I think the main thing I want to preserve is making sure that anything the provinces do or ask myself or a Cunstaval to proclaim is organic. Perhaps those sections can be reworded to that purpose? I just don't want the provinces to face Cort battles if something goes awry.

-Txec R

That is disappointing in terms of unleashing provinces to experiment and encouraging them to try new things, but not the end of the world, so I'll accept that.  I'll draft the change soon.

---

TXEC, par la Graçù da Dïeu, Regeu da Talossa es toct i sieux Bains es Raxhiuns, Regeu da Cézembre, Dómnul Soveran es Prostexheir da Pengöpäts es las Nouăs Falkland, Zefençadeir del Feitz, Micjeu dals Forçuns Armeschti, Viceregeu da Hoxhă es Vicar d'Atatürk, Azul àd ár citaxhiens es cestours:

WHEREAS the First Clark of the 62nd Cosa has concluded, We therefore deem it Our Organic duty to proclaim:

As to 62RZ01 - The Public Process Act, El Regeu en volt.

As to 62RZ03 - The Túischac'h Casual Vacancy Act, El Regeu en volt.

As to 62RZ05 - Sense of the Ziu: Big Neighbor Democratic Backsliding, El Regeu en volt.

We thank Our Cosa, Our Senäts, and our Secretary of State for their due diligence.

Given under Our hand Royal at the city of Riverside this twenty-second day of January, in the year of salvation 2026, of the independence of Talossa the forty-sixth, and of Our reign the second.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 31, 2025, 07:45:38 PM

The Cunstavál Reform Amendment

Whereas the role of Cunstaval is decades out of date and mostly out of use, and yet there is a place for His Majesty in every province, and

Whereas the provinces are probably best-equipped to decide what the role might be, and

Whereas the limit on cross-provincial power seems unnecessary at this point, since we don't know what provinces will want to be doing,

THEREFORE the fourth section of the ninth article of the Organic Law, which currently reads

Quote1. Every royal power that the King possesses as granted by this Organic Law shall also apply to the provincial governments; with the exception that the provincial royal powers need not include a right of dissolution if provincial elections are held concurrently with Cosâ elections.

2. The King may appoint a Cunstavál (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf, for a term not exceeding three years. The King may reappoint a Cunstavál. The terms of existing Cunstaváis shall expire no later than three years after the adoption of this amendment.

3. Until such time as the King or Cunstavál proclaims a provincial constitution providing otherwise, the King or Cunstavál shall serve as Military Governor and may exercise all the powers of the provincial government.

4. The King or Cunstavál shall not proclaim any provincial constitution, nor shall any province pass a constitutional amendment, which conflicts with any provision of this Organic Law or with any other national law.

5. The King or Cunstavál shall not proclaim any provincial constitution which has not been approved by a referendum in which at least either a majority of all citizens of the province or a two-thirds majority of votes actually cast is in favor of the constitution.

6. No person shall be at the same time Cunstavál of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province.

shall be amended to read

Quote1. Every royal power that the King possesses as granted by this Organic Law shall also apply in a commensurate fashion to the provincial governments.

2. The King may appoint a Cunstaval (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstaval, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstaval a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province.

Frankly, if we simply deleted sections 3, 4, and 5 it would achieve what I believe both the Seneschal and the MC are looking for. My preference is to simply delete the provision about military governors and adjust section 2 to remove the last sentence.

I don't see the harm in keeping the sections regarding new constitutions and keeping things organic.

-Txec R

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 21, 2026, 08:34:32 PM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 21, 2026, 08:24:04 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 21, 2026, 09:14:27 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 19, 2026, 06:06:22 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 19, 2026, 03:59:46 PMOkay.  Well, your suggested language doesn't quite work.  But how about

"2. The King may appoint a Cunstaval (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstaval, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstaval a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of that same province."

Ok with the same province that should same/another province.
Or just "no person shall at the same time be a Cunstaval of one province and the head/leader of provincial government of any province"

So one thing I'd point out is that we're going to run into at least some practical problems if we say that people can't be cunstaval of another province and a provincial government leader in their province at the same time.  At least two cunstavais would have to resign, I think, because we'd need a total of sixteen significantly active citizens with space for that responsibility.

This isn't an impossible problem, but I just don't see why someone like Sir Ian can't be Maritiimi-Maxhestic's Grand General Secretary while also serving as cunstaval for Maricopa.

You are aware that this argument goes against your original proposed language? As the law already makes being a Cunstaval and provincial government head illegal. Your original language does the same.
My proposed amendment is to just ensure that same standard is applied if the Cunstaval should one day be appointed from their home province that they can't serve as head of government in their home province either as Cunstaval.
So what you're arguing for here goes against even your original proposal.

What I want is not to have this kind of language at all.  But we've gotten steadily more and more restrictive, and now we're walling people off from holding any kind of cunstaval position or provincial lead position at the same time, instead of getting to choose to combine them (current law possibility and current draft possibility) or have people hold those positions in different places (new draft possibility).

It's hard to imagine even a problem here, since no province has anything in place that could make this stuff problematic.  Since the whole point is to open up some possibilities here and eliminate the military governorship, maybe we could just pick either one or the other, and not make both illegal?  I'm very much a "worst case scenario" planner, but what's the actual danger?  In order to abuse any power in this position, someone would need to get their province on-board and the king.

Honeslty I think that may be something to look at in future updates. But the language of not being a Cunstaval and a provincial head of government of any province is my sticking point at this time. The rest of bill i am fine with, but I feel that if one is going to be a Cunstaval of a province, to also be a head of government of a province is not a great position to have. As it would be akin to the king becoming Senechal, or say the crown of the U.K.'s representative in Canada or any nation to become it head of government or a head of government in an other nation under the king of their nation. (Best example I can think of)
I just disagree with the principal.

I'm not saying there is a right opinion here as I think we have both raised valid arguments in this debate. But yeah the last language I suggested that says a Cunstaval can't be a head of government of any province (or language to that effect) is my personal line for this. As it has been from the start

The time allotted for voting on the Clark has expired.

The Cosă and Senäts have passed the following bills and resolutions, which are sent to His Majesty @King Txec for Royal Assent:

62RZ01 - The Public Process Act Redux
Agreed to by the Cosă 180-0, by the Senäts 8-0

62RZ03 - The Túischac'h Casual Vacancy Act
Agreed to by the Cosă 133-27 (20 abstained), by the Senäts 7-1

62RZ05 - Sense of the Ziu: Big Neighbor Democratic Backsliding
Agreed to by the Cosă 98-47 (35 abstained), by the Senäts 7-0 (1 abstained) 


The Cosă and Senäts have both rejected the following bills and resolutions:

62RZ02 - Advisory Opinion Removal Amendment
Rejected by the Cosă due to missing the required supermajority 90-70 (20 abstained), rejected by the Senäts 3-5

62RZ04 - Sense of the Ziu: Restoration of National Honour
Rejected by the Cosă 63-117, by the Senäts 1-6 (1 abstained)


The Cosă passed a Vote of Confidence in the incumbent Government 82-78 (20 abstained).


Baroness Litz Cjantscheir (MC-PROG) and Andrïeu Cabischabuerg (MC-URL/NC) did not vote.




Sir Lüc da Schir, UrB
Secretary of State

I'm surprised nobody mentioned that having a Cunstaval from another province implies at least three positive things:

1. It gives typically short-staffed provincial governments one free additional warm body;

2. It provides an external arbiter to provincial politics;

3. It brings provinces closer together, by giving Cunstavais the chance to familiarise themselves with the culture of another province.


Many years ago I was advocating for a Belacostan Cunstaval in Belacosta, but that was mostly as a reaction to the very inactive Cunstaval of the day, and the equally inactive King who never returned our petitions. With term limits and the Cunstaval roster finally getting refreshed, I think the status quo is pretty satisfactory and doesn't really need reform.

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 21, 2026, 08:24:04 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 21, 2026, 09:14:27 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 19, 2026, 06:06:22 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 19, 2026, 03:59:46 PMOkay.  Well, your suggested language doesn't quite work.  But how about

"2. The King may appoint a Cunstaval (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstaval, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstaval a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of that same province."

Ok with the same province that should same/another province.
Or just "no person shall at the same time be a Cunstaval of one province and the head/leader of provincial government of any province"

So one thing I'd point out is that we're going to run into at least some practical problems if we say that people can't be cunstaval of another province and a provincial government leader in their province at the same time.  At least two cunstavais would have to resign, I think, because we'd need a total of sixteen significantly active citizens with space for that responsibility.

This isn't an impossible problem, but I just don't see why someone like Sir Ian can't be Maritiimi-Maxhestic's Grand General Secretary while also serving as cunstaval for Maricopa.

You are aware that this argument goes against your original proposed language? As the law already makes being a Cunstaval and provincial government head illegal. Your original language does the same.
My proposed amendment is to just ensure that same standard is applied if the Cunstaval should one day be appointed from their home province that they can't serve as head of government in their home province either as Cunstaval.
So what you're arguing for here goes against even your original proposal.

What I want is not to have this kind of language at all.  But we've gotten steadily more and more restrictive, and now we're walling people off from holding any kind of cunstaval position or provincial lead position at the same time, instead of getting to choose to combine them (current law possibility and current draft possibility) or have people hold those positions in different places (new draft possibility).

It's hard to imagine even a problem here, since no province has anything in place that could make this stuff problematic.  Since the whole point is to open up some possibilities here and eliminate the military governorship, maybe we could just pick either one or the other, and not make both illegal?  I'm very much a "worst case scenario" planner, but what's the actual danger?  In order to abuse any power in this position, someone would need to get their province on-board and the king.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 21, 2026, 09:14:27 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 19, 2026, 06:06:22 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 19, 2026, 03:59:46 PMOkay.  Well, your suggested language doesn't quite work.  But how about

"2. The King may appoint a Cunstaval (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstaval, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstaval a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of that same province."

Ok with the same province that should same/another province.
Or just "no person shall at the same time be a Cunstaval of one province and the head/leader of provincial government of any province"

So one thing I'd point out is that we're going to run into at least some practical problems if we say that people can't be cunstaval of another province and a provincial government leader in their province at the same time.  At least two cunstavais would have to resign, I think, because we'd need a total of sixteen significantly active citizens with space for that responsibility.

This isn't an impossible problem, but I just don't see why someone like Sir Ian can't be Maritiimi-Maxhestic's Grand General Secretary while also serving as cunstaval for Maricopa.

You are aware that this argument goes against your original proposed language? As the law already makes being a Cunstaval and provincial government head illegal. Your original language does the same.
My proposed amendment is to just ensure that same standard is applied if the Cunstaval should one day be appointed from their home province that they can't serve as head of government in their home province either as Cunstaval.
So what you're arguing for here goes against even your original proposal.

Okay, folks... let's talk Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talossa

First of all, it could use some basic love in the writing.  That's pretty low-hanging fruit: if you have a way with words and a spare ten minutes, fix up one of the sections.

Second of all, our comprehensive and nice "country" template was replaced with a "micronation" template, which is annoying and I oppose as a derivatist.  However, bowing to necessity, we should at least fill in that infobox!  There's a ton of parameters we're not using that could be included: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_micronation

Third of all, we need to use the recent Milwaukee Magazine article as a source to update the history section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talossa#History_and_growth).  Right now, it seems like we stopped existing when Ben left, which is dumb and wrong.

Fourthly, our flag was removed which is apparently policy, but other images could be included (preferably recent ones), maybe from that magazine article or something else.  Let's get some life on this page.

Fifth, there's definitely other stuff that hasn't even occurred to me that could be fixed or added.

Thank you to all who are willing to lend a hand!