IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF PRIOR PONDERANCE
Writ authored in whole by Chancellor Smallfries, joined by High Chancellor Juniperfig.
Writfeasor Ameslap submitted this Entreaty of Prior Ponderance regarding the Constitutional power, duty, and responsibility granted to the Monarch by the Constitution's language on Royal Assent. In three questions, we answer.
I. Can the Monarch withhold consent?
The Monarch is an apolitical and ceremonial figure whose powers and responsibilities are heavily restricted. K. A. Const. § 4 Art. 18. The Monarch is granted a small grab-bag of powers, duties, and responsibilities, which are to be exercised upon the "reasonable advice of the government of the day." Id. at Art. 19. This advice may only be disregarded or delayed under "exceptional circumstances," so long as this action conforms with Constitutional and legal principles. Id. Of these listed powers is the responsibility of Royal Assent. Id. at Art. 19(2). The Constitution charges the Monarch with "Granting royal assent to bills passed by Parliament, allowing them to become law." Id.
The wording of the provision is important: "Granting Royal Assent" is a responsibility, and so it is something that generally the Monarch should do. However, they are not mandated to do so in every case. This seems to be a clear choice from the framers, especially when we look at other provisions within this same section. Article nineteen, sub-section seven, says the Monarch "must" not exert influence. Sub-section six says that the Monarch may dissolve Parliament "on the advice of the Prime Minister." These are explicit conditions or alterations in the text. Sub-section two has an alteration as well: "allowing."
This does not put a limit on the Monarch's ability to grant or withhold Royal Assent, but it does limit when a bill passed by Parliament becomes law. All bills are blocked from becoming laws until the Monarch grants Royal Assent, and Parliament has no way around this. Further, the opening text of article nineteen clearly allows for the Monarch to refuse or delay any actions listed, including Royal Assent. This is a check on Parliament's power, lest they declare themselves sovereign and usurp the power of other branches, acting as tyrants.
It does not matter that the Constitution does not explicitly grant the Monarch the power to refuse assent. It is obviously implied through the language. To deny this is to adhere to a nonsensical understanding of government and the human language. People do not always mean only what they say, and it is illogical and harmful to adhere to a strict, mechanical, and universal focus solely on black-letter law. Here, not saying the Monarch must or will give Royal Assent when that language is used elsewhere necessarily implies that the Monarch does not have to grant Assent in all cases. They should do so generally, and are only allowed to refuse or delay when "exceptional circumstances" arise. This is the plain text of the Constitution.
II. When can the Monarch refuse or delay Assent?
The Constitution clearly says the Monarch may only act against advice given to them in "exceptional circumstances." Id. at § 19. The entity that gives the Monarch this advice is the Government. Id.
The Government is the elected Cabinet of Alexandria, headed by the Prime Minister. In effect, the Prime Minister is the Government, accompanied by their Ministers. Read this way, the Monarch may only act when they are given advice by the Prime Minister—and then they may act against that advice only in "exceptional circumstances." In effect, when a Prime Minister tells the King to give Assent to a passed bill, the King must generally oblige, and cannot refuse or delay unless "exceptional circumstances" dictate otherwise. The same is true for when the Prime Minister tells the king to not grant assent to a bill. In essence, the Monarch must obey the Prime Minister, and generally can only act upon their advice.
However, in "exceptional" moments the Monarch may break from the official line of the Prime Minister. They may sign or not sign as they believe necessary, or act in any Constitutional and legal way as they believe proper, so long as the circumstances surrounding this exercise of free will are indeed "exceptional."
Exceptional generally means "not normal." This word is not elaborated upon in the Constitution, and attempting to tack any specific definition or range of actions to it at this time would be folly. Their may be very real moments when the Monarch may need to exercise the limited power granted to them to protect the common good of the Kingdom or to protect against tyranny. Therefore, we believe it prudent to instead adopt a "reasonable person's" approach, and over time whittle down what is unreasonable as opposed to definitively stating an exclusive list of what is reasonable at this time.
III. Is there a timer for when the Monarch must make a choice as to assenting or not?
There is not. As discussed above, the Monarch may refuse or delay actions advised by the Prime Minister in specific circumstances. Saying that the Monarch may only refuse actions for a short period (a week, perhaps) before they must capitulate and do as the Prime Minister says would eliminate the ability to "refuse" advice. The permanent and final nature of the word "refuse" weighs here, and we do not seek to make the word redundant by equating it to "delay." That Monarch is not a bratty child that is afforded a brief tantrum before they must follow what the Prime Minister demands. This is the plain text of the Constitution.
Therefore, there is no time limit for when the King must grant Assent on a bill, or refuse to do so. He may maintain his actions as long as he wishes—though only if these delays are brought about by exceptional reasons.
What, then, is the limit for when a Monarch has begun to "delay" granting Assent, or otherwise acting in the advice of the Prime Minister? We cannot say definitively. Perhaps the answer lies with how long it would reasonably take to complete the actions advised, or no more than two or three days, or a week. Perhaps the limit for a "delay" may be any length of time, be it a day or a month—even for the same action—depending on the reason for why the Monarch has not acted as advised. Not signing a bill today because the Monarch is on vacation is far different than because he doesn't like the bill as it is right now, and wants it to be pulled and re-written.
-=-
In closing, we find that the Monarch may delay or refuse to go through with any action (including granting Royal Assent) as advised by the Prime Minister so long as there is an exceptional circumstance to back up this delay or refusal. There is no time limit for when the Monarch has to relent, as that would remove the ability to refuse to do as acted—though there is surely a line between reasonable wait and intentional delay, though we deny to specifically nail that (or what exactly "exceptional" means) at this moment.
