Quote from: Sir Lüc on February 19, 2024, 08:29:44 AMPersonally, the A-X should not only have the right to request an advisory opinion from the CpI -- if anything they should probably be the one Government official that's primarily in charge of those, just as the MinFin (and not the Seneschal) has been in charge of the Budget for a few years now. Besides, the Seneschal has the implicit right to also request an advisory opinion by D.2.1.

(Also, there's a typo in that section of the OrgLaw -- Seneschal)

Would the Seneschal have that power? If the OrgLaw says the A-X does, I don't think a statute could assign that power to someone else.

For my money, btw, either one makes sense - just not both.

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on February 19, 2024, 03:21:01 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 17, 2024, 02:17:30 PMThe link to the test is in the initial post.  It is automated, and doesn't require my permission.  If you get 75% or more, you may fill out the application for a card found at the end of the test.  Cards will be processed according to a strict "when I get a chance" basis (or ideally sooner, if the Seneschal has someone else do it).

I have already done the Civics test, but there were problems with the ID card application.

I'm sorry to hear that! Can you tell me what the problem was? Did it not work?

Quote from: DWombatP on February 18, 2024, 07:49:00 PMI'm still a "Prospective Citizen" but took the quiz and submitted the form.

Unfortunately, you are still not eligible. I will ask the boss about whether or not your quiz counts prior to immigration, but you definitely can't get a card until you're a citizen.

There's nothing in the text that specifically conveys that intention, however much you might feel it in your heart.

If you name a list of two people and say they can each appoint two people, respectively, then you're saying they can replace themselves with people from that list in that order.  If you name a list of three people and say that can appoint two people, respectively, then you're probably saying that they can each appoint two.  It can also be interpreted as intended, but it's ambiguous, and it's usually not a good idea to be ambiguous in the law.

Looked like it was pretty miserable for Braneu.  I do not think he was remotely prepared for a scenario where he suddenly lacked the support of both Breneir and myself.  It was way too much work for anyone, especially when he hadn't actually been a citizen for very long.  I'm sorry that my own situation contributed to this.  We are poorer for this loss.  He was a great guy.

For sure.

The link to the test is in the initial post.  It is automated, and doesn't require my permission.  If you get 75% or more, you may fill out the application for a card found at the end of the test.  Cards will be processed according to a strict "when I get a chance" basis (or ideally sooner, if the Seneschal has someone else do it).

I apologize that my absence made this necessary, and I'm glad that someone so competent was able to step in.

The Ziu thing makes sense, but there's no reason at all for the A-X to need to call for an advisory opinion.  The Seneschal speaks for the Government.

Quote6.5.3.1. The Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral may at any time appoint and dismiss one Senator and one Membreu dal Cosă, respectively, to serve as a member of the CRL in their place.

The context change seems to indicate that each officer could each appoint an MC and a Senator, leading to a CRL of six instead of three if they all did so (or allowing any individual to double their voting power in the CRL).  It should instead be:

Quote6.5.3.1. The Mençéi and the Túischac'h may at any time appoint and dismiss one Senator and one Membreu dal Cosă, respectively, to serve as a member of the CRL in their place.  The Avocat-Xheneral may appoint an MZ from either house to serve as a member of the CRL in their place.

Probably some change needs to happen, honestly.  This is not my preferred plan, since it wouldn't accommodate people who want a pure election, but if there's more support behind this more royalist approach, that's also fine with me.

I vote as follows:
RZ6 - The Hand Of The King Needs No Glove Puppet Amendment:  Yes, reflexively and without great consideration.
RZ7 - The Trial in Absentia Act: Yes, good bill.
RZ8 - The Abuse of Trust Act: Yes, also a good bill.
RZ9 - The Title H Reorganisation and Correction Act: Yes, without the time to look into the details, but trusting the past history of the author a great deal.

On the Vote of Confidence, I vote yes.

Looks fine, but please include the current law which will be amended.  Nothing wrong here, but we started trying to encourage that in all bills whenever practical in the last term.

21.4 uses the passive voice, which makes me note the lack of an actor.  Who is doing the certifying?  Probably should be spelt out.

Please include the text of H.21 as it currently stands.