The Organic Law dates back to 1997, but the current text refers to it as the 2017 Organic Law. This seems like it's discarding ten years of impressive longevity for no reason. I'm going to propose a bill soon which will make only slight cosmetic edits to the Organic Law to reflect this (and also to move Ian P. to the front of the list of people thanked, since he devised and shepherded the 2017 revisions).
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 04, 2023, 11:09:45 AMThe Organic Law dates back to 1997, but the current text refers to it as the 2017 Organic Law. This seems like it's discarding ten years of impressive longevity for no reason.
twenny, if me may ;)
Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on February 04, 2023, 01:51:20 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 04, 2023, 11:09:45 AMThe Organic Law dates back to 1997, but the current text refers to it as the 2017 Organic Law. This seems like it's discarding ten years of impressive longevity for no reason.
twenny, if me may ;)
Thanks! Very right!
WHEREAS one of the many things that makes Talossa impressive and unusual among its fellow small countries is the continuity and antiquity of our government, and
WHEREAS it's good to visibly preserve that antiquity for others to see, and
WHEREAS the 2017 revisions to the Organic Law were comprehensive and excellent, and their organizer merits more credit than he gave himself,
THEREFORE it is resolved by the King, Cosa, and Senäts in Ziu assembled that the Scribe shall change the displayed title of the Organic Law to reflect its legal origin date of 1997, and
FURTHERMORE that the Scribe shall alter the Preamble, which currently reads
QuoteWE, JOHN I, by the grace of God, King of Talossa, etc., etc., etc., conscious of the role conferred upon Talossa by history, ever mindful of our inexplicable and inextricable connection somehow to Berbers, moved by the tenacity of the Talossan people throughout the many trials of the past twenty years, with renewed patriotism and the resolute will to craft a state based on justice, law, and freedom, for the peace, order, and good government of all Talossans, aware of the need for a new governing document that may serve Talossa for decades to come; and owing a debt of gratitude to Matthias Muth, John Eiffler, Evan Gallagher, Sean Hert, John Jahn, Dan Lorentz, Geoff Toumayan, Marc-André Dowd, Nathan Freeburg, and Ken Oplinger, who developed the founding principles of modern Talossan governance, and to Viteu Marcianüs, Ian Plätschisch, Gödafrïeu Válcadác'h, Dame Miestrâ Schivâ, Txoteu Davinescu, Sir Cresti Matawois Siervicül, and Eovart Grischun, who ensured the preparation of this document; do ordain and establish, by and through the consent of the Talossan People, as the supreme law of our Realm, this 2017 Organic Law
to instead read
QuoteWE, JOHN I, by the grace of God, King of Talossa, etc., etc., etc., conscious of the role conferred upon Talossa by history, ever mindful of our inexplicable and inextricable connection somehow to Berbers, moved by the tenacity of the Talossan people throughout the many trials of the past twenty years, with renewed patriotism and the resolute will to craft a state based on justice, law, and freedom, for the peace, order, and good government of all Talossans, aware of the need for a new governing document that may serve Talossa for decades to come; and owing a debt of gratitude to Matthias Muth, John Eiffler, Evan Gallagher, Sean Hert, John Jahn, Dan Lorentz, Geoff Toumayan, Marc-André Dowd, Nathan Freeburg, and Ken Oplinger, who developed the founding principles of modern Talossan governance, and to Ian Plätschisch, Viteu Marcianüs, Gödafrïeu Válcadác'h, Dama Miestrâ Schivâ, Txoteu Davinescu, Sir Cresti Mataiwos Siervicül, and Éovart Grischun, who ensured the preparation of this document; do ordain and establish, by and through the consent of the Talossan People, as the supreme law of our Realm, this 2017 revision of the 1997 Organic Law
Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 09, 2023, 06:41:25 AMTHEREFORE the King, Cosa, and Senäts in Ziu assembled that the Scribe shall change the displayed title of the Organic Law to reflect its legal origin date of 1997
Is there a word missing between "assembled" and "that"?
Thanks!
A few things:
- "Cresti Mataiwos Siervicül"
- "Dama Miestrâ Schivâ" could be turned into "Dama Miestră Schivă", as per SIGN's provisional standard and her current display name
- Pedantic, but Grisch's first name would be "Éovart" - every other name has the correct diacritics, as far as I can tell
- Potential snag - if we reverted the year to 1997, should we also revert the name at the top to Robert, or is it fine because John is proclaiming the OrgLaw "as amended throughout the years"? (If so, some of the language in the rest of the preamble doesn't make too much sense though.)
- Is there any appetite for converting the names of the original framers to their Talossan versions? Like sure, Sean Hert never went by anything else AFAIK, but JJ and Dan definitely did, among others. (This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Archives-championed issue of privacy for former citizens, btw, though others are free to make that argument separately)
If we are being precise, it should be Sir Cresti Mataiwos Siervicül.
I'm happy to make those changes, too. Since Dama Miestra has changed the spelling of her name, it makes sense to change it here. I can't remember if there was any debate over putting in Talossan-language names for everyone, but that also seems fine to me. I don't think we should change Grischun's name unless he's changed the spelling on his own.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 09, 2023, 12:49:55 PMI can't remember if there was any debate over putting in Talossan-language names for everyone, but that also seems fine to me
I'm referring to GV's policy of redacting archived materials before they are released for public consumption, wherever names in their original languages are stated. Not stating my agreement or disagreement with that in this occasion, especially because if one agreed this would be just one of many places affected, but I thought I'd bring it up preemptively to state my proposal was not meant to be in that vein.
The
Quote from: Lüc on February 09, 2023, 12:10:24 PMPotential snag - if we reverted the year to 1997, should we also revert the name at the top to Robert, or is it fine because John is proclaiming the OrgLaw "as amended throughout the years"? (If so, some of the language in the rest of the preamble doesn't make too much sense though.)
This is a more significant question than it seems to be.
Although done as an ordinary amendment to the 1997 OrgLaw, 53RZ18 was in fact a complete change of the text including the preamble: every word from the first to the last was changed because the whole structure (articles) was reorganized
So it does make sense to use 2017 and not 1997 because nothing of the 1997 survives except the "blank space" (the "de jure" aspect) where it is written: it's
de facto a new/different OrgLaw: i.e: there's a pre-2017 Article X and a post-2017 Article X which are completely different in nature. Using 1997 for both is confusing.
Technically it should be "The 2017 version of the 1997 OrgLaw" but it's more complicated than a simple 1997/2017
Btw: the "general" article on wiki still describes the pre-2017 stucture, and there should be an article where it's possible to read the text before 53RZ18.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 02:55:05 AMAlthough done as an ordinary amendment to the 1997 OrgLaw, 53RZ18 was in fact a complete change of the text including the preamble: every word from the first to the last was changed because the whole structure (articles) was reorganized
I'm not sure that's quite right, since it would imply that simply moving the articles round would also be a complete change of the text. But even though it was revised and reorganized on a wide scale, the text remained mostly the same and our governmental structure was almost identical from one version to the next. Plus, it's legally the same document -- it went through the amendment process.
If this is splitting hairs a little bit, we should split them in the way that makes us look better and more impressive. It's cooler to have a tiny nation like ours with a constitution that dates back to 1997!
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 11, 2023, 06:12:25 AMQuote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 02:55:05 AMAlthough done as an ordinary amendment to the 1997 OrgLaw, 53RZ18 was in fact a complete change of the text including the preamble: every word from the first to the last was changed because the whole structure (articles) was reorganized
I'm not sure that's quite right, since it would imply that simply moving the articles round would also be a complete change of the text. But even though it was revised and reorganized on a wide scale, the text remained mostly the same and our governmental structure was almost identical from one version to the next. Plus, it's legally the same document -- it went through the amendment process.
That's why I said it's
de facto but not necessarily de jure a different Organic Law.
However, the change of the Preamble
might have done so and could be the originator of a new 2017 OrgLaw that is distinct also de jure from the 1997 one.
You can't have King John I retroactively proclaiming the 1997 Organic Law as he wasn't even King in 1997. And you can't even have the King owing in 1997 a debt of gratitude towards people that in 1997 weren't even citizens yet.
I'd argue that as we changed the 1997 Preamble and it is no longer existing, we can't even revert to the previous text. Now this Preamble is the "new source" and the new
terminus a quo of the juridical nature of the Organic Law.
Legal considerations asides wether the new Preamble did or did not de jure create a new document, the consideration above of the King not be the King in 1997 is logical and shouldn't be underestimated.
Quotein the way that makes us look better and more impressive. It's cooler to have a tiny nation like ours with a constitution that dates back to 1997!
If you want to achieve this, it would probably be better to add a sentence in the Preamble. Something like
Quote[...] as the supreme law of our Realm, this 2017 Organic Law as a new version of the Organic Law enacted by my predecessor in 1997.
I'm worried also, as I state above, for the sake of future references and history, that using "1997 OrgLaw" for two texts that have a drastically foundamental difference in internal structure and even a different Premble is primarly - before than legally - a source of confusion.
Fair point! Let's split the difference and solve all problems in a single stroke:
Quotethis 2017 revision of the 1997 Organic Law
To make matters even more confusing, even though the current Organic Law was written in 2017, it was not ratified until 2019, and technically did not come into effect until February 2020.
Damn you're right!
The Preamble should have the date when it was finally promulgated at the end of the legislative process (referendum included)
Since we've already been referring to it by the 2017 date for years now, let's stick to current usage, if that's okay. The drafting date is not any more right or wrong than the date of promulgation. I don't feel strongly about this, though, so I'm willing to change it if others really think it's important for some reason.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 11, 2023, 12:40:38 PMThe drafting date is not any more right or wrong than the date of promulgation.
Well, of course the date of promulgation is way more important and have a central role in the application of said law.
Turning again to the questions above: how could the King have promulgated the OrgLaw in 2017 (as it says in the Preamble) if it was approved only in 2019?
It's a simple scribal error that should be corrected.
I'd actually suggest that the date the text was composed is rather more important than the date it was promulgated, since that might actually be useful information -- the date it was promulgated is on record elsewhere. But since this is the preamble and descriptive, really, I'm not too fussed if most people agree with you.