Wittenberg

The April 2021 Clark is now here.


www.talossa.ca/files/clark.php?cosa=55&clark=6

Or here: www.talossa.ca/files/print_clark.php (this is the printer friendly version)


In PDF Form (which was made from the print_clark.php page):

www.talossa.ca/files/clarks/April2021Clark.pdf

or can vote online here: www.talossa.ca/files/clark_vote.php

Or in this thread, until the 21st of the month, at 19h30 TST.

Senators are allowed to create a single thread in the Senate chamber to post all of the Senate Votes that are not cast in this thread. Any votes not posted either using the form above, the current thread or the Senate thread might be ignored and void. Please do not vote by email or private messages.

When you vote, do not indicate any conditions which may make it sound like this vote isn't final: you can always change your vote later.

Please do not vote by email: We've had problems with email votes being caught in the spam filter.

All nominated Cosa Members and Senators have been emailed.

(http://heraldry.talossa.com/LesserStateSeal.gif)

Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă,
Secretary of State

Per on all
ÜC on VoC

Gen. Davinescu, MC

Per on all
Üc on VoC

Rz21 contra
Rz22 contra
Rz23 per
Rz 24 contra

Voc: Non

PER
PER
PER
AUS
UC

The 6th and final Clark of the 55th Cosa has ended.

RZ21 - Passed Cosa: 143/37 Senäts 5/2
RZ22 - Passed Cosa: 160/20 Senäts 5/2
RZ23 - Passed Cosa: 160/20 Senäts 6/1
RZ24 - Passed Cosa: 110/40 Senäts 4/1/2

Vote of Confidence: Passed 140/40

Sir Siervicül and Senator Ardpresteir did not vote.

Unless the Seneschal sets a month of recess, the Chancery respectfully reminds @King John to dissolve the 55th Cosa. The Chancery will now move into pre-election mode.

(http://heraldry.talossa.com/LesserStateSeal.gif)

Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă,
Secretary of State

I am not minded to call a month of recess, because it's been too long since our last election anyway.

I foreshadow my intention of giving a Valedictory Address to the Cosa, but I will wait to do so until I hear His Majesty's intentions re: the promulgation, vetoing or benign neglect of the measures passed on this Clark. I need to know whether to be magnanimous or furious.

It would be a real gesture of good faith going forward if the King were to let us know right now where he stands on the bills passed by this Clark.

A monarch who was determined to thwart the will of the Ziu might decide to wait for the absolute last minute to drop a veto, so as to prevent campaigning for the upcoming election from properly starting. You wouldn't want to think that we had a King who was so nakedly partisan and determined to tip the electoral scales.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 22, 2021, 06:27:53 PM
It would be a real gesture of good faith going forward if the King were to let us know right now where he stands on the bills passed by this Clark.

A monarch who was determined to thwart the will of the Ziu might decide to wait for the absolute last minute to drop a veto, so as to prevent campaigning for the upcoming election from properly starting. You wouldn't want to think that we had a King who was so nakedly partisan and determined to tip the electoral scales.

And he continues to be silent...until the very last minute. 

Well, let's think happy thoughts. Maybe he is deliberately ignoring the bills so they pass to referendum without his signature, like the Regent did with the bill setting up the referendum. That would be graceful and save everyone a lot of heartache, and take a lot of heat out of the upcoming election.

Or he's going to drop his vetos in precisely 48 hours, just to show that he's going to be obstructive right to the point the National Convocation deprives him of office.

One of the bills on the recent Clark includes a provision requiring His Majesty to abdicate the throne if a referendum -- immediately to follow -- succeeds.  It doesn't seem unreasonable for someone to take their time and carefully consider such a decision, after sixteen years of service to their country.

And by the way, congratulations to the Seneschal!  Dama Miestră Schivă, UrN is about to become the first poster on this Witt to pass a thousand posts (16% of the total posts on Witt)!

With her prolific energy and frequent participation, she's left everyone else in the dust over the past two-and-a-half years.  My own humble self and Etho are second and third-place, respectively, with 600 and 500-odd posts.  Rookie numbers!

Here's another impressive stat: if you add up the total posts of the 50 least prolific posters, you still don't surpass the Seneschal's total (and that's not even counting the 33% of accounts with zero posts)!  That kind of dedication takes a truly special person.  Well-done, D:na Seneschal!

Noi refuçént noastra sancziun à'cest RZ21 es RZ24 es perventüră exerciçént l'impidamaintsch rexhital.

Noi aprovént acest RZ22 es RZ23.  Lor recorda starp l'annuntzia dels legeux.

—  Ian Regeu

---

We refuse our assent to RZ21 and RZ24 and herewith exercise the royal veto.

We assent to RZ22 and RZ23.  Record them among the annals of the law.

—  John Regeu

---

RZ21
I neither intend nor desire to abdicate the throne, or to see the Kingdom of Talossa transformed into a Republic with an elected Presidential figurehead, even if he is called a "King".  (At a minimum, we should call things by their right names.)

RZ24
Talossans should be governed by Talossan law, and so I believe the goal of this proposed law is a worthy one.  I further appreciate that the bill requires that anyone charged with "repugnant behaviour bringing Talossa into disrepute" must have already been convicted of a crime "incurring penal servitude", and that due process is afforded the defendant.  However, this proposal offends against a fundamental principle of justice: no one should stand trial for a crime that has been invented for them on the spot.

I would further note that it is unclear whether or not the offender must have been actually sentenced to penal servitude or simply subject to being so sentenced.  Under Wisconsin law, for instance, a Class C misdemeanor may be penalized with a fine of up to $500 USD or 30 days imprisonment.  It is unclear, therefore, whether or not a Talossan could be prosecuted for the crime of "operat[ing] upon any highway of this state any vehicle required by law to be registered without having the license plate or plates securely attached."  It would appear to depend on whether or not a Justice believed such behavior to violate the "tranquility of others" or other such phrases.

Whether or not some violation of local law "counts" as a violation of Talossan law should not be left to the opinion of a Justice; that would make it impossible to know ahead of time what actions violate Talossan law.

I would further note that it is unclear how exactly the proposed law would interact with many aspects of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, most particularly the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Covenants. There are many jurisdictions around the world who seem to be happy to punish with "penal servitude" (as well as death, mutiliation, and so on), people who speak in a way or on topics that displease the local regime (and for all we know, might displease a Talossan Justice).

Finally, it seems unlikely that any Talossan being held to penal servitude anywhere would be able to defend himself freely in the Talossan corts. There may be places where prisoners are permitted free access to the web, but I've never heard of one. We do NOT want to establish a legal system in Talossa that tries citizens without their having a chance to defend themselves.

For these reasons I would ask the Cosa and Senate to find a less problematic way to accomplish the reasonable ends this Bill is intended to serve.

On another note, it seems sort of ridiculous to me, when the law says someone has to act by a particular time, to get all huffy and offended (or even to pretend to be offended) about his not acting before that time.  If you don't like the deadlines established in law, change them.

-- John R

Quote from: King John on April 28, 2021, 11:42:49 AM
I neither intend nor desire to abdicate the throne

I hope His Majesty understands that we would likely not be in this situation if he participated enough in Talossan life to make his statement ring true. As it stands now, it often appears he desires to abdicate all Royal responsibilities except those pertaining to preserving his own power.

I have been absolutely consistent on calling for more Royal involvement for more than two years (as the AMP Manifesto for the 53rd Cosa election, published in February 2019, will attest). I can only give so many warnings before I become inclined to support drastic measures such as the one now under consideration.

I must respectfully disagree with your statement of your lack of desire to abdicate the throne. You practically already have. Your appointed Regents have posted more in Witt since I became a citizen than you have. I have posted more than you have. Almost every active citizen of this nation has posted/interacted with Witt in the past four years than you have. So, Your Highness, I think we all understand quite well your total lack of desire to be involved as Monarch. I look forward to the day when we have an active Monarch that does more than hand off power and randomly show up to annoy the Government.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Roi fainéant (French pronunciation: ​[ʁwa fɛneɑ̃]), literally "do-nothing king", is a French term primarily used to refer to the later kings of the Merovingian dynasty after they seemed to have lost their initial powers of dominion...

    There was nothing left the King to do but to be content with his name of King, his flowing hair, and long beard, to sit on his throne and play the ruler, to give ear to the ambassadors that came from all quarters, and to dismiss them, as if on his own responsibility, in words that were, in fact, suggested to him, or even imposed upon him. He had nothing that he could call his own beyond this vain title of King and the precarious support allowed by the Mayor of the Palace in his discretion, except a single country seat, that brought him but a very small income.

During the century of the rois fainéants, the Merovingian kings were increasingly dominated by their mayors of the palace, in the 6th century the office of the manager of the royal household, but in the 7th increasingly the real "power behind the throne" who limited the role of the king to an essentially ceremonial office.

Mayor, Baron, whatever.

Quoteor to see the Kingdom of Talossa transformed into a Republic with an elected Presidential figurehead, even if he is called a "King".  (At a minimum, we should call things by their right names

With all due Respect @King John this statement doesn't make any historical sense, as elected monarchies have long existed throughout various countries, and groups of countries, the following quote is something i found from a quick internet search, and is essentially what the act you refused assent to, proposed to do (not in the same words but intent)

QuoteAn elective monarchy is a monarchy ruled by an elected monarch, in contrast to a hereditary monarchy in which the office is automatically passed down as a family inheritance. The manner of election, the nature of candidate qualifications, and the electors vary from case to case.

Also famous examples of elected monarchies are the Holy Roman Empire, Old Scandinavian monarchs, Venice, amongst others, Also some countries even use them to this day in various forms, like Cambodia, the Vatican, and Malaysia amongst others, thus is utterly disingenuous to state that the Kingdom of Talossa will be transformed into a republic by the proposal, as it will not.

The other reason you gave, is that you've no desire to give up the throne, by abdication or by other means, then, again with all due  respect, you should not have gone on hiatus, and appointed the most political, and most divisive, polarising, monarchist there in Talossa to act as regent in your absence, especially when you were barely around before this. And its too late to start trying that now. Also their are other reasons some seek this compromise too. And you being off the throne due to absence, and controversial decisions, are a big part of why such a measure was passed by the Ziu to begin with.

Also on this :-

QuoteOn another note, it seems sort of ridiculous to me, when the law says someone has to act by a particular time, to get all huffy and offended (or even to pretend to be offended) about his not acting before that time.  If you don't like the deadlines established in law, change them.

First of all, any such move you are likely to veto anyway, and this is just evidence to the contrary to you saying to have no desire to abdicate, as it oozes laziness, and distain for the job you say you hold so dearly, if you truly loved it, you would be more engages, more excited, and more present in Talossa, all the things this statement is not. So yeah, disagree with me on my more personal views and other bits of insight im offering, but in terms of the objective facts ive laid out disproving your first quote, that i cant accept if you disagree, as then your burying your head in the sand even further, in the face of objective and easily provable facts. Anyways thats my thoughts on those particular quotes, the other refusal, im not sure if you had even read the bill, as the language in their, in my view, still ties those views to the scope of Talossan law, and is just an easy way to recognise convictions of non Talossan crimes in Talossa, if those crimes are illegal here, and those "crimes" do not contravene organic rights, and allowed practices here. I believe their is something in the bill that addresses those concerns.

Quote1. The basis of all Talossan law and jurisprudence is the principles contained in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms.

2. Where Talossan statute law is silent, Talossan courts shall make decisions in accordance with Talossan juridical precedent. Judges may also use precedent from other legal systems with which they are familiar to guide their decisions, though such precedent shall not be binding.

3. A Talossan citizen who is convicted in another jurisdiction, by a credible judicial authority, of an offence incurring penal servitude which is repugnant to the values expressed in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, shall be guilty of the crime of "repugnant behaviour bringing Talossa into disrepute", and be liable to a punishment of severity in strict proportion to the severity of the said offence.

This is a direct quote from the bill, and from my interpretation, still protects the rights of Citizens in accordance with our own laws.
So i believe your reading of that was wrong, and massively disagree with your veto of the bills you have.

Anyway this is just my opinions of the matter, you likely wont agree, but at least i have put them to you, what you do with this is upto you.

I suppose that I should comment that I'm open to amending 55RZ24 in the next Cosa rather than trying to shove it in over the veto - if those who like the idea, but disapprove of the execution, are keen to collaborate on an improved version.

Quote from: King John on April 28, 2021, 11:45:43 AM
On another note, it seems sort of ridiculous to me, when the law says someone has to act by a particular time, to get all huffy and offended (or even to pretend to be offended) about his not acting before that time.  If you don't like the deadlines established in law, change them.

-- John R

Be an active monarch who at least respects the Talossan Left as much as you do the monarchist right, and we'll relax.  :-)