WHEREAS Organic Law VII.5 sets a small list of which Talossans are entitled to "submit legislative proposals... for the consideration of the Ziu", i.e. to "clark Bills";

AND WHEREAS Organic Law VII.4 states that the Secretary of State is to maintain the Hopper as "a public venue for the inspection of legislative proposals before they become bills";

AND WHEREAS the word "public" in OrgLaw VII.4 is ambiguous as to exactly who is entitled to participate in the Hopper, outwith the specific power to turn legislative proposals into bills;

AND WHEREAS the sections of El Lexhatx governing the Hopper (H.6, 7, 13 and 21) do not resolve this ambiguity;

AND WHEREAS it is my general belief that maximising public participation in the legislative process is a good thing, and I see absolutely no reason why all Talossan citizens should not be entitled to participate fully in the Hopper, including submitting draft legislation, only excluding the power to actually "Clark bills";

AND WHEREAS the Regent has humbly offered his opinion over and over again that excluding Talossans from the legislative process depresses activity, and this measure will allow all citizens to help shape the law, while ensuring that the legislative power remains with elected officials and not beneficiaries of patronage of party bosses;

AND WHEREAS, while doing research for this bill, I found quite a few messes, missing sections, and notes by the Scribe of Abbavilla which should be cleaned up, no matter the substantive question of this bill;

AND WHEREAS the amendment to H.6.4 below removes the possibility of someone dredging up a "stale bill" which has remained un-proposed for months or even years and putting it on the Clark long after everyone's forgotten the issues involved;

AND WHEREAS H.13. is a noble sentiment, but the phrase "if at all possible" makes it inoperative and a waste of space:

BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa as follows:

1. El Lexhatx H.4. shall read in its entirety:

QuoteOn each Clark, the Vote of Confidence shall read as follows: "Do you wish the current Government to continue in its term of office?"

2. El Lexhatx H.6.4 shall be amended to read as follows:

QuoteIf a legislative proposal has remained in the "The Hopper" for more than 59 days, the Secretary of State may remove it it shall be considered to have been removed, though any person entitled to do so may subsequently re-publish it.

3. A new section, H.6.8, is added to El Lexhatx as follows:

QuoteAll citizens of Talossa are entitled to participate fully in discussions and debates in the Hopper, within the bounds of law and of the decisions of the administering and presiding authorities of the Hopper. Any citizen may submit a draft of legislation to the Hopper, though these shall not be considered to be "legislative proposals" within the meaning of H.6 until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5, under the process contained in H.8.

4. El Lexhatx H.13, currently reading:

QuoteIf at all possible, bills presented for review in the Hopper should be translated into Talossan before being Clarked.

is DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY and replaced with the following text:

QuoteAll bills submitted for the Clark shall be in one of the national languages.

5. The numbering of El Lexhatx H.24 is hereby confirmed, and the Scribe's note there attached is DELETED.

As to the substantive content of this proposal, I will reserve judgement until the Attorney General, Senator dal Vàl, and his Deputy, s:reu Davinescù MC, have weighed in. I would only ask the esteemed Justice to give a brief summary of what (if any) are the substantive changes brought in by this bill, as opposed to just a re-editing of what was already in there.

I would like to thank Justice Marcianüs very much for this contribution. I just want to comment on a housekeeping issue here.

While there is a small list of people who are allowed to propose legislation/put it on the Clark (OrgLaw VII.5), and Justices of the CpI are not on that list, there seems to be no limits on who can put draft proposals in the Hopper. However, my reading of OrgLaw VII.4 and El Lexhatx H.6 lead me to believe that a draft bill posted in the Hopper does not become a "legislative proposal" (qualified for being Clarked) until given approval by one of the people named in OrgLaw VII.5.

Thus:
1) I am happy to, hereby, pro forma submit the above bill as a legislative proposal under my name, to resolve all legal ambiguity.
2) The Law (organic and/or statutory) has to be revised to clarify the ambiguity I've raised above. I personally believe we should change Talossan law to make it clear that all citizens are entitled to fully participate in the Hopper and to offer draft bills - though I want to maintain the status quo of OrgLaw VII.4 as to who can actually "Clark" bills. This would be a boon for "participatory democracy".

What do others think? Will offer substantive suggestions as to this bill later.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 31, 2020, 04:27:31 PM
The Seneschal and Deputy Avocat-Xheneral declined to discuss the matter, insisting that I was "refusing" to appoint all three nominees and sharing excerpts of the conversation on the Facebook group for the Free Democrats.

OH NOES HEAVEN FORFEND

The Regent never explained why this (bolded) - me consulting with Dr Nordselva re: what he wanted to do, and keeping my political allies up to date- was worthy of comment in any way. The seemingly resentful tone of "how dare you ever tell anything what goes on in our conversations" - for me, no formal discussion between Government and Regent has a presumption of confidentiality unless explicitly established - combined with his long-term and on-going problem with the fact that other people have discussion forums where he isn't invited, is a bit creepy.

Um, yeah, sure.

As authorised by El Lexhtatx L.5, I recommend to the King of Talossa acting through his appointed Regent that Sir C. M. Siervicül be named the Squirrel King of Arms.

When he became SoS, because the two roles are incompatible

Absolutely yes

Really good to see so much enthusiasm for this important role!

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 23, 2020, 09:55:03 AM
I honestly think he is referring to Talossan far-left opinions, ie Republicanism, given that extra-Talossan politics aren't discussed very much here, and this opinion fits with the overall negative feelings these respondents voiced toward the Talossan left.

Do you remember when I. Canún was revealed as doing time for child rape, and the King himself went off on a rant about how sexual abuse convictions were not to be trusted because (to paraphrase) bitches and libruls be lyin' to throw sturdy, noble men in jail? The same guy who switched churches because the Catholics were too liberal these days?

With the prominent exception of the current Regent, the old RUMP membership was and is overwhelmingly American-style conservative (i.e., by global standards, frothing reactionaries). It is possible that you just didn't notice this, or, for example, what the Senator for Maricopa has to say on the legal status of homosexuality under Indian law, etc. There are a LOT of US-style culture warriors in Talossa. You might not remember that it wasn't just King Robert I who used transphobic abuse as a prime weapon of attack against the Republic, but many of the RUMP leadership as well. I remember, for obvious reasons.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 22, 2020, 09:28:27 AM
1) Foreign political spectra have little correspondence to the Talossan political spectrum;

You are very wrong about this both in contemporary and historical terms. When an anonymous citizen in the National Survey bemoaned "intolerance of opinions that are not far left", what do you think that was referring to?

Quote
2) Even if your only purpose was to rain on the Government's parade, you could not do so very effectively given that you would only have a fairly weak veto and that you would be subject to removal. Also, with the exception of getting rid of the nobility, it would be pretty clear to everyone that your sole objective was to be a stick in the mud rather than voice any kind of principled objection.

No different than Absentee John, in other words, and we couldn't get rid of him, and we still might not be able to do so. I specified in my hypothetical that I would be facing a conservative majority, not a supermajority.

Hello, yes. If the Mençéi has no objections, I would like to Clark the bill elevating Istefan Perþonest to the Cort pü Inalt.

Kudos to the Regent for admitting when he got it wrong. May we all have that level of integrity. I'm not satisfied myself with how much new citizens are stepping up and getting involved; but that's the next issue on the pipeline.

Anyway, back on topic. A line which the Regent and others bring up is always that raising the constitutional question "ruins Talossa" for conservatives and drives down activity. That has never been the case. I can't remember whether it was KR1 or another old Growther who said it, but "Talossa is never more active than when we're debating what Talossa is" is stil true, for me. (In the old days it was more Derivative vs. Peculiar than Monarchy v. Republic, but I think it's an existential question either way.)

What really strikes me is that last week, the Ministry of STUFF brought about the talossa.net social media network, the biggest and most exciting endeavour IMHO in Talossan history since Wittenberg itself - and it's criminally underused. And yet this thread, on the age old constitutional question, gets a whole bunch of input. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2020, 03:55:05 PM
We've had one new immigrant in the last six months or so, if I'm reckoning right.  If our immigration process has slowed to that pace, then the track we're on can't possibly be good.

You're not reckoning right. We've had 16 applications for citizenship in the last month alone.

See, this is the thing. You say things like "why can't we be greater friends"? Because your main occupation is to pop up in Talossa and tell me that everything I and my allies do is ruining Talossa and we should be ashamed and resign and become inactive, that's why.

I guess I have showed that the only reason people support monarchy is they think monarchy will keep Talossa just the way they like it - i.e. for purely selfish, partisan reasons. If the monarch was not of their political persuasion, they would become republicans overnight.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 21, 2020, 08:54:25 AM
Being conservative in Talossa essentially means being a Monarchist. Therefore it is unavoidable that any King who believes himself to be legitimate would be a conservative by Talossan standards.

If the purpose of the Monarchy is only to preserve the Monarchy, then... that's a logical ourobouros.

QuoteSeriously, what distinctly "conservative" policies would there be for a radical King to shoot down?

Okay, I'm imagining myself as King of Talossa, and a neo-RUMP party with a Cosa majority. The first thing I'd do would be to formally abolish the recognition of the aristocracy (no more Dukes or Counts). The second thing I would do would be to issue proclamation after proclamation full of fire-breathing statements on foreign politics - supporting the self-determination of Palestine, cheering on legal and political victories for Trans Rights, giving royal medals of honour to Joe Biden or Reality Winner or whoever else is a hate figure for the US right at the moment. And they couldn't do anything about it, except try to overthrow me.

Past that, I would just "rain on the parade" of every Government initiative or bill passed by the Ziu which annoyed me for whatever reason. The purpose of such dog-in-the-manger tactics would not necessary be to "win" in the sense of stopping anything. The purpose would be to annoy, harass, make Talossa less fun for people I didn't like; to suck up all the attention in the room from the elected Government. In such situations, I doubt that anyone would be saying "God Save the King" except sarcastically. The only way out of this is if you argue that a conservative-traditionalist Ziu majority wouldn't actually want to do anything or pass any laws - because that's the ultimate in conservatism - but then that would make the Monarchy the only political actor in Talossa. They wouldn't want that.

Estimats cüncitaxhiens, the Government in consultation with the Regent has reached a determination that the Squirrel King of Arms, Lord Hooligan, is no longer in a position to continue his duties. This is distressing to everyone concerned, given his long and stellar record of service in Talossa.

However, there is thankfully an obvious successor - the current Dean of the College of Arms, @Beneditsch Ardprestéir, who has manfully kept the flag of Talossan heraldry flying these past few years.

Therefore, as authorised by El Lexhtatx L.5, I recommend to the King of Talossa acting through his appointed Regent that Beneditsch Ardprestéir be named the Squirrel King of Arms.

Upon his appointment, I would like to schedule a meeting between the new Sq.K.A, myself and the Culture Minister, to determine whether the College should continue its current fully autonomous status, or whether it would benefit from becoming formally part of the Royal Civil Service and thus to benefit from the administrative support of the Ministry of Culture.

Grült méirçi.