Okay. I am going to put up right now. I will post below this in another reply with my suggestions.

WHEREAS, it seems unseemly that the Túischac'h, the presiding officer of the Cosa, should be nominated by the King or by the Government instead of elected by the Cosa;

WHEREAS, a previous bill did not address all manners or causes of the election of the Túischac'h; and,

WHEREAS, the Cosa deserves at all times a present, incumbent, active, and loyal Túischac'h,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosa and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that the text of the twentieth section of Title H of El Lexhatx (H.20), which reads at the time of the authorship of this bill...

QuoteThe King shall appoint a Member of the Cosa to serve as Speaker of the Cosa (Talossan: el Túischac'h) for the upcoming term, on the advice of the Seneschal after consultation with the leaders of all parties represented in the Cosa. The Speaker shall preside, direct and maintain order during Living Cosas and in the Hopper, in an unbiased fashion. Otherwise, his function will be to advise Members of the Cosa of appropriate decorum. He is considered the honourable President of the Cosâ and shall be awarded all due veneration when serving as such. In the absence of the Túischac'h from the Hopper, the Mençéi shall perform these duties.

...shall, at the time of effecutation of this Act, be stricken entirely and replaced with the following:

QuoteThe Cosa shall be served actively and loyally by a Speaker of the Cosa (Talossan: el Túischac'h) who shall be one of their members, be elected directly by them, and serve then for the remainder of the term of that Cosa.

1. The Speaker shall preside, direct, and maintain order during Living Cosas and in the Hopper without bias or favor, and otherwise may advise Members of the Cosa of appropriate decorum.

2. The election of a Speaker shall be so done as follows:

2.1. After the results of a General Election of the Ziu shall have been certified as according to law, or during any bona fide absence or vacancy in the office of the Speaker, but in any case until the next following dissolution of the Cosa, a Member or Member-elect of one Cosa shall have individual power to publish publicly a petition nominating an eligible person for the office of the Speaker.

2.2. Nomination petitions for the office of the Speaker may be signed only publicly and only by other Members or Members-elect of the same Cosa. Each signature shall be equal to one vote in favor of the nomination.

2.3. Whenever one nomination petition shall have earned such number of affirmative votes as shall equal a majority of the actual members of the Cosa, without regard to the number of seats which they may hold, then the candidate so nominated shall be declared by the Secretary of State to be the Speaker and all other outstanding nomination petitions shall be moot and nullified.

2.4. No Member or Member-elect of the Cosa shall have signed more than one nomination petition simultaneously for the same cause; but, if a Member or Member-elect wish to support a different petition, then he or she shall retract publicly the earlier signature before signing another.

3. The Speaker shall be considered the honourable president of the Cosa, and shall be awarded all due veneration during such tenure.

4. While the office of the Speaker may be vacant or actually unattended, and until the Cosa shall have elected a new Speaker for the remainder of the term, the Mençéi of the Senate shall perform the duties of the Speaker.

Uréu q'estadra så: Açafat del Val, Senator for Florencia.

I vote për on the foregoing Resolution.

I concur that under the current OrgLaw it would be (perhaps counterintuitively) better that sitting judges be allowed a seat in the Cosă instead of the Senäts. I am also not opposed to a unicameral Ziu. In any case, I oppose this bill.

I concur that in spite of the good intentions of this bill we should let it lie to tradition rather than statute. A webform would alleviate this worry, but itself creates more bureaucracy; it'd be another tool to transfer over from one cabinet to another, with log-in information and APIs and the sort. It adds unnecessary burden during a time when we are trying to encourage people to take on more roles.

Not to be a tomato-thrower, though, I would support the following language:

QuoteThe Interior Minister, heading the Ministry of the Interior, which shall comprise the bureaus listed below. Among their other duties, they shall supervise the immigration of new citizens into Talossa, in consultation with the Uppermost Cort; shall be the liaison between the Kingdom Government and the provincial governments; and may publish a detailed report of the Kingdom's immigration statistics once per month.

I have voted Për on all bills except one; I abstained on RZ21, The Tuischac'h Election Bill.

There is nothing in the text with which I disagree outright; rather, I wish that sections had been included which address or fix the process of election during intra-election vacancies, resignations, and so forth. I could not support it, but I could not oppose it. On that note, I should / hope to put up a bill in the Hopper myself which will do so.

This is known already among the FreeDems, but my partner has been exposed to COVID-19 and we have been quarantined for the past 2-3 weeks. She is recovering well by now, and I return to work finally tomorrow, but it is a little tenuous. Our metro area has been negligent at best, and our mayor and governor are woefully underestimating the impact of this pandemic. So, y'know, Florida is going to be ground zero for a bunch of corona-zombies.

Best wishes to your health, your family, your endeavors, and more. There is no doubt that you are a kind soul, sir.

While I subscribe to the legal theory that a previously incumbent public official may be subject to impeachment still after his resignation, I do notify the public at large that I have ceased to entertain this bill and have no intentions at this time or in the future to put it in the Hopper.

In pursuance to Article IV, Section 2 of the Florencian Constitution, which reads...

QuoteThis Constitution may be amended in whole or in part by a resolution of the Nimlet, provided that such a resolution passes with the voted consent of each Senator for Florencia. After approval of any such resolution by the Constable, the amended form of this Constitution shall be considered in force and the law of the land.

... I do make the following resolution of this Nimlet and put it to this honorable House for a final vote, to wit:

QuoteBe it resolved by this House of Shepherds of the Province of Florenica assembled, that:

(1) The Constitution of the Province of Florenica, which be in effect at the time of passage of this Resolution, shall be hereby nullified in whole, entirely, and inseverably;

(2) The newly proposed Constitution of 2020, which be found at this address <https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=119>, shall be hereby effectuated forthwith for the whole, entire, and inseverable Province of Florencia; and

(3) Any law of any kind, manner, or source which be in effect at the time of passage of this Resolution shall remain in effect unless it contravene the newly proposed Constitution of 2020, in which case it shall be nullified upon the affectation of this Resolution.

The deadline to vote on this Resolution is made to be the shortest possible duration, i.e. 336 hours from the time of posting. That is approximately equal to May 1st, 2020.

Submitted in good faith by the Senator for Florencia,
a Member of the House of Shepherds,
this day the 16th of April,
in the year 2020,

/s/
Açafat del Val

This is not just about "one dumb ruling". I will reiterate the quote from the man himself: "[T]he function of Justice is Justice, not Law. Human law is an attempt to codify Justice, but in final analysis Justice cannot fully be codified or restricted into unwavering pre-ordained channels - it is more subtle, and deeper, than that."

That is worrisome logic. That is not the sort of logic which should sit on the bench. How would you feel if you filed a suit and it was dismissed with prejudice because the judge "said so", or because the judge thought that such a decision was "natural justice", despite the law? That's what Tamoran is contending: that judges have an inherent power to ignore or subvert the law if doing so is in the "greater interest of justice", however that particular judge defines 'justice' in that particular moment.

But you are cordially invited to discuss the merits and the defense beyond the popularity or beyond your personal feelings of the individual. I wonder what you have to say about Tamoran besides "one dumb ruling" or "one of Talossa's most accomplished jurists"?

Please explain how his official actions and public statements do not, somehow, mean that he will not violate the rule of law again.

I see reason to abolish both positions, to be frank. Is that a bad idea?

In any case, what about the proposal to have a parallel election? Could the Cosa choose the Seneschal and the Túischac'h at the same time?

The above is a draft, insofar as I invite the public at large to debate, speak and comment on this matter. The original bill may be amended in whole or in part, and there is no reason why it could not be amended to a censure rather than an impeachment.

Having made these disclaimers, I invite now that anyone, even Tamoran himself, explain why he should not be removed from the Cort by this Ziu. Please explain how his official actions and public statements do not, somehow, mean that he will not violate the rule of law again.

I ask that you discuss the MERITS and NOT the political convenience. Any calculation against his removal based on whether the move would be "popular" is a perversion of the rule of law.

WHEREAS, it is the commonly understood purpose of a judge of any court of law to effectuate the law;

WHEREAS, it is immensely improper of a judge of any court of law to ignore the law for any reason;

WHEREAS, it is at best a high misdemeanor of a judge of any court of law to misapply the law willfully and knowingly;

WHEREAS, it is at worst an attack on the rule of law and the principles thereof whenever a judge of any court of law may misapply the law willfully and knowingly;

WHEREAS, it is a misapplication of the law and thus a crime if or when a judge of any court of law enter a judgement or a dictum contravening the law or causing a miscarriage of justice;

WHEREAS, the concept of justice is nebulous and unclear;

WHEREAS, it is commonly understood that because of the unclear nature of justice we the citizens of Talossa have chosen to be a nation of laws and to obey the rule of law;

WHEREAS, the law supersedes necessarily any faint, unclear, or subjective evaluations of justice,

BECAUSE, a nation would be without its laws subject to the whims and fancies of errant or unsound judges; and

WHEREAS, the nation of Talossa wishes not to be the victim of an errant or unsound judge who ignores the law in order to apply justice in whichever manner he may personally find suitable without regard to the written laws of our Ziu:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cosă and the Senäts in Ziu assembled that the contemporary Senior Judge of the Uppermost Cort, the right honorable Ián M.T. Tamorán, S.H., is impeached and shall be removed from such office forthwith for such high crimes and misdemeanors as exhibited by the following articles of impeachment:

FIRST, a miscarriage of justice: The Senior Judge committed multiple gross and plain errors during the course of a recent criminal case and, according to the Uppermost Cort itself, committed an incredible error again when entering an acquittal for the same case. The Senior Judge did not adhere to established procedure, did not apply due process for all involved parties, and prejudiced the trial. These things results in a miscarriage of justice which is likely to repeat itself in the future.

SECOND, the incredible unbecoming conduct: Recently the Senior Judge made a public statement. He said, to wit, "[T]he function of Justice is Justice, not Law. Human law is an attempt to codify Justice, but in final analysis Justice cannot fully be codified or restricted into unwavering pre-ordained channels - it is more subtle, and deeper, than that." This statement alone is disqualifying and constitutes a high misdemeanor. It taints any future judgements which he may enter in future cases or controversies. Moreover, the Senior Judge has admitted publicly thereby that he does not intend to be a judge of the law, but a judge for whatever justice he personally finds suitable. Talossa is a nation of laws, and no judge of its courts may render justice without regard to those laws. Those who have done otherwise, do otherwise, or will do otherwise are unbecoming of the judiciary and must not hold any judicial office.

On RS01, I vote per.
On RS02, I vote per.
On RS03, I vote per.

The rest of my votes for RZ14 through RZ17 have been made already to the database. However, I do wish to make a small speech to explain my votes as well as perhaps convince my esteemed colleagues to vote in the same manner.

For RZ14, "The This Ain't it, Chief Act": I abstained.

For RZ15, "The Seneschál Election Amendment": I voted contra. This bill means incredibly well but, in its currently clarked version, will be disastrous for the Organic Law and our constitutional processes after each election. I strongly and desperately urge that it be voted down, not on the merits, but on its form. Once a better-written version is clarked, then we all should vote for it at that time.

For RZ16, "The There's No Such Thing As A Free Senäts Seat Amendment": I voted per. Though this does not set the actual amount to be paid, I hope that all of us agree that a token fee is good for the whole of Talossa. $5, $10, or something similar: in either case, it is paid only by those who have won an election, and surely those who wish to serve in this esteemed body should desire to support Talossa's treasury.

For RZ17, "Abolition of Compulsory Voting and Determination of Legal or Actual Decease Bill": I voted contra. This bill has come a long way and improved greatly from its introduction. However, the core intent and policy of it - to remove compulsory voting - is misguided. I ask, what is wrong with compulsory voting? What about voting in Talossa is so strenuous, so burdensome, and so offensive that a person cannot bother to cast his ballot once every six months, absent any other civic activity? If a person cannot vote on three consecutive Clarks - once every eighteen months, no less - then does he really mean to be a citizen of Talossa in the first place? Surely a person who fails to vote once every eighteen months has effectively renounced his citizenship anyways. Talossa should be governed and influenced by the active, not the inactive.