Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 02, 2026, 11:30:29 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 02, 2026, 11:18:33 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 02, 2026, 07:44:19 AMOh, I see. Well, that wouldn't be closing a loophole, that would be a significant change. In the past, some provinces have chosen to have their Constable also serve as the ceremonial head of state or the head of their government. So I don't want to prevent provinces from doing that. Provinces will already be now enabled to pass their own restrictions on who can hold the office, and they can add this restriction if they so choose.

That isn't exactly trye as the current convention in appointments of Cunstavals are supposed to be from a separate province.
As having a cunstaval also be the head of government in a province seems like a dangerous position with one person having too much power.

So doing so would be closing a loophole and formalising the principals behind currently conventions

Actually, there was a specific reform enacted to change the rule that Cunstavais need to be from a different province, since some people resented it.

I think provinces are probably the best judges of how to distribute power in their own province, right?  Most of them have chosen a weak executive.  They can decide to have any role or restriction that they want.

The major issue hear is Separation of powers as allowing a Cunstaval to become a head of a government, would be akin to allowing the King to become the senechal. And politisiing the crown in the province.

Allowing provinces to create laws about the limits of the Cunstaval outside of those granted under organic law, is honestly a good thing.

AndI support the idea of this bill.But, not in so far that it allows the politicisation of a possition that in its core, is the REPRESENTATIVE of the Crown and king in a province.

In order to allow what you're suggesting would actually be a great shift away from current laws and presidents in Talossa. And will dilute to separation of powers.

Which is why it should be clear in law that the Cunstaval of a province cannot become the head of government of ANY province, especially one they are Cunstaval over.

Honestly, it might be worth all saying that one cannot become Senechal too. (I think ministers, MC/sentarors and seats in provincial assemblies are debatebale but fine especially with the low active members we have, but I do think that holding executive power and the power of the crowns representative is a dangerous and undemocratic position)

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on Yesterday at 10:15:11 PMEpisode 1 is free on YouTube FYI!

https://youtu.be/n0sjDkoNgfY?si=ryjyc73yk8fdiexr

What did you think of the first episode, Francal?

Episode 1 is free on YouTube FYI!

https://youtu.be/n0sjDkoNgfY?si=ryjyc73yk8fdiexr

*Permanent Witt Location*

We are getting closer to the release of the first episode of Abbavilla Digest. Here is a quick sneak peek of the first episode:

We are getting closer to the release of the first episode of Abbavilla Digest. Here is a quick sneak peek of the first episode:

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 05:43:16 PMI just remembered that this is also the clause that the Proclamation Crisis was about - when the former King John vetoed a quite anodyne amendment just to fire a "warning shot" and emphasise that he had final say over all OrgLaw amendments - which started the process of removing that power. So there's also the sentimental value.

The Cort case is an interesting artefact.

Happiest of birthdays My King!

I just remembered that this is also the clause that the Proclamation Crisis was about - when the former King John vetoed a quite anodyne amendment just to fire a "warning shot" and emphasise that he had final say over all OrgLaw amendments - which started the process of removing that power. So there's also the sentimental value.

Not to my knowledge. If anything keeping several spelling variants might be unnecessarily confusing to non-Ladintschen, especially if the spelling in question has been incorrect for more than 10 years.

Is there any merit in retaining the outdated spelling in words like this, that are in use and have been around for a long time?