Estimat Túischac'h,
I raise once more to reassure my honourable friend the Distain that I'm aware of the changes to the bill since originally introduced and of the discussion we had. And if he is worried that I might vote on a bill without actually reading it, I want to reassure him and all Membreux dal Cosă that it's not my habit.

Even if I don't fully agree with him that

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 11, 2023, 11:09:07 AMThe point is that it's pretty neat that we have a constitution that dates back to 1997.  That's a rare thing among nations like our own. It has a majesty to it. We should accurately refer to it by the date when it first became effective, since there's not really any good reason to pretend it's something a lot newer.

and I do believe that we should consider things as they are and not as we would like them to be, I suggested that reading, as I said before

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on March 11, 2023, 09:46:46 AMbecause it is neutral: it recognises that something extraordinary happened, that something different came to be without stating the exact nature of what came to be

My honourable friend is right that during the discussion in the Hopper I said "I'm fine with this", but after that the Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic reminded us that 53RZ18 was approved in 2019. I had and have no problem admitting that I made a mistake: I had forgotten about the fact that the Amendamaintsch was approved in 2019 until then. After that, I signalled in the Funal not once, but twice that I consider the date of approval diriment.

Consistent with the above, I have clearly stated in my zesclaraziun da votă:

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on March 08, 2023, 06:23:13 PMIn this particular situation, I think that the "2017" reference in the Preamble is just a scribal error originated in copy-and-pasting the original draft (which was made in 2017) in the final form of the bill, and although it has became customarily to refer to it as the "2017 Organic Law", the Preamble should have had the date of the coming into force of the Legeu Orgänic at the end of the legislative process, which is the date when it was promulgated. Only the promulgation date has a legal meaning worth to be used as a reference and to be included in the Preamble while the drafting date has only an archivist interest.

and in the follow-up:

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on March 11, 2023, 09:46:46 AMTo conclude, I can only consider to support a text that amends a part of our legal system that has an ephemeral nature only, and only if, it has the purpose to put right (2019) something that is not (2017), otherwise I consider it pointless and dangerous. That's the reason why I voted contră on that bill, and I encourage all  the Membreux dal Cosă to vote contră as well.

I'm actually surprised myself to see that my honourable friend is surprised that I acted accordingly whith what I said.

To conclude S.reu Túischac'h, I must add that I consider my duty to the Regipäts as Membreux dal Cosă to partecipate in the Funal and to contribute to make our laws better in both text and legal theory regardless of whether I agree with them ot not.

Méirci à toct, smestéu el tarleu.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 11, 2023, 07:51:55 AM"In 2023/XLIV, there was an extended shutdown of the Kingdom servers, described as being located in Dallas, Texas. The cause has been ascribed to the drunken antics of the Secretary of State of the time, Sir Doctor."

Estimat Túischac'h,
I'll thank my honourable friend the Distain for his reply to my zesclaraziun da votă. I'd like to offer a brief response.

Quote

QuoteCan we amend a relic, a legal document with an ephemeral nature that no longer emanates power - i.e. juridical consequences - from it?

Yes. The bill would do that, successfully.  It's the equivalent of a label or a sign.

Clearly that was a rethorical question, but it gives me the opportunity to further delve into the matter. The question that we should ask ourselves is not whether we can tangibly alter the text of a law approved by the Ziu, but rather what are the legal consequences of an alteration and the legal status of that piece of legislation we are altering.

The Preamble, as I argued before, the proclaiming instrument of the Legeu Orgänic. In a nutshell it can be simplified to:

QuoteWE, JOHN I, by the grace of God, King of Talossa, etc., etc., etc., [...] do ordain and establish, by and through the consent of the Talossan People, as the supreme law of our Realm, this 2017 Organic Law.

It's only - but powerful - function is to promulgate the following text approved by the Ziu and confirmed by the People. It's the written version of the real act of our King thorugh which he "ordain and establish" the Legeu Orgänic and in the exact moment it acquired legal force, it infused legal force and authority to the following articles as the supreme law of the Regipäts. In that precise moment the Preamble exhausted its function. It no longer propagates consequences, as it has an ephemeral nature: the perpetual legal consequences are emanated from the Articles, which have an immanent nature.

The Ziu can approve a bill to amend the text of, for example, 57RZ1 - The Poor, Unfortunate Souls Citizenship Act, but what are the legal consequences of such a bill? None. Because in the exact moment 57RZ1 acquired legal force it amended the Lexhatx, and exhausted its function. The legal consequences of that act are now propagated by the Lexhatx.

It would be pointless to alter a text with an ephemeral nature, unless we would do that to correct scribal errors for the sake of posterity and accuracy. That's why I made reference to the 2019 date. The current version of the the Legeu Orgänic was adopted by the Ziu with 53RZ18 in July 2019 and approved by the People in a referendüm held in November 2019. In my personal opinion that's the date the text should be refered as. And no, the date of drafting and the date of approval of a text have not equal standing: the former is only of academic concern while the latter is the date when - from a legal point of view - the text came to be.

QuoteNo.  The Organic Law was promulgated in 1997, and has been amended many times since.  While it was changed in many places in the 2017 revisions, the vast majority of the text remained the same, the structures remained the same, and our system remained the same.  It was partially amended through the process detailed within itself.  In neither detail nor function nor legal reality is it a new document.

It's the 1997 Organic Law. It's pretty neat that we have a constitution that dates back to 1997. That's a rare thing among nations like our own. It has a majesty to it. We should accurately refer to it by the date when it first became effective, since there's not really any good reason to pretend it's something a lot newer.

Shall we pretend that King John was the King of Talossa in 1997? Our Monarch has many powers and qualities, but I'm pretty sure that time travelling is not one of them.

How can we pretend that a Preamble that starts with WE, JOHN I, by the grace of God, King of Talossa, etc., etc., etc., was promulgated in 1997? Until July 2019 we repeatedly amended a text that started with WE, ROBERT I, by the grace of God, King of Talossa, etc., etc., etc.,, and that was clearly still the 1997 Legeu Orgänic, amended, but the same.

But with 53RZ18 we unconsciously did something different, something new.
We changed eveything, even the Preamble.

In the sacred virtual scroll that contained the text of the Legeu Orgänic every word, every punctuations was erased and a new text, certainly in a beautiful and pompous handwriting, was written. The scroll is the same, it derives it's authority from the 1997 proclamation WE, ROBERT I [...] do ordain and establish but now says WE, JOHN I [...] do ordain and establish. A new act of proclamation, a new proclaming instrument was born in that moment. Rooted on the 1997 one, the "scroll" is the same, but radically different.

I cannot say if it is a new Legeu Orgänic or a new version of the previous Legeu Orgänic but certainly it something different from any other amendment ever approved because of that new Preamble. It has a new/different nature because now it's King John that ordain(ed) and establish(ed).

This is why I suggested the formula

Quotethis XXXX revision of the 1997 Organic Law

because it is neutral: it recognises that something extraordinary happened, that something different came to be without stating the exact nature of what came to be. But we can be sure of something: we cannot pretend that a text that starts with

QuoteWE, JOHN I, by the grace of God, King of Talossa, etc., etc., etc., [...] do ordain and establish, by and through the consent of the Talossan People, as the supreme law of our Realm, this 2017 Organic Law.

is a text proclaimed in 1997.

To conclude, I can only consider to support a text that amends a part of our legal system that has an ephemeral nature only, and only if, it has the purpose to put right (2019) something that is not (2017), otherwise I consider it pointless and dangerous. That's the reason why I voted contră on that bill, and I encourage all  the Membreux dal Cosă to vote contră as well.

Estimat Túischac'h, Talossa must be fun but it should and must be a damn serious fun reality.

Méirci à toct, smestéu el tarleu.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on March 10, 2023, 06:04:45 PM

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on March 10, 2023, 05:37:35 PMEl crisi dels serveirs del 2023/XLIV

*dallas 2023/XLIV

I was JUST going to edit it! You beat me :D (romance language speaker classic error, like in french I tend to say de le instead of du 🥲)

Those laws/PD have not been entered in the Lexhatx/Legeu Orgänic

57RZ18
57RZ19
57RZ22
57RZ23
57RZ25
57RZ27
57PD10

Quote from: King John on March 10, 2023, 04:45:35 PMCrises can seem huge at the moment when they're happening, but we can (usually) take comfort in the thought that in a few years we won't be able to recall for sure even what year this happened in.  And in 40 years, this whole thing will be nothing but an answer in a Talossan Trivia contest.  (With maybe a brief mention in a This Month In Talossa History broadcast.)

El crisi dels serveirs del 2023/XLIV

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 09, 2023, 10:05:41 AMI have to say how much I appreciate the general energy and the particular demeanor of both yourself and Dama Miestra with your comprehensive efforts; I think that it is quite helpful to the whole country for a number of reasons.

I'm glad that you appreciate the energy, the demeanor and the efforts. Itm

QuoteIt seems that we do have perhaps some philosophical conflict about the nature of the budget itself,

It's the first time I'm told that there could be a philosophical conflict about the nature itself of budget. Technical yeah, political many many times. But never philosophical on the nature!  :D

QuoteThe law requires that we submit a budget in time for the second Clark,

Yes, that is the law.

Quotebut researching different options will be explored later in the term.

And I'm sure you will, I was asking not to know the plan that will be put in place, but rather the general idea on the options that will be explored. Digital advertising? Yes no, maybe? Continuing Google ads? Yes no why?Old-style advertising? What? Where? Addressed to whom? I'm sure the Government has some ideas where to start to explore different options: that is what I'm asking. Nothing long or detailed, just the general ideas that are/will be considered as the starting point.

QuoteYou may certainly pose terpelaziuns as you feel might be helpful, but I suspect the answers will be the same, having discussed it with the Ministreu already.

Thank you, I appreciate your efforts, but I'd like to hear directly from them on this particular matter if it is possible.

QuoteThank you, either way.  The TNC was swept into office by the first outright majority in a decade, and I think a big part of that has been our can-do attitude and cheerful inclusionism, and we are very happy to get to work soon on implementing some of our proposals -- once we get past the crises into which we were thrown in our first week!

And I'm sure you will be happy to work soon in implementing your proposal! That's the job of the Government. My job is - also - to scrutinise your work. :)

QuotePlease let me know if you have any further questions, or if there's anything else I can help with.

Yes, I'm truly (it's a genuine question) curious to understand which you think are the different perspectives on the philosophical conflict over the nature of the budget.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 08, 2023, 08:58:12 PMD.2.8.3.1 refers to the requirements for this bill as a whole, which are already addressed in its text. The sections I reference above are the requirements for the financial report (i.e. the needs for this particular section).

No they are not. They were moved to subsections of § C.1.5.6 by 57RZ22.

Quote

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on March 08, 2023, 05:49:00 PMCan the Ministreu specify whether the 133¤20 ($200 USD) are in addition to or they include the ℓ60 ($90 USD) authorized by Lexhatx § D.2.8.4.1?

If they are in addition, I think 193¤20 ($290 USD) is quite a large sum to appropriate. Shouldn't be better to lower it and appropriate new funds if needed with a supplemental budgeting legislation when the Report by the Ministreu dal Tec'hnoloxhà announced by the Seneschal on discord will be submitted to the Ziu?

Otherwise, if it inludes the ℓ60, it should be clearly highlighted in the text: 73¤20 ($110 USD) in addition to the funds authorized by Lexhatx § D.2.8.4.1.

These are in addition, and we expect to spend much less than that.  However, given the numerous difficulties we've been having, and the prospect of the unknown, we want to err on the side of caution in terms of our flexibility.  We have no intention of spending money recklessly, and indeed I'd love to reduce this number down to a handful of louise.  But at this point it would be penny-wise and pound-foolish not to prepare for an eventuality where we need to quickly contract with another server.

I really do hope that you have no intention of spending money recklessly  ;D

QuoteSo again, to be clear: these appropriated funds will not be spent if that can be managed at all.

I can assure you that I'm familiar with how a budget works.  ;)

Quote

QuoteMinistrà dels Afaes Utphätseschti

• BHAID 66¤40 ($100 USD)

The Bureau for Humanitarian Aid and International Development will continue its support for important causes worldwide.

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on March 08, 2023, 05:49:00 PMI'm not a priori against the idea of appropriating funds from the Treasury to BHAID but I'm not comfortable with the idea to appropriate 100$ (which is a relative large sum for our Treasury) as a white cheque for donation without including in the law (withouth the possibility of being able to agree (or not) to whom or to which cause they will be donated. My doubts are on the principle itself, so the spending authority removal of the Cosă in § D.2.8.7 doesn't answer them. I'd prefer we stick to ad hoc legislation like RZ2.

The Cosa may vote to deny any disbursement requests with a simple one-third vote.

Yes I know, that's the spending authority removal of the Cosă in Lexh. § D.2.8.7 I mentioned above.

QuoteThis sum represents the amount we believe might be worthwhile spending this term, depending on fundraising, and that is the purpose of a budget.

The BHAID, as it is currently written into the Law, has a quite peculiar position in the Budget (I'm drafting some bills to adress the matter). Regarding the BHAID the purpose of the budget is not the amount you are planning to spend, rather the amount you are planning to appropriate to BHAID from the Treasury (and yes, I know the difference between appropriate and spend). The fundraising goal included in the budget ($200 USD) is limited to Lexh. § D.2.8.8 and doesn't include the donations to BHAID ex Lexh. § D.2.6.6.2.

QuoteWhile individual appropriations have their place, they also require much more time, and that can be a problem when it comes to such causes as disaster relief.  An individual appropriations bill requires time in the Hopper, approval by the CRL, and the full voting time in the Clark. 

A dollar the first week is worth ten a month later.

Just to be clear: a dollar in the third week at least, not the first week.

I don't personally like the idea to appopriate such a large part of our Treasury to donations without knowing the receiver beforehand. However, as I said before, you mentioned that the Foreign Affairs Ministry is working on something, I'd like to know a little more on that.

Quote

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on March 08, 2023, 05:49:00 PM

QuoteMinistrà à Savanar da Talossa àls Ultra-Fiovaes Folăs

• Advertising 66¤40 ($100 USD)

These funds will accommodate a cost-effective and high-impact future advertising campaigns.

I already received some information on this before the data loss, and I know we are at an early stage, but I'd like to hear more on what the Ministreu @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat is planning.

As mentioned, I said that we have not even begun exploring options seriously, yet, but that we are obligated to specify an amount for a future advertising campaign now, at the start of the term.  We will present those options for public comment, and then any decision, well prior to any expenditures.

I am sure you will. I wasn't asking for the full plan of course, just to know a little more of the ideas that are being considered by the Ministry than "a cost-effective and high-impact future advertising campaigns": I think it is due to the Ziu since you are asking to appropriate the funds.

I am more than happy to place formal Terpelaziuns to the Foreign Affaris and STUFF Ministers if I need to do that.

Estimat Túischac'h, me alçéu à deliverar va zesclaraziun da votă sür 58RZ3.

þon. Membreux dal Cosă,

although I can understand the reasons behind this bill and I engaged with its proponent, my honourable friend the Distain, in el Funal, I still have some issues with its final form as clarked and that's why I'd like to explain to all of you the reasoning behind my vote.

I do consider the Preamble to be not just a part of the law, but rather the act through which the new Legeu Orgänic is perfected and promulgated as the supreme law of the Regipäts. And, as I commented elsewhere, I do strongly believe the Preamble, in its capacity as the promulgating instrument, to be the terminus a quo of a new Legeu Orgänic that is distinct from the previous one originally promulgated in 1997 and many times amended through the years.

In its capacity as the promulgating instrument of the Legeu Orgänic I do believe we should restrain to amend it ordinarily as it has a peculiar and quite distinct juridical nature from any other part of the Legeu Orgänic itself. The promulgating instrument has an ephemeral nature that starts and ends with the proclamation of the LegOrg If I can make a comparison, it is like a law which only amends el Lextatx (or the LegOrg): as soon as it is perfected it has no longer any juridical power in itself because its only function was to amend another law - el Lextatx - which is the one which is in force. If another law repeals the amending law, el Lextatx is not amended as well (resuscitating the old text) as the amending law has already exausted its function the moment it became en force: it is just a relic.
Can we amend a relic, a legal document with an ephemeral nature that no longer emanates power - i.e. juridical consequences - from it? And if we do, aren't we de facto and de jure creating "a new proclamation" which requires itself to be promulgated in 2023?

Keeping this in mind, I believe that if we might collectively decide to endeavour to amend the Preamble - but I'm not sure, as I stated above, that we actually can or should without creating a new proclamation - we should at least limit ourselves to correct blatant mistakes or scribal errors for the sake of posterity and not alter it for any other motivation.

In this particular situation, I think that the "2017" reference in the Preamble is just a scribal error originated in copy-and-pasting the original draft (which was made in 2017) in the final form of the bill, and although it has became customarily to refer to it as the "2017 Organic Law", the Preamble should have had the date of the coming into force of the Legeu Orgänic at the end of the legislative process, which is the date when it was promulgated. Only the promulgation date has a legal meaning worth to be used as a reference and to be included in the Preamble while the drafting date has only an archivist interest.

To conclude, this amendment doesn't satisfy what my conscience believes to be the right course of action in this matter.

Per această raziun, eu vot contră.

Méirci à toct, smestéu el tarleu.

I can't precisely recollect where the discussion went before the first data loss, but in the coming days I'll update the proposal.

I still believe that this should be a provincial day, or if national a general "provincial culture day". There's no day specific to a province as a national festivity, and this might start a race not to revitalise provincial subcultures but rather to have more national festivities than the other provinces.

The Ziu already recognized and celebrated the distinct Cjovani subculture of the B-province in the last term with a Sense of the Ziu you authored.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 04, 2023, 12:17:13 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 16, 2022, 09:25:46 PMWhereas, every Talossan goes through meaningful milestones over the course of their lives, and

Whereas, it is a reasonable prerogative of the Kingdom to participate in celebrating the most meaningful of these milestones, and

Whereas, the longevity of each citizen's membership in the Kingdom is one of the most meaningful of milestones for each Talossan.

Therefore, be it resolved that a new section is added under D.1 The Government in El Lexhatx reading as follows:

QuoteD 1.6.: Each citizen meeting specific time thresholds as a Talossan citizen, may request a certificate, signed by the Crown and the Seneschal. The citizenship milestones are 5 years, 10 years, and every 25 years thereafter.

Uréu q'estadra så
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Sen-FL, TNC)
@Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)

Edited based on previously submitted suggestions.

May I further suggest to move it under the responsability of the Ministry of STUFF? § D.2.10.4 (with some rewording).

§ D.1 doesn't seem to me the right or logic part of the Lexhatx to have such a section.

Debate on the Budget and Financial Planning Bill are more on the policy rather than the text in itself, so I hope Ministreux will indulge me if I reply in a TERP-style.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 04, 2023, 01:12:01 PM
PART A: Financial Report

TBD:
2.8.1.2.1. the amount, location, liquidity, and availability of all funds held by or for the Royal Treasury,
2.8.1.2.2. a detailed list of all changes in the account balances of the Royal Treasury since the last Report,
2.8.1.2.3. a balance sheet which clearly lists all expenses linking them to the relative sheet items in the budget bills approved in the Cosa,
2.8.1.2.4. the total amount of louise and postal items in circulation.

BTW: It doesn't change anything because I believe it is only a placeholder, but the relevant subsections in the Lexhatx are § C.1.5.6 (or § D.2.8.3.1).

Quote
PART B: Budget

THEREFORE, His Majesty's Government hereby submits to the Ziu a request for the appropriation of funds from the Royal Treasury totaling ℓ400 ($600 USD) for the specific purposes and subject to restrictions as outlined herein:

Ministrà dal Cúltură

• Culture grants 66¤40 ($100 USD)

This amount will be set aside for fulfillment of any Culture Initiative Support Fund grants.  These grants are intended to help spur and reward activity from our citizens, providing them with small amounts to support language, journalism, or other cultural plans.

Ministrà dal Tec'hnoloxhà

• Speculative Webhosting costs 133¤20 ($200 USD)

For obvious Wittpocalypse-related reasons, future plans for our web infrastructure remain uncertain.  As the Ministreu dal Tec'hnoloxhà explores different options in conjunction with Permanent Secretary da Schir, the Government is erring on the cautious side and appropriating sufficient funds to meet a variety of needs.

Can the Ministreu specify whether the 133¤20 ($200 USD) are in addition to or they include the ℓ60 ($90 USD) authorized by Lexhatx § D.2.8.4.1?

If they are in addition, I think 193¤20 ($290 USD) is quite a large sum to appropriate. Shouldn't be better to lower it and appropriate new funds if needed with a supplemental budgeting legislation when the Report by the Ministreu dal Tec'hnoloxhà announced by the Seneschal on discord will be submitted to the Ziu?

Otherwise, if it inludes the ℓ60, it should be clearly highlighted in the text: 73¤20 ($110 USD) in addition to the funds authorized by Lexhatx § D.2.8.4.1.

QuoteMinistrà dels Afaes Utphätseschti

• BHAID 66¤40 ($100 USD)

The Bureau for Humanitarian Aid and International Development will continue its support for important causes worldwide.

I'm not a priori against the idea of appropriating funds from the Treasury to BHAID but I'm not comfortable with the idea to appropriate 100$ (which is a relative large sum for our Treasury) as a white cheque for donation without including in the law (withouth the possibility of being able to agree (or not) to whom or to which cause they will be donated. My doubts are on the principle itself, so the spending authority removal of the Cosă in § D.2.8.7 doesn't answer them. I'd prefer we stick to ad hoc legislation like RZ2.

Before the second data loss, the Ministreu dal Finançù informed us that the Ministreu dels Afaes Utphätseschti already has some plans, can the Ministreu @Bråneu Excelsio share with the Ziu some details of it?

QuoteMinistrà à Savanar da Talossa àls Ultra-Fiovaes Folăs

• Advertising 66¤40 ($100 USD)

These funds will accommodate a cost-effective and high-impact future advertising campaigns.

I already received some information on this before the data loss, and I know we are at an early stage, but I'd like to hear more on what the Ministreu @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat is planning.

This bill has already been submitted to committee, but I must point out - again, my previous post was lost in the second data loss I believe- that the relevant subsection in the Lexhatx is § A.9 and not § A.10 (both in text and the quoted part).

Moreover, if I remember well in the last version pre-data loss the renumbering clause was omitted, which I still think it is the best course of action.

This bill has already been submitted to committee, but I must point out that the relevant subsection in the Lexhatx is § D.2.8.10 and not § D.2.8.9

Moreover, I'd like to suggest to modify the last subsection proposed.

The «For example [...] discouraged» part is written in a language suited for a resolution and not a law. I'd suggest to remove it altogether.

The last sentence I suggest to modify it in this way:

QuoteThe Bureau might provide a fancy certificate to any registered business.