If he has to sign the laws though in order to allow them to be passed- doesn't that at least implicitly seem that his permission is needed in order for the law to be valid? That he should have some sort of veto power?
Not really.
I agree if it's what the people want then it should be something he should seriously consider- but then again laws passed by legislative bodies aren't always, in hindsight, right and proper... What comes to mind for me is slavery and segregation in the U.S.
I'm not saying the law is right. I have expressed no opinion about the law.
How can you say it's not about the sanctity of life? This bill is talking about lawfully killing people. I'd say that's a question of the value of life- whether life is worth continuing in the face of extreme disease or pain that isn't going to get better and whether a person hast he right to the choice to die.
The law is about the "sanctity of life," obviously, but the Grand Duke should not be considering that in his official role.
I deal with moral issues every day at work- this isn't simply a matter of the G.D. refusing to do a job. It's about the government asking him to put aside his moral values simply because they told him to.
Well, yes, the government did tell him to "put aside his moral values," as one of them appears to be that constitutional monarchs decide legislative courses of action. He should have said yes. His job and personal moral values are not supposed to intersect. Anyways, all he's done is delay the inevitable. They're going to do an end-run around him and everything will be the same, except a whole lot more work will have to have been done to get around his inability to properly do his job. He has accomplished absolutely nothing except a smug sense of self-satisfaction for making other people run around at his command.
I have had co-workers do the same as him for moral reasons, and as long as those moral reasons were for valid reasons- such as, IMO, the G.D.'s on euthanasia- the management never had a problem with it.
They have a different job. Using your personal opinion to affect job performance is acceptable in your job field. It is not in Henri's.
You can't make this about 'not doing his job' solely- because it's a question of morals. I would have done the same thing in his case.
I would oppose you being a constitutional monarch, then, as you would fail to do your job. You would, comparatively, make a better executive head of state, as you wish to use your moral values and personal life to make decisions affecting other people. Only those who can claim popular mandates should do that.
Just because the legislature passed it doesn't mean he has one valid choice- obviously he felt that refusing to sign the bill WAS a valid choice.
He felt wrong. He is now an executive monarch in a country that is not an executive monarchy. His poor grandmother must be rolling in her grave (she was forced to take on the role as a result of her sister's improper public dealings with the Germans and politics in general).
Forcing someone to 'just sign' a bill that they clearly disagree with is authoritarian IMO and clearly undemocratic.
No, it is not. That is how constitutional monarchies work. Constitutional monarchs do not have intersections of their private lives and public duty.
One of the big parts of democratic government is choice.
He had a choice in 2000 when he took the oath to become Grand Duke. He could have refused if he wanted to be a politician instead.
Forcing him to sign a bill, regardless of whether he agrees with it or not, removes that choice. They could do this just as easily with a rubber stamp and a robot as with a person.
In many ways, that is what constitutional monarchs are.
My point isn't that euthanasia is right or wrong. I haven't taken a standpoint on that because I feel it goes case by case.
My point is that this has absolutely nothing to do with euthanasia. Constitutional monarchs do not pass official judgment on the morality of bills. It is not done.
However, I do feel it is wrong to force the G.D. to simply sign whatever the legislature happens to shove under his nose simply because he was born into royalty.
Then you should advocate for a republic with an executive president.
If the G.D. isn't allowed to have an opinion on what he's signing the legislature shouldn't involve him in the first place. He should simply be circumvented.
That's the way it worked until the GD decided to change his role from a
pro forma one to an active one.
IMO- especially on divisive issues such as this you can't expect someone to take a neutral viewpoint in public especially when that viewpoint is a strong one.
I do. Maybe I'm just harsh.
What I am trying to say is that the legislature should find a way to deal with the situation- like the American presidential veto- that can circumvent the G.D. refusing to sign the law.
They shouldn't have to do that, though. I suppose they will, as having no need for rules is easier than making people follow them.
The president doesn't make laws either but that doesn't stop him, from what I've seen, from refusing to sign bills he disagreed with.
That is irrelevant to this case. The Grand Duke is not an executive head of state like the president. He should have advocated for constitutional change before he usurped power like he did.
The legislature either amended the laws until the president agreed or overrode the veto with a 2/3 vote.
That would be unacceptable in a constitutional monarchy unless all bills must receive a 2/3 vote. The Grand Duke should have no role in deciding how bills must be passed. His job is not to inflict his personal whims and fancies on others.