Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 23, 2022, 08:40:33 PM
Submitting this to the committee:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:28:04 PM
WHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and

WHEREAS this means that anyone in cort can very reasonably ask under what authority the Ziu purports to organically restrict their behavior, when all such power seems reserved to the provinces under the letter of the law, and can also ask how the Ziu gets to set any standards for the bar or other things,

THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:

Quote20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

So far as I can tell, this work appears sound.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 17, 2022, 08:11:23 AM
Submitting for review

The Let's Make This Official Act

Whereas, the Kingdom recognizes the importance of celebrating important dates and events in Talossan history, and

Whereas, Reunision as the re-uniting of kingdom and republican Talossans marks an incredibly important moment in the history of Talossa, and

Whereas, the day in which King John issued the Proclamation of Reunision, April 20, certainly qualifies for elevation from a day of observance to an official national holiday.

Therefore be it resolved that a new subsection is placed at El Lexhatx F 2.4, with any necessary renumbering of following subsections, to read:

Quote20 April. Reunision Day. Commemorating the royal proclamation of Reunision and the end of the Third Schism.

Uréu q'estadra så
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Sen-FL, TNC)
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)

The bill appears sound to me.

As I'm serving as a sort-of holdover Maestro for the time being, I want to page @Istefan Perþonest, one of our seniormost citixzens and the Arvitieir Prima,on this.  What do we think is the best way to proceed?  With a partial provincial legislature?  Or shall the TNC be forced to name holders for their 7 seats?

Quote from: GV on June 11, 2022, 04:27:30 PM
Yikes!  11 June, and there is no debate thread up, already.  ESB, I hope you're all-right.

Anyway, I vote thusly:

57RZ1 Për
57RZ2 Contra
57RZ3 Për

GV, Fiova

I'm alright.  Just lost track of what was supposed to be posted when.


57RZ1 Contra
57RZ2 Contra
57RZ3 Contra

Any takers on the TNC seats?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2022, 07:07:21 AM
I already picked over it in the Hopper; it's fine.

I, also, dont see problems here.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on June 01, 2022, 09:50:27 PM
I'd like to submit the Seneschal Selection and Reselection Amendment

For clarification, is it the Amendment as contained in this linked post?  https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1441.msg12111#msg12111

Apologies, @Ian Plätschisch , Just want to make sure.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 01, 2022, 10:47:54 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 01, 2022, 10:39:32 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 01, 2022, 10:26:53 PM
It means that the Finance Minister is not required to create this Bureau; it is optional and within their discretion.

Then honestly we don't need this law at all, we just need a policy paper. MinFin could create this Bureau tomorrow, should he have the time and energy to do so, with no law required. And if he doesn't want to, this law won't make him.

Correct.  Even though I think this is a very good idea, there are also times when this might not make sense to do, so it is a discretionary scheme that may be enacted at the will of the MinFin.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 01, 2022, 10:39:32 PM

QuoteThe law is full of such suggestions.  I think like the first few provisions in the title covering the Government have like three suggestions alone!

Does it? Well, thank you for giving me a place to start the Justice Ministry's project of removing kipple from El Lexhatx.

These sorts of things are relatively common in legal systems everywhere, since allowing no discretion to executive officers can hamper them from actually achieving desired goals.

In looking at this, there doesn't strike me as anything wrong, inherently speaking, with the material as presented.  I think that the question of "advisory" law (shoulds and coulds, etc) might be best decided by the legislature.  IE, in debate on the bill, they can discuss whether or not this is the kind of law worth enacting.  For my own part, the "shoulds" and "cans" absolutely scream for a "if its not explicitly allowed, it is forbidden" type of legalism.  In essence, at least in my reason, "shoulds" and "cans" in law may very well quash the executive discretion you're pointing to, AD.

Would @Breneir Tzaracomprada and @Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM care to make their seat assignments for the Benito Assembly, please?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 23, 2022, 09:44:52 PM
For future reference, I'd like a consensus from the other members on the broader question that arose:

QuoteWe should lay some ground rules as to what "the CRL giving its recommendation" under El Lex H.6.6. Does this mean we have to have a 2/3 majority on an official report back? Or something looser, i.e. all 3 of us or maybe even just 2 of us having our say?

Honestly, I'd say if 2 members weigh in with either a "yup, all good" or "fix XYZ" (and then fixes are made), that should be sufficient.  After all, we're not after substantive stuff (insofar as semantics in law & legislation can not be substantive) here, that's for the Ziu itself to decide.

None from me

With the fix, I see nothing inherently wrong with "The Fixing Citizenship Act."

Apologies for the delay.  With 5 nominations submitted before the 4/24 deadline, and according to the standing rules of the Senate, I will continue another term as Lord President.

I do have a number of lectures available on a number of theatrical topics.  Would people actually be interested in seeing some of those things? 

This reminds me a bit of things contributing to the collapse of the first Peculiarist govt. in the Republic of Talossa.  After losing the election, the PSD (I think it was still called that at the time) lured away several members of the seated MRP and then dumped the Seneschal in a VoC.

The thing is, party discipline is, essentially, what makes the Westminster (and other similarly structured) parliamentary systems work.  So solicitation of seated MP's in Germany or the UK would be a huge scandal.  Compare that with the individualistic, "big tent" first past the post systems of the Americans, and it would be far less scandalous.  For those who watch the US Senate, it's no secret that the GOP has suggested the Joe Manchin (D-WV) switch allegiance and hand the chamber back to them.

So to come to the ethical question of such solicitation, I'm not sure it is a major ethical breech.  Or, at the very least, your views toward that are going to be informed at least somewhat by your macronational political/national affiliations.