Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 08:44:29 AMhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talossa&diff=1336911937&oldid=1336824978

Ohh, my bad. Where exactly would that be in the OrgLaw?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 08:18:26 AMAt least one of the recent changes has been reverted, since there's no source.

Which one was it?

It's great that things have been happily busy for you!

At least one of the recent changes has been reverted, since there's no source.  However, you can cite the current Organic Law as a source to add them back in.

I'm open to some version of this, personally, but I absolutely will not vote for this version.  The very obvious implication is that it's referring to His Majesty as a "strongman," and even though it's reassuring to hear that this is an accident, I'm still not going to vote for it in its current form.

I have always like Bhutan (love dragons), Nepal (love the different shape) and Albania (the simple color scheme always attracts my eye)

Assuming we're sticking with national flags of current states, in no particular order:

Switzerland, Finland, The Bahamas, San Marino, Czech Republic, The Gambia

There are others I like due to specific shades used, but the design itself is not particularly notable (Luxembourg and Sierra Leone come to mind)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on February 02, 2026, 02:10:35 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on February 01, 2026, 10:01:32 PMa more moderate position could be found where votes using the thread are only publicized after polling closes

Hey, I never thought of that, sounds like a great compromise. Actually, isn't that how it already works when you vote publicly on the database?

I do believe so, yes. This would essentially be doing it the same way, but on Witt.

May I first assure His Majesty I wasn't referring to him. He's by far and away the most impartial and constitutional monarch we've yet had. I was happy to vote in favor of his becoming Heir Presumptive during the referendum on the issue, and would say the nation's trust in him has been rewarded so far.

"...loyalty, allegiance, and fidelity to the Kingdom of Talossa and to His Majesty's government" calls into question whether those swearing the oath of citizenship are being required to waive their right to disagree with the government of the day. Are they to be compelled to agree with the government instead? Compelled speech is generally held as conflicting with the right to free expression -- a right Talossans are supposed to be able to enjoy under the protections of the First Covenant.

It would be very difficult to argue that compelling allegiance to the government would be covered under the "public order or morals" exception.

Even if we look at this clause as generously as possible, in the sense of "some people have lawful authority to decide things for the country, respect it", it would also be difficult to argue that under such an interpretation, compelling allegiance to the government is not better served by having the oath-taker swear to follow the nation's laws. Since the oath already does this, it renders allegiance to the government superfluous (assuming that the government is itself respecting the law).