This should probably be rewritten as we may have an elected Head of State already.

Perhaps:
* The King of Talossa shall be replaced by a regularly elected president.

Additionally, can the following options be added:

* The Hereditary Monarchy shall be restored.
* An Electoral College, which shall be independent of the Ziu, shall be established to nominate future monarchs.

One challenge in creating a list of options is that mode of selection, tenure, and powers (and number of holders, for the NPW) are different dimensions of the office and the interplay between them can dramatically influence one’s order of preference. For example, a particular citizen might rank lifetime hereditary monarchy at the top of the list if the monarch is a “symbol of the nation” figurehead with no real powers, but far down the list otherwise. You could create a comprehensive list of options with different permutations of these dimensions but that could result in a very long list.

I don’t understand the objection to the title “justice.” As a title for a judicial officer, it’s been around for as long as “judge” has if not longer (according to the Online Etymology Dictionary “justice” has been used in that sense since c. 1200, while “judge” dates back to only the mid-14th century). “Jurist” is a comparative newcomer (15th century) and is less specific: it can refer to any practitioner of law, such as a lawyer or legal scholar, not just a judicial officer. So I would prefer reinstating the JP title over creating a new CJ one. But I wouldn’t vote against the bill just for that reason.

Congratulations, D:r Nordselva. I’m sure the Chancery will be in good hands.

What did Cresti have against the Amada Merþedes bill, given that the King himself supported it?

It’s a mystery if you think my political views can be summed up by simply asking “what would King John do?” 

The original amendment allowing senators to be elected before they could vote was (IIRC) introduced by Fritz but drafted by King (then SoS) John. During the discussion of that bill, I asked about the intent behind it. John said at the time that the intent behind the bill was to allow a province to elect a senator who would shortly be able to vote, or concurrently with petitioning the King for a knighthood for the new senator. He didn’t actually say what would happen if a province elected a senator who wouldn’t be able to vote for a long time, but my guess is if I had followed up about that possibility he would have said no one would be stupid enough to do such a thing.

I voted against the amendment way back then because I didn’t agree with electing or appointing senators who would not be eligible to perform the duties of their office, so I think I’m consistent in not wanting to make that situation worse today. Counting nonvotes against the senator as Glüc interpreted the law puts a natural limit on how long someone can serve without being able to vote, and I agree with his interpretation.

Cresti ended up supporting the Judiciary Amendment, which he voted against as an MC, so we have to give him the credit of being able to change his mind.

I haven’t been an MC in years. I did vote against the predecessor bill to the Judiciary Amendment as a senator back during the 52nd Cosa, but was not in the Ziu for this bill. Also, King John vetoed the earlier bill that I voted against, but not this one.

My initial inclination was to vote against all the amendments, but I ended up deciding to vote for the judiciary one. This was partly in recognition of the length to which Viteu went trying to accommodate concerns raised about the previous bill, and partly a decision to give him the benefit of the doubt on his “magnum opus” (as it were) as he leaves the Ziu and moves onto the bench.

I cast my ballot as follows:

Cosa: LCC

Referenda:

54RZ16 - Contra
54RZ22 - Contra
54RZ23 - Contra
54RZ25 - Per
54RZ28 - Contra

Happy 40th Independence Day, Talossans!

God save the King! God save Talossa!