This version of Wittenberg is now the legal national forum for Talossa! Feel free to explore it, and to check out the threads for feedback, requests and criticisms to make sure Wittenberg is tailored to you.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Can this be taken to be an official TNC position? If so, the boycott can end.It is all well and good for anyone to propose changes that a supermajority can agree to in the way the Kingdom functions. It is another matter to propose changes that would in the opinion of some to be an improvement, while that in the opinion of others is a radical change from one form of government to another entirely.
And yet, in the face of a stable opposition where one party polled at a level greater than any other single party (at 39% of the whole), a coalition of other parties seeks to achieve changes that the current law of the land does not support based upon that opposition. Ad hominem attacks seek to deflect away from this core concept.
... I've read this post over and over again and I can't actually work out what it means.
Can the author - a TNC MC - say what he thinks would be a good monarchy reform? "None" is an acceptable answer, and indeed the one I'm expecting.
I believe there are some good technical elements to reform of how a convocation would be conducted, however, that would need to happen only at a time of the demise, abdication, or removal from the throne of the monarch, not as a scheduled event.
When the King has "reigned for at least seven years since the previous Convocation" remains a fundamental change from monarchy to a republican form of government, as the word King in that case is changed in meaning to be equivalent with President or Chief Executive or similar.
I have a sinking feeling it might be former citizen Sevastáin Pinátsch.
As a point of order here, while it is true that Terpelaziuns as defined in El Lexhatx H.2 only apply to members of the Government, El Lexhatx C.2.1 suggests that the Secretary of State can be called to account by the Túischac'h and Mençéi as representatives of the Ziu. And of course anyone is entitled to ask any questions of anyone, "informally" outwith the Ziu.
You did not answer my question
With all due respect, I did answer the question, but I forgot to mention the current version (which is at the bottom of every page of Witt). 2.0.19. Also, out of respect, a terpelaziun is intended to be directed at an MC or a government minister (El. Lex H2). I answered as a courtesy, not expecting the sharply worded reply from the honorable Senator.
Dr. dal Nordselva I did thank you for your answer and still do appreciate your courtesy. Although I must apologize for a typo! I left the "you did not answer my question" on accidentally. I thought I had erased that when I hit submit. That is why the statement does not have a period. I can't apologize for my reply concerning conflation of your roles as that is a matter of principle on which, as my party mates know, I feel quite strongly.
You did not answer my question
Administration of Wittenberg is part of the responsibility of the Chancery, so I think I'll have to defer to the SoS on this issue.
Thank you Minister. Secretary of State/Party Leader @Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM would you be willing to advise the Ziu on this matter?
I answered several times? I think it's not acceptable, and I want him to check in more, and I'm encouraged that he is becoming more active lately.
Is 42 days acceptable? I'm sure that question will not be answered, and that's ok also. For me, 42 days is 41 days too long.
I mean, I guess it's not weird -- it's understandable that the FDT would want to change the subject at this point from their legislative blockade. But come on... after this last term, the FDT doesn't really have a leg to stand on, here.