likely the self interest of the Monarch rests with the well being of the nation. The King or Queen is not something to be feared, it is (to be) an agent of the constitution.)