Quote from: GV on Yesterday at 09:33:53 PMI have seen every extant issue of IM's "Talossan National News".  If you have yet to do so yourself, you are officially required to do so.  This is the era of IM's greatest creative output in Talossa, the era of early Davron, King Dobberpuhl, and the legendary King Florence.

Do we have them archived somewhere?

I agree, Your Majesty.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on July 06, 2025, 11:33:39 AM@Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be
As an MZ who is also the current Scribe, would you be interested in co-sponsoring this bill?

While I appreciate the invite, I'll let you run with this one on your own. I look forward to seeing which path forward you decide to take.

Well, as I can see it, there are a few paths forward:

* Remove 8.4.2 to address the Baron's concerns, and move forward with the rest of the bill.
* Keep 8.4.2, but clarify that this part only enters into effect if the bill passes the Cosa by a 2/3 majority.
* Keep 8.4.2 and hope it passes by 2/3 anyway. (not recommended, but technically an option)
* Abandon the bill.

To be clear, the point of 8.4.2 is much the same as the limit on non-list candidates being given Cosa seats -- the people have a right to know (at least as accurately as possible) who they are electing ahead of time, and the "surrender half your seats" part is effectively your penalty for disturbing that. Options 2 and 3 hinge on some of the precedent set by Cjantscheir v. the Ziu, in that 60RZ19 was deemed to clear the requisite threshold to remove a CpI Judge.

I would invite not just CRL members but other MZs to provide their input.

On the one hand, this would appear to be a fairly rare use case -- quite literally only relevant in the lead-up to the first Clark of a Cosa session.

On the other hand, this very Cosa session demonstrated that issues can and do occur with nominating a Túischac'h in a timely manner.

For my part, I think the best remedy is for the Cosa to settle on a Túischac'h sooner rather that later, though I would have no reservations about stepping in as necessary should this bill pass.

The big caveat is -- what happens if the Scribe is already serving as the A-X or the Mençéi?

Quote from: Glüc on July 04, 2025, 03:56:34 PMUgh. I totally forgot about this. My sincere apologies.

No worries! I just preferred playing it safe.

Just wanted to point out that I am not moving forward with this without countersignature; while the Belacostan constitution allows "any bill adopted by the Provincial Assembly"  to take effect if it reaches the end of the month without assent, this is not a bill adopted by the Provincial Assembly, nor do I feel this is a proclamation that simply clarifies "policy internal to the Provincial Council" as in Article III, Section 4.

On this day, the Free and Sovereign Province commemorates the birthday of Giuseppe Garibaldi, for whom our southern canton is named. Italian patriot, general, and republican, his efforts to lead the reunification of Italy and his legacy overall have led one historian to describe him as "the only wholly admirable figure in modern history".

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on July 02, 2025, 07:42:03 PM7.2.4. Contempt of court. Contempt of court is a serious misdemeanour consisting of intentional:
7.2.4.1. Misconduct in the presence of the court which interferes with a court proceeding or with the administration of justice, or which impairs the respect due the court;
7.2.4.2. Disobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court;
7.2.4.3. Refusal as a witness to appear, be sworn or answer a question; or
7.2.4.4. Refusal to produce a record, document or other object.

Yeah, I like it.  Makes sense to me, particularly looking at 7.2.4.1.

Should also point out Lexh.A.7.3.2: "Whoever commits fraud or harassment against any citizen or "judicial person" under Talossan law is guilty of a serious misdemeanour. Whoever commits threats of the above is guilty of a misdemeanour." (emphasis not added by myself)

Quote from: Hugh McFarlane on June 26, 2025, 06:04:55 PMIn fact, I've even considered setting up a Spreadsheet NRL code for the Republic.

Speaking just on a cultural note -- you have my attention! @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP was looking at some sort of Talossan football fantasy league in the past that would have blended different football codes and the fantasy leagues in question. I ran a "fictitious" Talossan football league for a bit a few years ago myself. We've also just had our first year of ice hockey, are in the midst of a fourth season of cycling, and just kicked off a rally circuit.

As usual, I think we're conflating different issues as one and then getting mad about what we've constructed.

The Immigration Process
Every single nation on Earth has some basic controls on immigration. Our situation is different enough that comparisons to macronational immigration and the difficulties thereof aren't really relevant. For us, a free-for-all approach accomplishes exactly one thing: a ballooned citizenship roll with people who do nothing for two years, don't vote, and then lose their citizenship. We've already seen two people gain citizenship under the governments of the Opposition's predecessor party, do nothing, and lapse out. By the time the next election comes around (November at the earliest), five more such citizens will be in the same position if they fail to act. I would, of course, be thrilled if all of them became more active, but I don't think holding my breath waiting for them it is the smartest move. It is not unreasonable to ask people who claim to want to be Talossan to put forth the smallest iota of effort into showing their interest in being here is actual interest. Filling out an immigration form is not difficult; I've filled out several this term so far as the Government continues to carefully monitor our computer systems. Takes about five minutes each time given the various required fields. Is five minutes that much of a hindrance?

Retaining Interest
As the Seneschal has correctly pointed out, we do in fact get quite a few citizenship applications on a monthly basis, so evidently even the "hard" application process -- which the Government is actively trying to simplify -- does not turn people away as has been claimed. So what is the issue with keeping people around? As both the Seneschal and Baron have agreed, part of the issue stems from "certain" behaviors being effectively condoned by the community due to lack of enforcement against them, and it is good to see the Government and Opposition working together to strengthen this enforcement. I don't think this is necessarily the only problem; for at least one other, I think we need to keep the course with "turning down the heat" that was begun last term. It is unfortunate that we have lost the Opposition's support on that cause.

"Try new things"
This may surprise the Baron, but the Government doesn't just sit on its hands and wait for people to complain about things before moving. Avant is more than just a name. The Government is already trying new things. We promote Talossa (both in discussions about the nation but also directly through advertising) on the MicroWiki discord. We are developing plans to "bring Talossa back to its roots" so to speak by advertising at places like gaming shops. Heck, I'm trying to leverage an online friend or two in "micronation-adjacent spaces" (read: they play NationStates) to join. We're not just sitting here saying "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!"

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 24, 2025, 05:23:35 PMTo which Government Ministry should the Director of STUFF be responsible under El Lexhatx C.2?

Provision 2 already adds the Director of STUFF under the Ministry of Finance, as I felt that made the most sense for a position involved in producing things we may intend to sell; the STUFF Ministry would be divided into two, neither of which retain oversight over making things, so I felt the Finance Ministry would be the best fit of pre-existing portfolios.

(Unless of course this was a question you were posing to the thread to see if anyone had other suggestions?)

Quote from: Dr. Pôl dal Nordselvă on June 23, 2025, 05:47:21 AMCan you explain to me why having an upper house that has the authority to reject bills or send them back down is a bad thing?

These are two separate things; at the moment, it already has the power to reject bills; this would be partially transformed into a "send bills back" power under this amendment.

For that matter, the Senate is also already fully empowered to "send bills back", as Senators may choose to offer their reasoning for voting against a bill. The catch is that the matter cannot be considered again by the same Cosa session unless "substantially amended". In other words, the Senate currently possesses both powers at their fullest extent.

I should perhaps reiterate that this amendment would not allow a razor-thin majority to force bills through; bills rejected by the Senate must gather support from including across the aisle within the Cosa; bills with such widespread support as to be deemed not just desirable, but practically necessary.

Further, this amendment does not affect the Royal Veto; it is certainly possible that the King, when considering a bill that has been presented to him over the Senate's refusal, will consider, among other things, the margin of support for the bill (both on its initial Clark run and the re-passage), the reasons Senators may have given for opposing it, and/or the reasons the bill is deemed necessary in its current state, and find it does not have his assent -- at which point the bill must achieve the usual Organic threshold for overriding a royal veto. As a matter of fact, this intermediate threshold of 3/5 majority was chosen precisely because it sits between the standard majority and the 2/3 supermajority needed to overcome a royal veto (which, in a monarchy, logically sits as the toughest threshold to overcome).

QuoteI can perhaps understand the ability of the Cosa to override but do we need to strip them of power in order to accomplish the same purpose?

Quite literally, yes -- the Cosa does not currently have that power. Adding it, by nature, is a mild alteration to the balance of power between the two houses.

Quote from: owenedwards on June 22, 2025, 11:45:30 AMI'm not particularly convinced that either of the first two clauses are factually true (though perhaps they are morally true or desirable, by a given standard).

Quote from: wikipedia link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_house#Parliamentary_systemsIn parliamentary systems the upper house is frequently seen as an advisory or a "house of review" chamber; for this reason, its powers of direct action are often reduced in some way. Some or all of the following restrictions are often placed on upper houses:

• Lack of control over the executive branch. (By contrast, in the US and many other presidential systems, the Senate or upper chamber has more control over the composition of the Cabinet and the administration generally, through its prerogative of confirming the president's nominations to senior offices.)
• No absolute veto of proposed legislation, though suspensive vetoes are permitted in some states.
• In countries where it can veto legislation (such as the Netherlands), it may not be able to amend the proposals.
• A reduced or even absent role in initiating legislation.
• No power to block supply, or budget measures. (A rare example of a parliamentary upper house that does possess this power is the Australian Senate, which notably exercised that power in 1975.)

[...]

The role of a revising chamber is to scrutinise legislation that may have been drafted over-hastily in the lower house and to suggest amendments that the lower house may nevertheless reject if it wishes to. An example is the British House of Lords. Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the House of Lords can no longer prevent the passage of most bills, but it must be given an opportunity to debate them and propose amendments, and can thereby delay the passage of a bill with which it disagrees. Bills can only be delayed for up to one year before the Commons can use the Parliament Act, although economic bills can only be delayed for one month.

WHEREAS, in parliamentary democracies, the upper house of the legislature functions as a "house of sober second thought"; and

WHEREAS, this role requires that the Senäts be able to review and approve of bills, but ought not to have the ability to block those with widespread support in the Cosă; and

WHEREAS, this blocking ability ought to remain in place in the case of Organic amendments; then

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that Article III, Section 4 of the Organic Law is amended by the addition of the following bolded text:

QuoteThe Senäts shall have equal powers with the Cosa in respect of all proposed laws, except that bills appropriating revenue or moneys shall not originate in the Senäts, and the Government shall require the confidence of the Cosa only to remain in office. In the event of the Senäts twice rejecting a bill appropriating revenue or moneys which is passed by the Cosa, upon it being passed a third time by the Cosa, it shall not require the consent of the Senäts to be given Royal Assent and take effect. Bills for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other monetary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licenses or services, shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys. In the event the Senäts rejects a bill that does not amend this Organic Law, appropriate moneys, or override a Royal Veto, should the same Cosă pass that bill again by a three-fifths majority, it shall not require the consent of the Senäts to be presented for Royal Assent or take effect.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Mic'haglh Autófil (MC-PdR/¡Avant!)