@taulover: It doesn't specify that it applies only to offices established by the Fundamental Laws because there were no other elected offices envisioned when the Fundamental Laws were drafted, so in 2013 it went without saying. Even Underhusen Speakers were appointed for the first few terms, and the idea of elected thanes was still years away.
Perhaps that was the original intent, I do not know. But that's not what the law actually says. The language is pretty clear. It says "any elected office," not "any elected office outlined in these Fundamental Laws."
I do find this line of thinking more and more strange the more I'm thinking about it, though. If the actual intent was for this to apply to Underhusen elections only, I suspect that the language would have been more specific, and referred to Underhusen elections and referendums only, whereas on several occasions the Fundamental Laws refer to "elections of government officials or referendums" and "any elected office." It seems to me that whoever wrote these sections used language in most cases that was more flexible, and which could be extended to any future government positions.
The restrictions placed into the Fundamental Laws make sense if they only apply to Underhusen elections, but not if they apply to all elections. It makes sense for the Monarch to be barred from standing for Underhusen, because they are represented by the Overhusen, but it doesn't make sense to bar the Monarch from any election. I couldn't even run for a social club office under that interpretation.
Again, the law just says that the Monarch cannot take any elected office, not that the Monarch cannot take any elected office created in the Fundamental Laws. I think when it comes to a social club, it's questionable whether that's an elected government office, but even then based on the current law I think there would be debate to be had on whether the Monarch could take such a position if it was created by the government and was elected.
Likewise, it makes sense to make sure that any other Citizen can run for Underhusen, because the chamber's purpose is to represent Citizens, but that doesn't necessarily make sense for any conceivable election.
It certainly makes sense for the Underhusen to have that requirement, but there isn't actually anything in the Fundamental Laws that says it.
It doesn't necessarily make sense for more specialized elections, and the restrictions on thane elections were dropped mostly for reasons of practicality than legality.
The practical change leads to a stronger legal argument, is all I am saying.
There's a reason that the restriction on having the Monarch stand was placed directly in the Fundamental Laws, and had anyone realized that Peers could run and end up in both offices I'm certain that would have been placed in the Fundamental Laws as well. This is about correcting an oversight in the Fundamental Laws, and as this other issue about election restrictions has come up I believe at best that it's an oversight in the Fundamental Laws as well. I don't think there was ever an intention for the Storting to decide that Citizens can be barred from their representative chamber by mere majority vote.
Besides correcting this oversight, is there any conceivable, productive reason for the Storting to do so?
I continue to call for these matters to be resolved via constitutional amendment.
I think we have found some more oversights here. Clearly some of us have been assuming that the Fundamental Laws says things that it does not. I would probably vote Aye on a referendum which requires all citizens to be eligible to stand for Underhusen. I would be less inclined to make Article IV apply to Underhusen elections specifically, because I think there is some value in what Article IV, Sections 1-3 say for elected government offices in general (Sections 4-11 already only apply to the UH specifically, given that they specifically are about the elections "as defined in Article I, Section 3"), though perhaps the restriction for the Monarch could be limited to the Underhusen specifically.
