Moreover, even excluding the unstated aims, it still is a bill I'd vote contra to.
It is not a good idea to impose and force deputies who are also de jure successors, because this only risks creating friction within the office. Deputies should be chosen by the office-holder and they serve (and are dismissed) at his pleasure because good working relationship is essential. There is no real succession problem that this bill solves except by creating a locked-in system with only ill consequences: deputies are already the natural successors without the need of making it automatic.

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on May 12, 2023, 03:41:08 AM(We would normally do saturday mid-evening, but Eurovision is obviously more important)

Oviösmint!

Since 10 days have passed and no petition has been filed, the proposed change is now official.

The Cantzelerïă is duly notified @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB.

Xhúadi, li 11. Mai dallas 2023/XLIV.



Üc R. Tärfă
Distain Grefieir d'Abbavilla

At least the citizen number should be added imho

I wrote what I'd instinctively use according with my aesthetic sensibility , I wasn't saying "that is the word that should be used". As you said I can't demand other to share that. I just shared my sensibility with a context.

(EDIT: Italian and Sardinian (generally linked with north African Latin romance) use a cognate of svilup. French, Occitan, Catalan, Castillano and Portoguese a cognate of developind. Berber is not related)

But the article el is certainly needed.

In this case I'd probably use svilup instead of developind, but this is because in Italian I'd say sviluppo.

Svilup was first introduced in the 1993 dictionary and it came indeed from Italian, while developind was an older word introduced in 1981. I instinctively associate devolpind to the process of different stages of a project, while I'd instinctively associate the more abstract and general concept of development with svilup. The development of a product, of a policy (developind) VS the human development (svilup).

But it's true that the verb svilupar seems to be limited to photograph (which makes it outdated nowadays; to offer some context: we indeed use "sviluppo/sviluppare" in Italian also for photography) while the more general verb seems to be developar (but maybe because it was introduced in 1981 like developind). However the word svilup is not limited in its application in the 1997 dictionary like the verb svilupar. As we have two words it seems logical to give different nuances to them. (And maybe extend it also to the verbs as the limited use of it to photography makes that verb almost a never used verb in 2023).
Of course the reasoning could also be the opposite to what I wrote.

I agree with the need of the article el.

(I will reply in that thread soon... Busy busy days)

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on May 05, 2023, 10:12:11 AMI REALLY wish someone had told me that there was a HUGE error in this edition mentioning King Robert instead of King John. I sent the newsletter as I usually do, without proofreading, as this is the government's newsletter.

It's indeed a curious lapsus considering that he was King 18 years ago 😅

It has come to the attention of the Scriuerïă d'Abbavilla that clarked bill no. 58RZ11 has an error in its formatting. The coordinated text of El Lexhatx maintained by the Scriuerïă since the 27th of March - as noted in the coordinated text itself - and as notified in the update of the ongoing revision published on the 17th of April, incorporates the changes required by 53RZ11 and 53RZ22. The list of Days of Observance is now in Title F Section 5 and not 4.

The Scriuerïă, in the person of Distain Grefieir Üc R. Tärfă, therefore hereby publicise the following proposed change to 58RZ11, agreed by the author of the bill, in compliance with Lexh.C.1.3.4.:

that in the operative part of the bill, the words «adding subsection 4.3.8 of» shall be modified to read «adding a new subsubsection 5.2.2 to».

According with Lexh.C.1.3.5. the proposed change shall take effect the 10th of the month at h 19:30 TST, unless a petition of Membreux dal Cosă representing at least 1/3 of the seats, or a petition of at least 1/3 of the Senators protesting this proposed change is posted in this thread.

Márcuri, li 3. Mai dallas 2023/XLIV.



Üc R. Tärfă
Distain Grefieir d'Abbavilla

May it please the Coletx,

It' true that we never had a "real" crown, but in our state arms since 1987 there has been a Crown. I'll consider a proper crown to be traditional both to Talossa 35 years of continued use of it in the Arms and as the universally accepted symbol of a Monarchy in arms even if not really used or existing. (Example: the Kingdom of Italy 1861-1946 had a crown in its arms but a real crown was never fabricated because we didn't perform Coronations and existed only in the descriptions). Regarding the Orb on top of the crown, since the middle age it's a symbol of regal authority and it's not exclusive of empires.

We can make it more "talossan", I just used a general and good svg crown when I remade the vector graphic.

But I'll agree to trying to find a new old Milwaukee fire department dress hat or similar, for the use of our King.

58th Cosă 2nd Clark (April 2023/XLIV) has been inserted in l'Anuntziă dels Legeux.
According with Org.VII.11 the Crown is deemed to have signed 58RZ5, 58RZ6, 58RZ7: they have been scribed in and the Lexhatx is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 1 May 2023/XLIV.

Maitzi, li 2. Mai dallas 2023/XLIV.



Üc R. Tärfă
Distain Grefieir d'Abbavilla

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 07:50:39 PMNevertheless, I do actually prefer the scheme that my debate with discussion yielded – the Inferior Cort can impose it as a punishment, and it must be confirmed by the CpI. That, I think, shields the CpI from criminally punishing someone with revocation of citizenship for chewing gum.

Your debate? That was my interpretation!

You said and you are saying instead that Lexh.A is inorganic where (and in many other parts) it defines to which crimes lost of citizenship can be imposed, and that only the CpI can define that!

I explained here

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 24, 2023, 04:24:24 PMHowever, a citizen may freely provide permission for his her or protected data to be released, if so chosen. Accordingly, it is possible to allow citizens to authorize the release of certain sections of the Census, as long as these requirements are met:
Citizens must be given enough information to make an informed decision.
Each individual must be given the choice whether or not to complete this section of the Census, and the Census will be considered "complete" even without these optional questions which would be authorized for release.

Just a technical question: that part should be included in the resolution, or it will be inserted in the census form by the Chancery?

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 12:53:06 PM

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 28, 2023, 10:26:09 AMMine can't, neither Marcel's. We do have indipendent judiciary, we do have separations of powers, our judicial system doesn't work like the american one, our judges doesn't "make" laws or crimes or doesn't "rule" on how the judicial system works (that's up to the legislature).

Again, whether judges can or cannot "make laws" IS NOT RELEVANT.

It amazes me how much Talossans not from the US lecture and admonish Talossans from the US about not knowing how other counties' judicial systems work WHEN THEY THEMSELVES KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE US JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

You people act like the US has absolutely no statutory law and every court is making up new law in every case every minute of every day.

You really do not seem to get it.

Hum... I never said that?

However, case law, legislating from the bench and stare decisis are part of Common Law we don't have it. (And I won't say anything about SCOTUS but I have lot to say about it).
 

QuoteAND NONE OF THIS HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO WHETHER THE ORGANIC LAW GRANTS THE ZIU AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE CpI.

I never said that in this thread?

QuoteReally, Talossa does not have this massively developed common law. There's maybe 20 cases, some of which may not even be binding given Organic and statutory changes. So why exactly do you keep using this as an excuse for not understanding our judicial system?

It's not that I don't get it, but that we have different understanding of how a judicial system works.

An example of deficit of knwoledge: none really cared to define in law what is the jeopardy attached, but we have to find out what this means. Double jeopardy, "the high bar of double jeopardy" even in appeals (for example the appeal on the name used in immigration) is something alien to me. Our ne bis in idem starts only for a res iudicata. If I only read the Fifth covenant without knowing what do you mean with double jeopardy, I'd interpet it according to what I naturally understand: res iudicata.

Quote

QuoteI don't know how that's relevant to the topic though. The legislature still has the (exclusive!) power to change civil and criminal procedure codes as it sees fit, just like with all other laws.

Unless the constitution grants the Legislature the exclusive right to do so.

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 09:11:47 AM

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 28, 2023, 08:58:26 AMI agree 100% with Marcel.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on April 28, 2023, 08:41:29 AM

QuoteAlso, the separation of powers is rooted in civil law. I don't know why you lot cannot grasp that the civil law-common law question is just an excuse to not bothering to read the Org Law or understand it.

Separation of powers doesn't mean that the courts are above the law, or that the legislature mustn't make laws legislating court procedures. Again how is this relevant?

I'm not sure what you mean by "your argument is anathema to civil law systems". I'd say that your argument just proved what I said in this thread.

No, it didn't. Your argeement with Marcel that separation of powers doesn't mean that the legislature musn't make laws legsilating court procedures WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO is an anathema to civil law and separation of powers.

We were talking about the principle.

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 09:03:21 AM*I deleted my prior response because i'm on my phone and confused threads.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on April 28, 2023, 08:41:29 AM

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 08:25:34 AMBut there is jurisprudence constante.

Which isn't binding, so it's nowhere near as important.

But to say precedent has no relevance in civil is nonsense.

Quote

QuoteI WILL SCREAM THIS FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK--IF YOUR LEGISLATURE CAN ABOLISH YOUR HIGHEST COURT AT THE WHIM OF A SIMPLE MAJORITY, YOU DO NOT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY.

Well I don't know how the UK handles this, but in countries with constitutions the highest court is usually outlined in the constitution, so abolishing it takes more than a simple majority.

The UK Supreme Court was literally created statute.

I'm not british, neither Marcel, so why you said "Your legisalture"? Mine can't, neither Marcel's. We do have indipendent judiciary, we do have separations of powers, our judicial system doesn't work like the american one, our judges doesn't "make" laws or crimes or doesn't "rule" on how the judicial system works (that's up to the legislature).

Quote

QuoteI don't know how that's relevant to the topic though. The legislature still has the (exclusive!) power to change civil and criminal procedure codes as it sees fit, just like with all other laws.

Unless the constitution grants the Legislature the exclusive right to do so.

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 09:11:47 AM

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 28, 2023, 08:58:26 AMI agree 100% with Marcel.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on April 28, 2023, 08:41:29 AM

QuoteAlso, the separation of powers is rooted in civil law. I don't know why you lot cannot grasp that the civil law-common law question is just an excuse to not bothering to read the Org Law or understand it.

Separation of powers doesn't mean that the courts are above the law, or that the legislature mustn't make laws legislating court procedures. Again how is this relevant?

The fact that we don't read the Organic Law through the lenses of the US Constitution doesn't mean that we don't read the Organic Law. The world is not composed only of the US and the UK: Supremacy of Parliament in the UK constitution is not the only alternative to the US Constitution.

Org.L.VIII.1 was lifted from US Const. art. III § 1.

So?

QuoteOrg.L.VIII.2 is a truncated version of US Const. art. III § 2.

So?

QuoteAgain, I prefer reading it through the lens of the Australian constitution because that is its closest analogue. We look to other countries with similar constitution and systems to interpret the org law. I've relied on several other countries (e.g. Australia, Pakistan, India) to interpret the Org Law in cort filings in Talossa.

Either point to the provisions in the Org Law that support your argument, or stop making up new powers for the Ziu. Because absent such provisions, your argument is anathema to civil law systems.

I'm not sure what you mean by "your argument is anathema to civil law systems". I'd say that your argument just proved what I said in this thread.