El Lexhatx provides for a legislative advisory committee, el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu. Most meaningful bills must be submitted to this committee before they may be added to the Clark.
Quote from: Lexh.H
6.4. After a legislative proposal has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper, its proposer may request that it "move to committee". No bill may be Clarked without being "moved to committee", except as provided by Lex.H.6.2 or Lex.H.6.3.
6.5. A Legislative Advisory Committee of Talossa (in Talossan, el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu; and hereinafter, "the CRL") shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper once they have moved to committee; and may recommend acceptance or rejection, or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
6.5.1 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
6.5.2 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
6.5.3. The CRL may create further committees to which their functions may be delegated, as concerns any bill or category of bills. Such a committee must have at least 3 members, including at least 1 MC and at least 1 Senator.
6.6. After the CRL has given its recommendation, or if it gives no recommendation within 30 days of the bill having passed to committee, the bill has passed the hopper and the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.
Current members:
@Baron Alexandreu Davinescu ,
@Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu ,
@Miestră Schivă, UrN .
Submitting your bill to the CRL is as simple as posting in this thread and requesting that we take a look.
The Fixing Citizenship Act
WHEREAS our statutory law is sometimes filled with errors whenever changes are made elsewhere to it, or in the Organic Law;
and WHEREAS one of the unfortunate jobs of the Secretary of State is to revoke citizenship for "those poor, unfortunate souls" at the end of an election cycle (Little Mermaid reference was intended!);
and WHEREAS reading El.Lex and realizing that it is, sadly, filled with errors, and seeing that as the Secretary of State, I am entitled to hopper bills;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Ziu does amend El.Lex 14, which currently reads, "An individual whose citizenship has been terminated solely by effect of Article XVIII, Section 10 of the Organic Law may apply to the Chancery for reinstatement of citizenship by providing the contact information required by section E.2. (47RZ46)"
SHALL BE AMENDED to read "An individual whose citizenship has been terminated solely by effect of Article X Section 5 of the Organic Law may apply to the Chancery for reinstatement of citizenship by providing the contact information required by E.2."
Uréu q'estadra så
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă, - Secretár d'Estat
Also too, the Attorney-General. Until further notice, that's me.
The One Milestone at a Time ActWhereas, 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:
Quote
D 1.6.: Under the auspices of a program developed and administered by the Office of the Seneschal (Seneschal, Distain, or other official delegated responsibility) each citizen meeting specific time thresholds as a Talossan citizen, may request a certificate, signed by the Crown and the Seneschal. The suggested citizenship milestones are 5 years, 10 years, 25 years, 50 years, and 75 years.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Sen-FL, TNC)
Mximo Carbonel (MC-RCT)
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 25, 2022, 10:32:05 PM
Also too, the Attorney-General. Until further notice, that's me.
Sure, for right now. Will you be remaining A-X, or is that up in the air? Just curious.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on April 25, 2022, 12:05:10 PM
The Fixing Citizenship Act
WHEREAS our statutory law is sometimes filled with errors whenever changes are made elsewhere to it, or in the Organic Law;
and WHEREAS one of the unfortunate jobs of the Secretary of State is to revoke citizenship for "those poor, unfortunate souls" at the end of an election cycle (Little Mermaid reference was intended!);
and WHEREAS reading El.Lex and realizing that it is, sadly, filled with errors, and seeing that as the Secretary of State, I am entitled to hopper bills;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Ziu does amend El.Lex 14, which currently reads, "An individual whose citizenship has been terminated solely by effect of Article XVIII, Section 10 of the Organic Law may apply to the Chancery for reinstatement of citizenship by providing the contact information required by section E.2. (47RZ46)"
SHALL BE AMENDED to read "An individual whose citizenship has been terminated solely by effect of Article X Section 5 of the Organic Law may apply to the Chancery for reinstatement of citizenship by providing the contact information required by E.2."
Uréu q'estadra så
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă, - Secretár d'Estat
I think you need to either write out "el Lexhatx" or use the abbreviation mandated in Z.2 when you're discussing the section to be changed in your resolution clause. Otherwise, this looks fine and probably can be moved through quickly. I recommend passage, predicated on that bit of language being cleaned up.
@Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu ,
@Miestră Schivă, UrN ?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 26, 2022, 08:16:12 AM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on April 25, 2022, 12:05:10 PM
The Poor Unfortunate Souls Citizenship Act
WHEREAS our statutory law is sometimes filled with errors whenever changes are made elsewhere to it, or in the Organic Law;
and WHEREAS one of the unfortunate jobs of the Secretary of State is to revoke citizenship for "those poor, unfortunate souls" at the end of an election cycle (Little Mermaid reference was intended!);
and WHEREAS reading El Lexhatx and realizing that it is, sadly, filled with errors, and seeing that as the Secretary of State, I am entitled to hopper bills;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Ziu does amend El Lexhatx E.14, which currently reads, "An individual whose citizenship has been terminated solely by effect of Article XVIII, Section 10 of the Organic Law may apply to the Chancery for reinstatement of citizenship by providing the contact information required by section E.2. (47RZ46)"
SHALL BE AMENDED to read "An individual whose citizenship has been terminated solely by effect of Article X Section 5 of the Organic Law may apply to the Chancery for reinstatement of citizenship by providing the contact information required by E.2."
Uréu q'estadra så
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă, - Secretár d'Estat
I think you need to either write out "el Lexhatx" or use the abbreviation mandated in Z.2 when you're discussing the section to be changed in your resolution clause. Otherwise, this looks fine and probably can be moved through quickly. I recommend passage, predicated on that bit of language being cleaned up. @Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu , @Miestră Schivă, UrN ?
Fixed (in the quote above).
With the fix, I see nothing inherently wrong with "The Fixing Citizenship Act."
Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on April 26, 2022, 03:42:47 PM
With the fix, I see nothing inherently wrong with "The Fixing Citizenship Act."
Any objections if I rename the act "The Poor, Unfortunate Souls Citizenship Act"? I quite forgot about clever bill naming as it's been quite some time since I proposed a bill.
None from me
Hey you guys, sorry, late to the party, just went down with a minor pandemic last week.
But I was re-reading the CRL establishment legislation, and by the looks of things, people aren't allowed to bring bills to the CRL unless they've spent 10 days in the Hopper (El Lexhatx H.6.4).
Is my reading correct? I realise we didn't do this last time, but it appears to be the law.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 01, 2022, 03:32:22 PM
Hey you guys, sorry, late to the party, just went down with a minor pandemic last week.
But I was re-reading the CRL establishment legislation, and by the looks of things, people aren't allowed to bring bills to the CRL unless they've spent 10 days in the Hopper (El Lexhatx H.6.4).
Is my reading correct? I realise we didn't do this last time, but it appears to be the law.
Okay, sounds fine to me.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on April 26, 2022, 03:57:22 PM
Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on April 26, 2022, 03:42:47 PM
With the fix, I see nothing inherently wrong with "The Fixing Citizenship Act."
Any objections if I rename the act "The Poor, Unfortunate Souls Citizenship Act"? I quite forgot about clever bill naming as it's been quite some time since I proposed a bill.
Sounds fine. Please consider this bill passed through committee.
Just noted we hadn't gotten around to this one.
I'm not sure about the wording "Under the auspices of etc etc etc." I would prefer something much more straightforward, like:
Quote
D 1.6.: The Government shall develop and administer a programme whereby each citizen meeting specific time thresholds as a Talossan citizen, may request a certificate, signed by the Crown and the Seneschal. The suggested citizenship milestones are 5 years, 10 years, 25 years, 50 years, and 75 years.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 26, 2022, 07:34:06 AM
The One Milestone at a Time Act
Whereas, 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:
Quote
D 1.6.: Under the auspices of a program developed and administered by the Office of the Seneschal (Seneschal, Distain, or other official delegated responsibility) each citizen meeting specific time thresholds as a Talossan citizen, may request a certificate, signed by the Crown and the Seneschal. The suggested citizenship milestones are 5 years, 10 years, 25 years, 50 years, and 75 years.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Sen-FL, TNC)
Mximo Carbonel (MC-RCT)
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)
AD, ESB, if you guys don't put your 2 bence in, Brenéir can't clark this until next time (as is my understanding).
We should lay some ground rules as to what "the CRL giving its recommendation" under El Lex H.6.6. Does this mean we have to have a 2/3 majority on an official report back? Or something looser, i.e. all 3 of us or maybe even just 2 of us having our say?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 23, 2022, 04:12:54 PM
AD, ESB, if you guys don't put your 2 bence in, Brenéir can't clark this until next time (as is my understanding).
We should lay some ground rules as to what "the CRL giving its recommendation" under El Lex H.6.6. Does this mean we have to have a 2/3 majority on an official report back? Or something looser, i.e. all 3 of us or maybe even just 2 of us having our say?
Um, I certainly HOPE you guys put in your thoughts as I added this to the Clark and I don't know if I can get MPF to respond in time to remove it (because I certainly can't).
6.6. After the CRL has given its recommendation, or if it gives no recommendation within 30 days of the bill having passed to committee, the bill has passed the hopper and the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.
Does my bill fall under this provision? This bill was passed into committee on April 26, 2022.
I think the Senator is correct, here. I still hope the Túischac'h and Mençéi will comment, but I checked the dates, and this bill will be able to be Clarked in 3 days in any case. Unfortunately, the fact that it's already in the unfixable Database machinery means the bill's proposer won't be able to take account of any further suggestions coming from the rest of the Committee.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 23, 2022, 05:37:29 PM
I think the Senator is correct, here. I still hope the Túischac'h and Mençéi will comment, but I checked the dates, and this bill will be able to be Clarked in 3 days in any case. Unfortunately, the fact that it's already in the unfixable Database machinery means the bill's proposer won't be able to take account of any further suggestions coming from the rest of the Committee.
Unfortunately I didn't think to check if the bill had passed the CRL. I did know it had been IN committee, however. I'll be more careful going forward. My apologies to the CRL committee.
It looks fine, I vote it's acceptable, problem solved, let's all be more careful.
For future reference, I'd like a consensus from the other members on the broader question that arose:
QuoteWe should lay some ground rules as to what "the CRL giving its recommendation" under El Lex H.6.6. Does this mean we have to have a 2/3 majority on an official report back? Or something looser, i.e. all 3 of us or maybe even just 2 of us having our say?
Anyone commenting on a proposal in any fashion suffices, as far as I'm concerned. The entire CRL process is an annoying chore for both legislators and the members of the committee, so we should make it as minimally annoying as possible.
I'm sorry to hear you don't feel that the job of legislative proofreading is an important one. I thought I remembered you being the guy who got annoyed at how much badly written law was being pushed through because no-one bothered to read it. I hope the Mençéi intends to take this Committee more seriously.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 23, 2022, 09:44:52 PM
For future reference, I'd like a consensus from the other members on the broader question that arose:
QuoteWe should lay some ground rules as to what "the CRL giving its recommendation" under El Lex H.6.6. Does this mean we have to have a 2/3 majority on an official report back? Or something looser, i.e. all 3 of us or maybe even just 2 of us having our say?
Honestly, I'd say if 2 members weigh in with either a "yup, all good" or "fix XYZ" (and then fixes are made), that should be sufficient. After all, we're not after substantive stuff (insofar as semantics in law & legislation can not be substantive) here, that's for the Ziu itself to decide.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 24, 2022, 03:41:28 PM
I'm sorry to hear you don't feel that the job of legislative proofreading is an important one. I thought I remembered you being the guy who got annoyed at how much badly written law was being pushed through because no-one bothered to read it. I hope the Mençéi intends to take this Committee more seriously.
Much of the problem with bad legislation is caused by (among other things) groupthink and the deferral of decisionmaking away from the actual legislative chamber, and the solution is not any kind of legislative babysitter. I will continue to assist with it, and I set it up and got it running in a professional manner since it's my duty, but you should not be surprised that I still oppose this sort of program.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 24, 2022, 07:10:10 PM
Much of the problem with bad legislation is caused by (among other things) groupthink and the deferral of decisionmaking away from the actual legislative chamber
That sounds intriguing, please expand on your thoughts
Here's a bill for review: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1401.0
I think it's fine.
Thanks for bringing that forward, will give it a look-see soon
Quote2.8.9 The Finance Minister is empowered to create the Bureau of Corporations, which body shall be responsible for the registration of all Talossan businesses, the enforcement of applicable business laws, and such further tasks as may seem fit by the Ziu.
"Empowered to"? Does that mean they have an option as to whether to do so or not? Why not "shall create", if this is supposed to bind the Government?
QuoteSample articles may be offered at the Bureau's discretion.
Putting a "may" clause in a law makes no sense. If there is no law against "providing sample articles", then logically the Ministry of Finance "may" do that.
QuoteThis number shall be composed of three digits to indicate the year of registration combined with three digits to indicate the order a business was registered, beginning with 001.
You might emphasise "Talossan year" here?
QuoteChanges to this numbering scheme may be made at the discretion of the Bureau, but are discouraged.
QuoteIt is encouraged for the Bureau to provide a fancy certificate to any registered business.
Statements of "discouragement" or "encouragement" have no place in positive law. Either you are compelling the Ministry of Finance to do something, or it should not be in the bill.
Generally this bill suffers from being an attempt to set Government policy from opposition. The Ziu may very well compel the Government to do things, or to not do things; but laws have no place in attempting to offer suggestions.
I'd like to submit the Seneschal Selection and Reselection Amendment
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 01, 2022, 09:18:04 PM
Quote2.8.9 The Finance Minister is empowered to create the Bureau of Corporations, which body shall be responsible for the registration of all Talossan businesses, the enforcement of applicable business laws, and such further tasks as may seem fit by the Ziu.
"Empowered to"? Does that mean they have an option as to whether to do so or not? Why not "shall create", if this is supposed to bind the Government?
It means that the Finance Minister is not required to create this Bureau; it is optional and within their discretion.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 01, 2022, 09:18:04 PMQuoteSample articles may be offered at the Bureau's discretion.
Putting a "may" clause in a law makes no sense. If there is no law against "providing sample articles", then logically the Ministry of Finance "may" do that.
Yes, but the law is full of suggestions of this kind, intended to guide application of those fulfilling it, but without binding their hands.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 01, 2022, 09:18:04 PMQuoteThis number shall be composed of three digits to indicate the year of registration combined with three digits to indicate the order a business was registered, beginning with 001.
You might emphasise "Talossan year" here?
That makes sense, thank you.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 01, 2022, 09:18:04 PMQuoteChanges to this numbering scheme may be made at the discretion of the Bureau, but are discouraged.
QuoteIt is encouraged for the Bureau to provide a fancy certificate to any registered business.
Statements of "discouragement" or "encouragement" have no place in positive law. Either you are compelling the Ministry of Finance to do something, or it should not be in the bill.
Generally this bill suffers from being an attempt to set Government policy from opposition. The Ziu may very well compel the Government to do things, or to not do things; but laws have no place in attempting to offer suggestions.
I disagree. The law is full of such suggestions. I think like the first few provisions in the title covering the Government have like three suggestions alone! It doesn't always make sense to require everything as mandatory or else not mention it at all. Often the Ziu can and should provide guidance where it sees fit, even if the execution can ultimately be trusted to those on the ground -- which is, in fact, exactly the opposite of trying to set policy from opposition.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 01, 2022, 10:26:53 PM
It means that the Finance Minister is not required to create this Bureau; it is optional and within their discretion.
Then honestly we don't need this law at all, we just need a policy paper. MinFin could create this Bureau tomorrow, should he have the time and energy to do so, with no law required. And if he doesn't want to, this law won't make him.
QuoteThe law is full of such suggestions. I think like the first few provisions in the title covering the Government have like three suggestions alone!
Does it? Well, thank you for giving me a place to start the Justice Ministry's project of removing kipple from El Lexhatx.
Seriously: the purpose of this Committee is to raise technical issues rather than discuss policy, so I think I've said my piece here. I'd love to hear the Mençéi's opinion.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 01, 2022, 10:39:32 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 01, 2022, 10:26:53 PM
It means that the Finance Minister is not required to create this Bureau; it is optional and within their discretion.
Then honestly we don't need this law at all, we just need a policy paper. MinFin could create this Bureau tomorrow, should he have the time and energy to do so, with no law required. And if he doesn't want to, this law won't make him.
Correct. Even though I think this is a very good idea, there are also times when this might not make sense to do, so it is a discretionary scheme that may be enacted at the will of the MinFin.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 01, 2022, 10:39:32 PMQuoteThe law is full of such suggestions. I think like the first few provisions in the title covering the Government have like three suggestions alone!
Does it? Well, thank you for giving me a place to start the Justice Ministry's project of removing kipple from El Lexhatx.
These sorts of things are relatively common in legal systems everywhere, since allowing no discretion to executive officers can hamper them from actually achieving desired goals.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 01, 2022, 10:47:54 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 01, 2022, 10:39:32 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 01, 2022, 10:26:53 PM
It means that the Finance Minister is not required to create this Bureau; it is optional and within their discretion.
Then honestly we don't need this law at all, we just need a policy paper. MinFin could create this Bureau tomorrow, should he have the time and energy to do so, with no law required. And if he doesn't want to, this law won't make him.
Correct. Even though I think this is a very good idea, there are also times when this might not make sense to do, so it is a discretionary scheme that may be enacted at the will of the MinFin.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 01, 2022, 10:39:32 PMQuoteThe law is full of such suggestions. I think like the first few provisions in the title covering the Government have like three suggestions alone!
Does it? Well, thank you for giving me a place to start the Justice Ministry's project of removing kipple from El Lexhatx.
These sorts of things are relatively common in legal systems everywhere, since allowing no discretion to executive officers can hamper them from actually achieving desired goals.
In looking at this, there doesn't strike me as anything wrong, inherently speaking, with the material as presented. I think that the question of "advisory" law (shoulds and coulds, etc) might be best decided by the legislature. IE, in debate on the bill, they can discuss whether or not this is the kind of law worth enacting. For my own part, the "shoulds" and "cans" absolutely scream for a "if its not explicitly allowed, it is forbidden" type of legalism. In essence, at least in my reason, "shoulds" and "cans" in law may very well quash the executive discretion you're pointing to, AD.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on June 01, 2022, 09:50:27 PM
I'd like to submit the Seneschal Selection and Reselection Amendment
For clarification, is it the Amendment as contained in this linked post? https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1441.msg12111#msg12111
Apologies,
@Ian Plätschisch , Just want to make sure.
Yes
I already picked over it in the Hopper; it's fine.
Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on June 06, 2022, 07:05:33 PM
In looking at this, there doesn't strike me as anything wrong, inherently speaking, with the material as presented. I think that the question of "advisory" law (shoulds and coulds, etc) might be best decided by the legislature. IE, in debate on the bill, they can discuss whether or not this is the kind of law worth enacting. For my own part, the "shoulds" and "cans" absolutely scream for a "if its not explicitly allowed, it is forbidden" type of legalism. In essence, at least in my reason, "shoulds" and "cans" in law may very well quash the executive discretion you're pointing to, AD.
Well, the discretion lies in creating the bureau, which is why the MinFin is "empowered to" create it. But once it exists, it is mandated ("shall") to issue licenses in a standardized format, although it is assigned discretion to change the format if it wishes ("may") and has the choice of whether or not to provide a fancy certificate ("it is encouraged").
I have tried to carefully structure the bill to account for varying degrees of burden and practicality on the part of the MinFin. They
can create the bureau -- but once they do so, it has legal requirements for its function. They
can change the numbering scheme if they think they come up with a better one, but that's left to them to decide, and they
can issue a certificate, but even a MinFin who feels like it's wise to open the Bureau and has time to make a list might not have time to do a certificate if they have a lot going on.
If it is not specifically forbidden, it is allowed. Period.
That is a prerequisite of personal freedom.
Quote from: Ián Tamorán S.H. on June 08, 2022, 12:27:51 PM
If it is not specifically forbidden, it is allowed. Period.
That is a prerequisite of personal freedom.
So just so you're aware, this is the CRL Committee. It's fine to comment here, but be aware that this is not the thread for a specific bill.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what exactly you're speaking about? It's certainly true for citizens that anything not specifically forbidden is allowed, but the Government operates within specific parameters. The Secretary of State can't exempt bills from the Hopper requirements just because he likes the font, for example. Or to pick another example, the Ziu can't make laws about what hats I'm permitted to wear, since that's not a subject over which the people have democratically granted them the authority to make laws.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2022, 07:07:21 AM
I already picked over it in the Hopper; it's fine.
I, also, dont see problems here.
Submitting for review
The Let's Make This Official ActWhereas, the Kingdom recognizes the importance of celebrating important dates and events in Talossan history, and
Whereas, Reunision as the re-uniting of kingdom and republican Talossans marks an incredibly important moment in the history of Talossa, and
Whereas, the day in which King John issued the Proclamation of Reunision, April 20, certainly qualifies for elevation from a day of observance to an official national holiday.
Therefore be it resolved that a new subsection is placed at El Lexhatx F 2.4, with any necessary renumbering of following subsections, to read:
Quote20 April. Reunision Day. Commemorating the royal proclamation of Reunision and the end of the Third Schism.
Uréu q'estadra så
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Sen-FL, TNC)
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 17, 2022, 08:11:23 AM
Submitting for review
The Let's Make This Official Act
Whereas, the Kingdom recognizes the importance of celebrating important dates and events in Talossan history, and
Whereas, Reunision as the re-uniting of kingdom and republican Talossans marks an incredibly important moment in the history of Talossa, and
Whereas, the day in which King John issued the Proclamation of Reunision, April 20, certainly qualifies for elevation from a day of observance to an official national holiday.
Therefore be it resolved that a new subsection is placed at El Lexhatx F 2.4, with any necessary renumbering of following subsections, to read:
Quote20 April. Reunision Day. Commemorating the royal proclamation of Reunision and the end of the Third Schism.
Uréu q'estadra så
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Sen-FL, TNC)
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)
The bill appears sound to me.
Very simple bill, and I see no problems. I mean, obviously, since I'm a co-sponsor!
Submitting this to the committee:
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:28:04 PM
WHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and
WHEREAS this means that anyone in cort can very reasonably ask under what authority the Ziu purports to organically restrict their behavior, when all such power seems reserved to the provinces under the letter of the law, and can also ask how the Ziu gets to set any standards for the bar or other things,
THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:
Quote20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu
Also this:
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 08:25:27 AM
WHEREAS there is a large legal loophole that would permit virtually any crime, including very serious crimes such as threats of sexual assault, theft, bribery, or anything else, and
WHEREAS the problem lies with the fact that we're offering unlimited and unqualified sanctuary under terms which clearly reference the medieval Christian practice of offering church protection from secular law, thereby allowing anyone to claim the right of sanctuary if accused of crimes, and
WHEREAS it's hard to find any other way to interpret this bit of the law so that it makes sense, and so therefore this reading probably is going to be a valid one, or at the very least would be an incredible complication that might make it impossible to prosecute someone, and
WHEREAS no one has yet taken advantage of it, but there's no reason to think that will last forever,
THEREFORE the tenth section of Title A of el Lexhatx, which currently reads
Quote10. The Ziu hereby recognizes the historic right of churches and other religious organizations to offer sanctuary to individuals in dire need.
is hereby stricken in its entirety.
FURTHERMORE, the words "Except as provided in A.17," shall be struck from section 16.
FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber Title A in a sensible fashion.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 23, 2022, 08:40:33 PM
Submitting this to the committee:
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:28:04 PM
WHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and
WHEREAS this means that anyone in cort can very reasonably ask under what authority the Ziu purports to organically restrict their behavior, when all such power seems reserved to the provinces under the letter of the law, and can also ask how the Ziu gets to set any standards for the bar or other things,
THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:
Quote20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu
So far as I can tell, this work appears sound.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 23, 2022, 08:40:49 PM
Also this:
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 08:25:27 AM
WHEREAS there is a large legal loophole that would permit virtually any crime, including very serious crimes such as threats of sexual assault, theft, bribery, or anything else, and
WHEREAS the problem lies with the fact that we're offering unlimited and unqualified sanctuary under terms which clearly reference the medieval Christian practice of offering church protection from secular law, thereby allowing anyone to claim the right of sanctuary if accused of crimes, and
WHEREAS it's hard to find any other way to interpret this bit of the law so that it makes sense, and so therefore this reading probably is going to be a valid one, or at the very least would be an incredible complication that might make it impossible to prosecute someone, and
WHEREAS no one has yet taken advantage of it, but there's no reason to think that will last forever,
THEREFORE the tenth section of Title A of el Lexhatx, which currently reads
Quote10. The Ziu hereby recognizes the historic right of churches and other religious organizations to offer sanctuary to individuals in dire need.
is hereby stricken in its entirety.
FURTHERMORE, the words "Except as provided in A.17," shall be struck from section 16.
FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber Title A in a sensible fashion.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu
In looking through, I'm pretty sure that this dots its "i's" and crosses its "t's." Should work
Thanks! And I'm also okay with them both, so that's sorted.
Can I please submit for the CRL's appraisal the Let's Make This Official Compromise Bill (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1509.msg12693#msg12693)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 16, 2022, 05:16:32 PM
The Let's Make This Official Compromise Bill
WHEREAS the Kingdom recognizes the importance of celebrating important dates and events in Talossan history, and
WHEREAS the Republican schism of June 1 2004, as the act of defiance that sparked the movement leading to the abdication of a tyrannical King and the restoration of democracy in the Kingdom, was an incredibly important moment in the history of Talossa; and
WHEREAS Reunision as the re-uniting of our nation's monarchist and republican traditions also marks an incredibly important moment in the history of Talossa;
Therefore be it resolved that two new subsections are placed at El Lexhatx F 2.4, with any necessary renumbering of following subsections, to read:
Quote20 April. Reunision Day. Commemorating the royal proclamation of Reunision and the end of the National Schism.
1 June. Democracy Day. Commemorating the foundation of the Talossan Republic as a day to honour democracy and the popular will, for both Republican and Monarchist traditions.
On the face of it, I see nothing wrong. But I do want to get a touch of clarity.
There are, essentially, two bills doing very similar things, yes? There is the "Let's Make This Official Act" by Tzaracomprada/Davinescu and the "Let's Make This Official Compromise Bill" as proposed by Schivă. Both enshrine Reunison Day, while the latter also enshrines Democracy Day.
That's exactly right. I suggested this amendment to the former bill and I was simply ignored. So I thought, what the hell.
I should also point out that - if present political positions hold - the former bill will not pass, while mine has a good chance to.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 27, 2022, 04:24:50 PM
That's exactly right. I suggested this amendment to the former bill and I was simply ignored. So I thought, what the hell.
I should also point out that - if present political positions hold - the former bill will not pass, while mine has a good chance to.
There already is a Democracy Day. It commemorates the start of democracy in the country. So that is a serious flaw in the bill that will need to be fixed.
Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama. It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2022, 05:16:36 PM
Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama. It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.
... actually, I never saw it. My apologies - I have been rather unwell for the last month and only checking Witt once a day, which means some things fall off the "latest 59" post.
I am happy to make that amendment you suggest.
(https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1509.msg12693#msg12693)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 27, 2022, 05:27:35 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2022, 05:16:36 PM
Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama. It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.
... actually, I never saw it. My apologies - I have been rather unwell for the last month and only checking Witt once a day, which means some things fall off the "latest 59" post.
I am happy to make that amendment you suggest.
(https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1509.msg12693#msg12693)
It's okay! Things happen, and it's entirely understandable if you miss something. But that means you should probably give others the same benefit of the doubt, right?
Would you be open to just having Republic Day on the day of Reunision, and no Reunision Day at all, and getting basically 100% of the Cosa behind this? I really don't want to endorse the narrative that Reunision was the defeat of the Republic, and this alternative would specifically celebrate its history and heritage but not the unfortunate schism that separated so many for so long.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2022, 05:47:22 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 27, 2022, 05:27:35 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2022, 05:16:36 PM
Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama. It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.
... actually, I never saw it. My apologies - I have been rather unwell for the last month and only checking Witt once a day, which means some things fall off the "latest 59" post.
I am happy to make that amendment you suggest.
(https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1509.msg12693#msg12693)
It's okay! Things happen, and it's entirely understandable if you miss something. But that means you should probably give others the same benefit of the doubt, right?
Would you be open to just having Republic Day on the day of Reunision, and no Reunision Day at all, and getting basically 100% of the Cosa behind this? I really don't want to endorse the narrative that Reunision was the defeat of the Republic, and this alternative would specifically celebrate its history and heritage but not the unfortunate schism that separated so many for so long.
What precisely is happening here?
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 27, 2022, 06:36:27 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2022, 05:47:22 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 27, 2022, 05:27:35 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2022, 05:16:36 PM
Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama. It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.
... actually, I never saw it. My apologies - I have been rather unwell for the last month and only checking Witt once a day, which means some things fall off the "latest 59" post.
I am happy to make that amendment you suggest.
(https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1509.msg12693#msg12693)
It's okay! Things happen, and it's entirely understandable if you miss something. But that means you should probably give others the same benefit of the doubt, right?
Would you be open to just having Republic Day on the day of Reunision, and no Reunision Day at all, and getting basically 100% of the Cosa behind this? I really don't want to endorse the narrative that Reunision was the defeat of the Republic, and this alternative would specifically celebrate its history and heritage but not the unfortunate schism that separated so many for so long.
What precisely is happening here?
You submitted your bill to the CRL, and Dama Miestra submitted her bill. ESB asked to confirm that they were really very similar, and that has led into a discussion where I'm trying to hammer out a compromise that might be agreeable to both of you.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2022, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 27, 2022, 06:36:27 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2022, 05:47:22 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 27, 2022, 05:27:35 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2022, 05:16:36 PM
Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama. It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.
... actually, I never saw it. My apologies - I have been rather unwell for the last month and only checking Witt once a day, which means some things fall off the "latest 59" post.
I am happy to make that amendment you suggest.
(https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1509.msg12693#msg12693)
It's okay! Things happen, and it's entirely understandable if you miss something. But that means you should probably give others the same benefit of the doubt, right?
Would you be open to just having Republic Day on the day of Reunision, and no Reunision Day at all, and getting basically 100% of the Cosa behind this? I really don't want to endorse the narrative that Reunision was the defeat of the Republic, and this alternative would specifically celebrate its history and heritage but not the unfortunate schism that separated so many for so long.
What precisely is happening here?
You submitted your bill to the CRL, and Dama Miestra submitted her bill. ESB asked to confirm that they were really very similar, and that has led into a discussion where I'm trying to hammer out a compromise that might be agreeable to both of you.
It is not acceptable to me. By submitting the original to the CRL and then clarking it...I thought that was clear.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 27, 2022, 06:56:53 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2022, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 27, 2022, 06:36:27 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2022, 05:47:22 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 27, 2022, 05:27:35 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2022, 05:16:36 PM
Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama. It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.
... actually, I never saw it. My apologies - I have been rather unwell for the last month and only checking Witt once a day, which means some things fall off the "latest 59" post.
I am happy to make that amendment you suggest.
(https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1509.msg12693#msg12693)
It's okay! Things happen, and it's entirely understandable if you miss something. But that means you should probably give others the same benefit of the doubt, right?
Would you be open to just having Republic Day on the day of Reunision, and no Reunision Day at all, and getting basically 100% of the Cosa behind this? I really don't want to endorse the narrative that Reunision was the defeat of the Republic, and this alternative would specifically celebrate its history and heritage but not the unfortunate schism that separated so many for so long.
What precisely is happening here?
You submitted your bill to the CRL, and Dama Miestra submitted her bill. ESB asked to confirm that they were really very similar, and that has led into a discussion where I'm trying to hammer out a compromise that might be agreeable to both of you.
It is not acceptable to me. By submitting the original to the CRL and then clarking it...I thought that was clear.
Okay then! Never mind, Dama Miestra.
Well, if all that's sorted out, I'm happy to confirm that I think my bill (with the minor amendment suggested by AD) is good to go; once I hear the same from the Túischac'h and/or the Mençéi I'll Clark it.
There are no other logistical problems with the bill, so it seems good to go.
Agreed that it is a sound bill.
Submitting The Loud Town Crier Act for review.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 24, 2022, 04:26:20 AM
The Loud Town Crier Act
Whereas, current election regulations require the Secretary of State to post preliminary election results to only Wittenberg, and
Whereas, it is broadly agreed that Wittenberg, while an important aspect of Talossan life, is not Talossa itself, and
Whereas, it is a reasonable act of public interest to ensure that news of Talossan elections is made available to as many Talossans as possible, and
Whereas, this amending of election notification requirements will result in minimal additional burden on the Chancery.
Therefore, El Lexhatx B. 13.5 is amended to read as follows (changes in bold):
QuoteImmediately following the Election Deadline, the Secretary of State shall post unofficial elections results on Wittenberg, transmit these results by email to citizens allowing contact by the Chancery, and notify the members of the Commission that the unofficial results have been posted.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Sen-FL, TNC)
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on July 08, 2022, 02:15:49 PM
Submitting The Loud Town Crier Act for review.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 24, 2022, 04:26:20 AM
The Loud Town Crier Act
Whereas, current election regulations require the Secretary of State to post preliminary election results to only Wittenberg, and
Whereas, it is broadly agreed that Wittenberg, while an important aspect of Talossan life, is not Talossa itself, and
Whereas, it is a reasonable act of public interest to ensure that news of Talossan elections is made available to as many Talossans as possible, and
Whereas, this amending of election notification requirements will result in minimal additional burden on the Chancery.
Therefore, El Lexhatx B. 13.5 is amended to read as follows (changes in bold):
QuoteImmediately following the Election Deadline, the Secretary of State shall post unofficial elections results on Wittenberg, transmit these results by email to citizens allowing contact by the Chancery, and notify the members of the Commission that the unofficial results have been posted.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Sen-FL, TNC)
I see nothing wrong with it.
I would like to ask the committee to review this bill. Thank you.
THE NAMING THE NATIONAL TEAMS ACT
Whereas El Lexhatx currently shows that we have National NFL, NBA and MLB teams but no NHL team and the former are named in separate sections (Section F paragraphs 25, 32 and 33 respectively). Let Section F Paragraph 25 which currently reads "25. The Green Bay Packers shall be Talossa's Official NFL Team, and it will remain so until such time as the nation is able to field its own NFL team to contest the American teams. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Green Bay Packers," as the "Florenciâ Packers." (23RZ40, 23RZ43)" be changed to read
"25. Until such time as our great nation is able to field our own teams in the respective leagues the following teams will be recognized as the Talossan National Teams.
25.1 The Green Bay Packers shall be Talossa's Official NFL Team, The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Green Bay Packers," as the "Florenciâ Packers."
25.2 The Milwaukee Brewers shall be Talossa's Official MLB Team, the Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Brewers" as the "Maricopa Brewers"
25.3 The Milwaukee Bucks shall be Talossa's Official NBA Team, the Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Bucks" as the "Benito Bucks"
25.4 The Nashville Predators shall be Talossa's Official NHL Team, the Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Nashville Predators" as the "Cézembre Predators"
25.5 The Milwaukee Admirals shall be Talossa's Official AHL Team, the Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Admirals" as the "Maritiimi-Maxhestic Admirals"
Also let section F paragraphs 32, 33 and 38 be stricken from El Lexhatx.
This organizes all of our recognized national teams under one paragraph making them easier to locate. The Nashville Predators were chosen because our neighbors in Wisconsin may declare war on us if we chose either Chicago or Minnesota and because one member said he could not in good conscience root for the team from Detroit and I chose Cézembre because the geographically closer provinces already have teams and sometimes it seems that Cézembre is the forgotten province.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Tric'hard Lenxheir (MC-TNC)
Mic'haglh Autófil, MoFA (MC-PDR)
Can my colleagues give a look-see to the Tear Down This Wall, Finally (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1568.0) bill?
I would suggest just changing the punctuation a bit to make it more "standard", as below:
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on July 17, 2022, 05:13:06 PM
I would like to ask the committee to review this bill. Thank you.
THE NAMING THE NATIONAL TEAMS ACT
Whereas El Lexhatx currently shows that we have National NFL, NBA and MLB teams but no NHL team and the former are named in separate sections (Section F paragraphs 25, 32 and 33 respectively). Let Section F Paragraph 25 which currently reads "25. The Green Bay Packers shall be Talossa's Official NFL Team, and it will remain so until such time as the nation is able to field its own NFL team to contest the American teams. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Green Bay Packers," as the "Florenciâ Packers." (23RZ40, 23RZ43)" be changed to read
"25. Until such time as our great nation is able to field our own teams in the respective leagues the following teams will be recognized as the Talossan National Teams.
25.1 The Green Bay Packers shall be Talossa's Official NFL Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Green Bay Packers," as the "Florenciâ Packers."
25.2 The Milwaukee Brewers shall be Talossa's Official MLB Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Brewers," as the "Maricopa Brewers."
25.3 The Milwaukee Bucks shall be Talossa's Official NBA Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Bucks," as the "Benito Bucks."
25.4 The Nashville Predators shall be Talossa's Official NHL Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Nashville Predators," as the "Cézembre Predators."
25.5 The Milwaukee Admirals shall be Talossa's Official AHL Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Admirals," as the "Maritiimi-Maxhestic Admirals."
Also let section F paragraphs 32, 33 and 38 be stricken from El Lexhatx.
This organizes all of our recognized national teams under one paragraph making them easier to locate. The Nashville Predators were chosen because our neighbors in Wisconsin may declare war on us if we chose either Chicago or Minnesota and because one member said he could not in good conscience root for the team from Detroit and I chose Cézembre because the geographically closer provinces already have teams and sometimes it seems that Cézembre is the forgotten province.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Tric'hard Lenxheir (MC-TNC)
Mic'haglh Autófil, MoFA (MC-PDR)
And can I beg humbly for the addition of the following? This has been a hobbyhorse of mine from a long time back.
Quote25.6 The Milwaukee Wave shall be Talossa's Official Major Arena Soccer League Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Wave," as the "Fiovă Wave."
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on July 08, 2022, 02:15:49 PM
Submitting The Loud Town Crier Act for review.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 24, 2022, 04:26:20 AM
The Loud Town Crier Act
Whereas, current election regulations require the Secretary of State to post preliminary election results to only Wittenberg, and
Whereas, it is broadly agreed that Wittenberg, while an important aspect of Talossan life, is not Talossa itself, and
Whereas, it is a reasonable act of public interest to ensure that news of Talossan elections is made available to as many Talossans as possible, and
Whereas, this amending of election notification requirements will result in minimal additional burden on the Chancery.
Therefore, El Lexhatx B. 13.5 is amended to read as follows (changes in bold):
QuoteImmediately following the Election Deadline, the Secretary of State shall post unofficial elections results on Wittenberg, transmit these results by email to citizens allowing contact by the Chancery, and notify the members of the Commission that the unofficial results have been posted.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Sen-FL, TNC)
Looks good.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 21, 2022, 08:34:03 PM
Can my colleagues give a look-see to the Tear Down This Wall, Finally (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1568.0) bill?
Add directions to renumber the title, please.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on July 21, 2022, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 21, 2022, 08:34:03 PM
Can my colleagues give a look-see to the Tear Down This Wall, Finally (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1568.0) bill?
Add directions to renumber the title, please.
I will if the Mençéi agrees that's what we should do, but renumbering El Lex every time we delete a passage has led us into trouble in the past, because of broken cross-referencing from other laws. (I assume you note that A.17 is already blank.)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 21, 2022, 09:10:49 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on July 21, 2022, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 21, 2022, 08:34:03 PM
Can my colleagues give a look-see to the Tear Down This Wall, Finally (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1568.0) bill?
Add directions to renumber the title, please.
I will if the Mençéi agrees that's what we should do, but renumbering El Lex every time we delete a passage has led us into trouble in the past, because of broken cross-referencing from other laws. (I assume you note that A.17 is already blank.)
Fair point. Simply direct the further deletion of Lexh.C.2.6.5, then. That's the only reference to A.9.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 21, 2022, 08:40:22 PM
And can I beg humbly for the addition of the following? This has been a hobbyhorse of mine from a long time back.
Quote25.6 The Milwaukee Wave shall be Talossa's Official Major Arena Soccer League Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Wave," as the "Fiovă Wave."
I was surprised that i didn't find a soccer team in El Lex...I would definitely be open to the addition
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 21, 2022, 08:40:22 PM
And can I beg humbly for the addition of the following? This has been a hobbyhorse of mine from a long time back.
Quote25.6 The Milwaukee Wave shall be Talossa's Official Major Arena Soccer League Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Wave," as the "Fiovă Wave."
How is this?
THE NAMING THE NATIONAL TEAMS ACT
Whereas El Lexhatx currently shows that we have National NFL, NBA and MLB teams but no NHL team and the former are named in separate sections (Section F paragraphs 25, 32 and 33 respectively). Let Section F Paragraph 25 which currently reads "25. The Green Bay Packers shall be Talossa's Official NFL Team, and it will remain so until such time as the nation is able to field its own NFL team to contest the American teams. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Green Bay Packers," as the "Florenciâ Packers." (23RZ40, 23RZ43)" be changed to read
"25. Until such time as our great nation is able to field our own teams in the respective leagues the following teams will be recognized as the Talossan National Teams.
25.1 The Green Bay Packers shall be Talossa's Official NFL Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Green Bay Packers," as the "Florenciâ Packers."
25.2 The Milwaukee Brewers shall be Talossa's Official MLB Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Brewers," as the "Maricopa Brewers."
25.3 The Milwaukee Bucks shall be Talossa's Official NBA Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Bucks," as the "Benito Bucks."
25.4 The Nashville Predators shall be Talossa's Official NHL Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Nashville Predators," as the "Cézembre Predators."
25.5 The Milwaukee Admirals shall be Talossa's Official AHL Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Admirals," as the "Maritiimi-Maxhestic Admirals."
25.6 The Milwaukee Wave shall be Talossa's Official Major Arena Soccer League Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Wave," as the "Fiovă Wave."
Also let section F paragraphs 32, 33 and 38 be stricken from El Lexhatx.
This organizes all of our recognized national teams under one paragraph making them easier to locate. The Nashville Predators were chosen because our neighbors in Wisconsin may declare war on us if we chose either Chicago or Minnesota and because one member said he could not in good conscience root for the team from Detroit and I chose Cézembre because the geographically closer provinces already have teams and sometimes it seems that Cézembre is the forgotten province.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Tric'hard Lenxheir (MC-TNC)
Mic'haglh Autófil, MoFA (MC-PDR)
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on July 21, 2022, 09:25:24 PM
Fair point. Simply direct the further deletion of Lexh.C.2.6.5, then. That's the only reference to A.9.
Done (it's D.2.6.5 btw)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 21, 2022, 08:34:03 PM
Can my colleagues give a look-see to the Tear Down This Wall, Finally (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1568.0) bill?
It looks pretty solid to me, at least as far as its construction.
Yes, looks fine.
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on July 21, 2022, 10:59:48 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 21, 2022, 08:40:22 PM
And can I beg humbly for the addition of the following? This has been a hobbyhorse of mine from a long time back.
Quote25.6 The Milwaukee Wave shall be Talossa's Official Major Arena Soccer League Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Wave," as the "Fiovă Wave."
How is this?
THE NAMING THE NATIONAL TEAMS ACT
Whereas El Lexhatx currently shows that we have National NFL, NBA and MLB teams but no NHL team and the former are named in separate sections (Section F paragraphs 25, 32 and 33 respectively). Let Section F Paragraph 25 which currently reads "25. The Green Bay Packers shall be Talossa's Official NFL Team, and it will remain so until such time as the nation is able to field its own NFL team to contest the American teams. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Green Bay Packers," as the "Florenciâ Packers." (23RZ40, 23RZ43)" be changed to read
"25. Until such time as our great nation is able to field our own teams in the respective leagues the following teams will be recognized as the Talossan National Teams.
25.1 The Green Bay Packers shall be Talossa's Official NFL Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Green Bay Packers," as the "Florenciâ Packers."
25.2 The Milwaukee Brewers shall be Talossa's Official MLB Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Brewers," as the "Maricopa Brewers."
25.3 The Milwaukee Bucks shall be Talossa's Official NBA Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Bucks," as the "Benito Bucks."
25.4 The Nashville Predators shall be Talossa's Official NHL Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Nashville Predators," as the "Cézembre Predators."
25.5 The Milwaukee Admirals shall be Talossa's Official AHL Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Admirals," as the "Maritiimi-Maxhestic Admirals."
25.6 The Milwaukee Wave shall be Talossa's Official Major Arena Soccer League Team. The Ziu officially authorises loyal Talossan citizens to refer to the team, heretofore known as the "Milwaukee Wave," as the "Fiovă Wave."
Also let section F paragraphs 32, 33 and 38 be stricken from El Lexhatx.
This organizes all of our recognized national teams under one paragraph making them easier to locate. The Nashville Predators were chosen because our neighbors in Wisconsin may declare war on us if we chose either Chicago or Minnesota and because one member said he could not in good conscience root for the team from Detroit and I chose Cézembre because the geographically closer provinces already have teams and sometimes it seems that Cézembre is the forgotten province.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Tric'hard Lenxheir (MC-TNC)
Mic'haglh Autófil, MoFA (MC-PDR)
This looks good. My apology for such a tardy reply.