Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 21, 2026, 08:34:32 PM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 21, 2026, 08:24:04 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 21, 2026, 09:14:27 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 19, 2026, 06:06:22 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 19, 2026, 03:59:46 PMOkay.  Well, your suggested language doesn't quite work.  But how about

"2. The King may appoint a Cunstaval (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstaval, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstaval a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of that same province."

Ok with the same province that should same/another province.
Or just "no person shall at the same time be a Cunstaval of one province and the head/leader of provincial government of any province"

So one thing I'd point out is that we're going to run into at least some practical problems if we say that people can't be cunstaval of another province and a provincial government leader in their province at the same time.  At least two cunstavais would have to resign, I think, because we'd need a total of sixteen significantly active citizens with space for that responsibility.

This isn't an impossible problem, but I just don't see why someone like Sir Ian can't be Maritiimi-Maxhestic's Grand General Secretary while also serving as cunstaval for Maricopa.

You are aware that this argument goes against your original proposed language? As the law already makes being a Cunstaval and provincial government head illegal. Your original language does the same.
My proposed amendment is to just ensure that same standard is applied if the Cunstaval should one day be appointed from their home province that they can't serve as head of government in their home province either as Cunstaval.
So what you're arguing for here goes against even your original proposal.

What I want is not to have this kind of language at all.  But we've gotten steadily more and more restrictive, and now we're walling people off from holding any kind of cunstaval position or provincial lead position at the same time, instead of getting to choose to combine them (current law possibility and current draft possibility) or have people hold those positions in different places (new draft possibility).

It's hard to imagine even a problem here, since no province has anything in place that could make this stuff problematic.  Since the whole point is to open up some possibilities here and eliminate the military governorship, maybe we could just pick either one or the other, and not make both illegal?  I'm very much a "worst case scenario" planner, but what's the actual danger?  In order to abuse any power in this position, someone would need to get their province on-board and the king.

Honeslty I think that may be something to look at in future updates. But the language of not being a Cunstaval and a provincial head of government of any province is my sticking point at this time. The rest of bill i am fine with, but I feel that if one is going to be a Cunstaval of a province, to also be a head of government of a province is not a great position to have. As it would be akin to the king becoming Senechal, or say the crown of the U.K.'s representative in Canada or any nation to become it head of government or a head of government in an other nation under the king of their nation. (Best example I can think of)
I just disagree with the principal.

I'm not saying there is a right opinion here as I think we have both raised valid arguments in this debate. But yeah the last language I suggested that says a Cunstaval can't be a head of government of any province (or language to that effect) is my personal line for this. As it has been from the start

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 21, 2026, 09:14:27 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 19, 2026, 06:06:22 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 19, 2026, 03:59:46 PMOkay.  Well, your suggested language doesn't quite work.  But how about

"2. The King may appoint a Cunstaval (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstaval, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstaval a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of that same province."

Ok with the same province that should same/another province.
Or just "no person shall at the same time be a Cunstaval of one province and the head/leader of provincial government of any province"

So one thing I'd point out is that we're going to run into at least some practical problems if we say that people can't be cunstaval of another province and a provincial government leader in their province at the same time.  At least two cunstavais would have to resign, I think, because we'd need a total of sixteen significantly active citizens with space for that responsibility.

This isn't an impossible problem, but I just don't see why someone like Sir Ian can't be Maritiimi-Maxhestic's Grand General Secretary while also serving as cunstaval for Maricopa.

You are aware that this argument goes against your original proposed language? As the law already makes being a Cunstaval and provincial government head illegal. Your original language does the same.
My proposed amendment is to just ensure that same standard is applied if the Cunstaval should one day be appointed from their home province that they can't serve as head of government in their home province either as Cunstaval.
So what you're arguing for here goes against even your original proposal.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 19, 2026, 03:59:46 PMOkay.  Well, your suggested language doesn't quite work.  But how about

"2. The King may appoint a Cunstaval (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstaval, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstaval a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of that same province."

Ok with the same province that should same/another province.
Or just "no person shall at the same time be a Cunstaval of one province and the head/leader of provincial government of any province"

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 18, 2026, 06:52:36 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 17, 2026, 08:48:42 PM" No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province"
Is what the law current says, but it doesn't say that if the Cunstaval is from the same province (which is an idea you support) that they can also become head of government in the province they are Cunstaval in.

Yes, it doesn't say that right now.  But the law doesn't have to give that permission and say, "You can make your cunstaval the head of government if you want."  Unless the law says they can't, provinces are allowed to do it.  So right now, it's permitted.  You're asking for a new restriction.

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 17, 2026, 08:48:42 PMhaving it in law, to say that
"A Cunstaval also, cannot be Cunstaval and head of government of the same province"
Is basically all I'm wanting to add to this for the moment.

So if I add this new restriction, I've got your vote for the bill?

The law doesn't say this yes but it is established convention. But yes, I would support the bill is this amendment was made.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 17, 2026, 09:17:51 AMYou're kind of talking past me a bit, here.

Unless I'm mistaken, currently provinces are permitted to arrange their governments mostly how they please, including making the Cunstaval the head of any branch, right?  You're asking for these additional restrictions to be added on the provinces.

" No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province"
Is what the law current says, but it doesn't say that if the Cunstaval is from the same province (which is an idea you support) that they can also become head of government in the province they are Cunstaval in.

I'm only arguing that this loophole be closed as I have said before. I do think a larger look at Cunstavals might be something to look to in the future, but having it in law, to say that
"A Cunstaval also, cannot be Cunstaval and head of government of the same province"
Is basically all I'm wanting to add to this for the moment. As it is not stated in law that that can't be the case, but it is the case that a Cunstaval can't be a head of government in another province. So this addition would make the same principal apply across the board should one day a Cunstaval is appointed the serve in their home province.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2026, 07:05:48 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 16, 2026, 03:47:03 AMIn order to allow what you're suggesting would actually be a great shift away from current laws and presidents in Talossa. And will dilute to separation of powers.

Just to be clear: this aspect of the law would not be changed.  The current law already allows provinces to make their own decisions about that, and they can give any powers they wish to their cunstaval.  My bill isn't actually changing this.

So while I understand your criticism, it's a separate issue -- you're asking me to make an additional, complicated change that would restrict the provinces in a new way.

If I were to create this new restriction, I'm not sure how to word it.  It would be complicated to phrase it in such a way that it would be meaningful -- "you're not allowed to assign your cunstaval any powers" would essentially defeat our whole purpose here, so we'd need to... I don't know, make a list of powers that we're permitting them to assign?

I'm open to suggested amendments, if you have any language to add, but you're just demanding something outside of the scope of the bill.

That is a min understanding of what I said.

I my point was literally from the start was one specific thing, I only explained the above as reasons I believe my original point is actually more important than i put across before and why the bill should at least say that
"Should a Cunstaval be of the same province they are from, they shall not be eligible to be the head of government or executive of legislative branches of said province"

I think the wording is more clear than wha to have said in previous posts. I think other points about also being a senator or member of the legislature in a province should be thought about too, but that isn't a discussion for this bill. And my only priority here (which I should have been clearer about in my last response and I'm sorry that I wasn't) is to stop the possibility of the Cunstaval being the head of government in any province as has been my main concern from the start. Especially as this change has the potential to have a Cunstaval be from the same province which jm not against but only if the language of this bill reflects that in so far as saying in that scenario the Cunstaval will be ineligible to hold the executive office whilst they are Cunstaval. The law is always better with being clear on such things, especially in regards to separation of powers.
I'm just worried that if we don't pit that in now, it may cause issues down the line.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 02, 2026, 11:30:29 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 02, 2026, 11:18:33 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 02, 2026, 07:44:19 AMOh, I see. Well, that wouldn't be closing a loophole, that would be a significant change. In the past, some provinces have chosen to have their Constable also serve as the ceremonial head of state or the head of their government. So I don't want to prevent provinces from doing that. Provinces will already be now enabled to pass their own restrictions on who can hold the office, and they can add this restriction if they so choose.

That isn't exactly trye as the current convention in appointments of Cunstavals are supposed to be from a separate province.
As having a cunstaval also be the head of government in a province seems like a dangerous position with one person having too much power.

So doing so would be closing a loophole and formalising the principals behind currently conventions

Actually, there was a specific reform enacted to change the rule that Cunstavais need to be from a different province, since some people resented it.

I think provinces are probably the best judges of how to distribute power in their own province, right?  Most of them have chosen a weak executive.  They can decide to have any role or restriction that they want.

The major issue hear is Separation of powers as allowing a Cunstaval to become a head of a government, would be akin to allowing the King to become the senechal. And politisiing the crown in the province.

Allowing provinces to create laws about the limits of the Cunstaval outside of those granted under organic law, is honestly a good thing.

AndI support the idea of this bill.But, not in so far that it allows the politicisation of a possition that in its core, is the REPRESENTATIVE of the Crown and king in a province.

In order to allow what you're suggesting would actually be a great shift away from current laws and presidents in Talossa. And will dilute to separation of powers.

Which is why it should be clear in law that the Cunstaval of a province cannot become the head of government of ANY province, especially one they are Cunstaval over.

Honestly, it might be worth all saying that one cannot become Senechal too. (I think ministers, MC/sentarors and seats in provincial assemblies are debatebale but fine especially with the low active members we have, but I do think that holding executive power and the power of the crowns representative is a dangerous and undemocratic position)

I am only interjecting to say that I am keeping an eye on on the proceeding here, and will give the opportunity for the Nimlet to resolve this themselves before I make any moves after seeking advice on how to proceed.

I hope that this can be resolved without my intervention into a political argument.

Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir
Cunstaval of Florenciă

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 02, 2026, 07:44:19 AMOh, I see. Well, that wouldn't be closing a loophole, that would be a significant change. In the past, some provinces have chosen to have their Constable also serve as the ceremonial head of state or the head of their government. So I don't want to prevent provinces from doing that. Provinces will already be now enabled to pass their own restrictions on who can hold the office, and they can add this restriction if they so choose.

That isn't exactly trye as the current convention in appointments of Cunstavals are supposed to be from a separate province.
As having a cunstaval also be the head of government in a province seems like a dangerous position with one person having too much power.

So doing so would be closing a loophole and formalising the principals behind currently conventions

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 01, 2026, 07:08:08 PMThat section is the current language from existing law, as it has been for many years. And respectfully, I find your version actually a little bit more confusing than the simpler version. Invalidating candidacy sounds like you just can't run for the office or something. I'm open to the idea, but could you explain to me why you think this is an improvement?

I grant the way I phrased it may not have been the best,
But the intention is to clear up a loophole in the language you presented which, as the prohabition against being a Cunstaval in the same province you are from, as this bill would do, it doesn't prohibit you being able to hold a provincial government head and the position of cunstaval in the SAME province. Which is what I was trying to stop in the suggested change I put forward earlier

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 31, 2025, 07:45:38 PM

The Cunstavál Reform Amendment

Whereas the role of Cunstaval is decades out of date and mostly out of use, and yet there is a place for His Majesty in every province, and

Whereas the provinces are probably best-equipped to decide what the role might be, and

Whereas the limit on cross-provincial power seems unnecessary at this point, since we don't know what provinces will want to be doing,

THEREFORE the fourth section of the ninth article of the Organic Law, which currently reads

Quote1. Every royal power that the King possesses as granted by this Organic Law shall also apply to the provincial governments; with the exception that the provincial royal powers need not include a right of dissolution if provincial elections are held concurrently with Cosâ elections.

2. The King may appoint a Cunstavál (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf, for a term not exceeding three years. The King may reappoint a Cunstavál. The terms of existing Cunstaváis shall expire no later than three years after the adoption of this amendment.

3. Until such time as the King or Cunstavál proclaims a provincial constitution providing otherwise, the King or Cunstavál shall serve as Military Governor and may exercise all the powers of the provincial government.

4. The King or Cunstavál shall not proclaim any provincial constitution, nor shall any province pass a constitutional amendment, which conflicts with any provision of this Organic Law or with any other national law.

5. The King or Cunstavál shall not proclaim any provincial constitution which has not been approved by a referendum in which at least either a majority of all citizens of the province or a two-thirds majority of votes actually cast is in favor of the constitution.

6. No person shall be at the same time Cunstavál of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province.

shall be amended to read

Quote1. Every royal power that the King possesses as granted by this Organic Law shall also apply in a commensurate fashion to the provincial governments.

2. The King may appoint a Cunstavál (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstavál, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstavál a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstavál of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province.

"No person shall be at the same time Cunstavál of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province"

I think this should be clearer in language to something along the lines of
"No person shall be at the same time Cunstavál of a province and the leader of the provincial government of any province at the same time, to hold one role invalidates their candidacy for the other as long at they hold either office"

The intent is the same but the language is less ambiguous

I would like to nominate @GV for Mençéi

Túischac'h

The foreign affairs ministry has arranged possible diplomatic links with other nations, it is a shame that none has come to fruition but we have and continue to work towards this goal.

We have worked with the King on interacting in international groups. Some of which has been previously announced.

Túischac'h

In response to the question asked, all I can say is that details are still being worked out and will be released in due course, but also temper expectations on what is being planned. As it is unlikely to meet the member opposite's expectations of a government lead celebration to stroke the members ego.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 13, 2025, 05:23:22 PMThis would give the accused people dramatically more due process, extend out the proceedings to weeks or months, and allow them to call witnesses and submit multiple rounds of briefs in their favor. The map is not the territory.

However, then you are arguing that the chancery should have powers equal to that of the Corts. For lighter timeframes I think it is fine (again I said 30d or less) for the chancery, but longer timeframes, I think it would be putting the chancery at risk, and bringing it into potential conflicts, which would put the chancery at risk of constant appeals and being defended in cort. At least the way I proposed. Helps to keep the Chancery out of something that could be a huge political argument, and put the more long term consequences into the hands of the Corts which would have a more objective and lasting judgement than that of the chancery.


We have the Corts for a reason to uphold the law in Talossa, that shouldn't be the chancery's job but the Corts, which is why I made my suggestions

Honesty, what I would personally recommend is that, instead of the 5th violation being a year, is that, at that point, it should be made into a criminal offence under Talossan Law, so on the 5th violation, the matter is referred to the Corts for a trial, with a list of sentencing guidelines for the Corts included in the bill, from loss of posting privileges, to loss of citizenship depending on the severity of the offence (so small mistakes get lesser consequences and gross offences get the biggest penalties)

Also, I think it should also include a clause saying "offences commited in a X (to be determined (2-5 year) time frame)" rather than an indefinite period, at least for minor offences with larger ones being exempt from such time limitations. I think this is a better and more balanced approach, and would be a better approach than solely relying on the chancery to decide (and once it gets longer that a 30 day suspension, I think that should be upto the Corts to decide whether to impose rather than the Chancery)

(Also this is just my current thoughts and not that of my political party or that of the government, just my own personal thoughts for the moment)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 12, 2025, 02:54:50 PMI'm not entitled to just ask the courts for an opinion on this matter. But also, I don't need to. I can read the few provisions of the law at issue here and reach my own conclusion. You yourself have frequently voted for other bills aimed at resolving an ambiguity in the law, even when there hasn't been a court opinion about it.

You can disagree, and I suspect that the rest of the URL will, too. I will be very happy to debate the issue in the upcoming election, if this bill fails. Under the current circumstances, I think this change is badly needed.

My issue is that the bill itself says this is to clarify the law, I'd disagree with the legislation for other reasons besides that, but that one line i just don't accept, and I don't want think any of the laws I've voted for have explicitly said that (though I may be wrong and if I am, then I apologise for that, but still dislike the principle of using that language in legislation, as that is a matter of opinion that the law needs to be clarified, and not an objective fact, which is something that is dangerous to include in a legal text, it's one thing to say "this needs clarifying" outside of legal text and have it written into a bill. And muddies the waters) without that line, although I'd disagree with the bill, it would be more acceptable in my view but you do you

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 12, 2025, 02:32:06 PMNo. I'm allowed my own opinion, thank you. I believe this bill is necessary, both to eliminate an ambiguity and to limit government power.

So you are basically saying your opinion matters more than what a legal ruling may say. It's like you already know what the law is, and your framing this as an ambiguity to muddy the issue and make it seem like something it isn't. This is a pure attempt to cap ministerial power. If you presented the bill as such, I would have disagreed with it. But not enough to comment, but wouldn't have voted for it. But with the framing and the premise of the bill of fixing an ambiguity, as it would be a law, you would need to have proof beyond doubt that it is an ambiguity. Which you have not proven. So the premise of the bill is in itself flawed. This is not fixing an ambiguity, just you attempting to get a bill through that alligns with your opinion. Which is perfectly reasonable without the framing of the bill, and the legal text which would make the Ziu call it an ambiguity, despite no evidence being provided for it, which is not a good look.

I know we disagree on the premise of the bill and the power you plan to constrain. But that is being debated elsewhere. But yeah I really don't think this bill should go further and if it does I definitely won't vote for it it it is flawed from the start

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 12, 2025, 11:31:55 AMThere is an ambiguity in the law.  E.1 says that the minister may not discriminate based on an applicants beliefs, but must act on all applications, while E.5 says that the minister may halt at any time.  I believe that E.1 and the Second Covenant govern, while you guys say that E.5 governs.

Regardless, you're right that this bill would impose a clear cap on this aspect of Government power, and it is indeed my political ideology to say that the deliberation on potential immigrants should be a public process and not the private decision of the minister, barring public safety concerns that should then be publicly disclosed.

If the URL has a different political ideology, you guys will defeat this bill.  And then voters will decide which view best represents Talossa.  That's how it works.

Erm no, it is only your opinion that there is an ambiguity in law, if you believe there is one, test it in the Corts. If they then prove their to be one then yes you can call this fixing that, but until then, this is. And will only be you putting your own political spin on an argument, trying to frame what is clear cut in law into "ambiguity" and using this to force a change in law under the guise of an "ambiguity" which is a dirty political trick.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 12, 2025, 08:46:34 AMI have not mentioned the recent controversy here, since I'd like to try to fix this particular point of law to remove any possible ambiguity.  I'm open to suggestions about phrasing or improvements to the process otherwise.

You are saying this is clarifying and fixing an ambiguity in law. Which you have not portent to exist but are using it to reign in powers given by law to the Minister of Immigration that you disagree with. What I would argue you do before bringing this bill forward is to pose a legal question to the Corts to see what their judgement of the law as it stands is if you find the minister to have acted questionably in regards to these powers.

Then if the Corts believe the powers exist or not you can make sounder judgements then. But this seems like a reactionary bill designed to cap ministerial power, claiming it to be a clarification/ambiguity that hasn't been said to have been so by the Corts as it hasn't been challenged in the Corts, so this is you pushing your own political ideology into Talossa in a false guise of "clarification"