Please Clark the Executive Power Reform Amendment, a bill which will limit the Seneschal's ability to make laws by requiring the legislature's eventual agreement.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 28, 2025, 09:59:15 PM

The Executive Power Reform Act and Amendment

Whereas currently the Seneschal can simply write any laws they wish by themselves, bounded only by the Organic Law and His Majesty's agreement, and

Whereas that's an absurd amount of power for one person to have, and there is insufficient check on this power,

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

QuotePrime Dictates (PDs) are public declarations which affect government policy and have the force of law. They take effect upon their countersignature by the King and function as laws for all purposes, with such exceptions and subject to such conditions as the Ziu may enact by statute. Prime Dictates are exempt from all provisions relating unto legislative proposals, but may never be used to amend this Organic Law.

shall be amended to read

QuotePrime Dictates (PDs) are public declarations which affect government policy and have the force of law. They take effect upon their countersignature by the King and function as laws for all purposes, with such exceptions and subject to such conditions as the Ziu may enact by statute. Prime Dictates are exempt from all provisions relating unto legislative proposals, but may never be used to amend this Organic Law.  All Prime Dictates, excepting only those appropriating monies or with ephemeral effect, shall automatically cease effect after the passage of three months unless affirmed by the Ziu.

FURTHERMORE, this amendment shall not be held to affect any Prime Dictates that preceded its passage.

FURTHERMORE, subsubsections 2.1.1 through 2.1.3 of Title D of el Lexhatx, which currently read

Quote2.1.1. All acts, decisions and policy statements by the Seneschal shall be issued by executive orders, collectively known as Prüms Dideux (in english, Prime Deeds). These can be of two kinds:
2.1.1.1. A Prüm Diktat (in english, Prime Dictate), as provided by Org.VI.4., requires the King's countersignature to become enforceable and has the force of law. It's used:
2.1.1.1.1. to enact or amend statutes;
2.1.1.1.2. to authorise emergency spending, as provided in D.2.8.6.;
2.1.1.1.3. to remove the Clerk of the Court, as provided in G.4.9.;
2.1.1.1.4. in all situations where the Legeu Orgänic or Lexhatx explicitly require for it or for the King's countersignature.
2.1.1.2. A Prüm Dirixhaziun (in english, Prime Directive) doesn't met the conditions of Org.VI.4. It's used:
2.1.1.2.1. to declare a month of recess, as provided by Org.VI.8.;
2.1.1.2.2. to issue memorials, congratulatory notices, internal Government organisation decisions and policy statements, executive policy clarifications, and other appropriate and limited governmental matters;
2.1.1.2.3. in all situations where the law provides for the Seneschal to act alone without the King's assent.
2.1.1.3. The Seneschal shall use Prüms Diktats with caution and respect and leave legislation solely for democratic consideration by the whole Ziu except when is deemed necessary an urgent action.

shall be amended to read

Quote2.1.1  The Seneschal may issue executive orders, collectively known as Prüms Dideux.

2.1.1.1 A Prüm Diktat, as provided by Org.VI.4., requires the King's countersignature to become enforceable and has the force of law. It's used to enact or amend statutes, to authorise emergency spending, to remove the Clerk of the Court, or in all situations where the Legeu Orgänic or el Lexhatx explicitly require for it or for the King's countersignature.  All statutes which are enacted or amended shall remain in effect for three months unless confirmed by the Ziu, at which point they will cease to be in effect.

2.1.1.2 A Prüm Dirixhaziun is used to declare a month of recess, to issue memorials, congratulatory notices, internal Government organisation decisions and policy statements, executive policy clarifications, and other appropriate and limited governmental matters, and in all situations where the law provides for the Seneschal to act alone without the King's assent.

I approve.

Estimat Secretar d'Estat,

I would like to Clark the following bills:

• The Pseudo-Real Cosă Act
• The Broosking Swing Mitigation Amendment

The call for bills for the February 2026 Clark (the second of the 62nd Cosă) is now open. You may post a link to a bill's Hopper thread underneath in the usual fashion, provided it has passed the Hopper according to Lex.H.2 and you are entitled to Clark bills.

I will accept for Clarking any such bills (except for any that fall foul of H.2.7) that are presented between now and January 31st 11:59 PM TST, as I will begin assembling the Clark on the European morning of February 1st.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 17, 2026, 04:48:21 PMI note that this bill would make the first sentence of the modified clause a lie.  "The Senäts shall have equal powers with the Cosa in respect of all proposed laws" will no longer be true.  There will only be two categories of bills for which the Senäts will be equal to the Cosa.  That might be something you want to fix.

Under your interpretation, the first sentence of the modified clause is already a lie -- the clause goes on to describe a class of bills in which the Senäts is already unequal to the Cosă. I'm interested in hearing what others think about the wording, though.

Quote

Quote from: M:sr Pôl dal Nordselvă, D.Div, M.Ed on June 23, 2025, 05:47:21 AMCan you explain to me why having an upper house that has the authority to reject bills or send them back down is a bad thing? I can perhaps understand the ability of the Cosa to override but do we need to strip them of power in order to accomplish the same purpose?

I thought this was still a good question that didn't actually quite get answered.  The explanation went into the nature of the change in detail, but without saying why it was desirable.  Why would we want to do this?

There are a few reasons:
- One, it does not allow truly vital legislation to be hung up forever on the Senäts. Since, of course, bills addressing a given issue can only be considered once per term, this allows the Senäts to effectively kick the can down the road on any issue they wish to obstruct the government on.
- The more overarching, "philosophical" reason is that Talossa is not a federal nation. I know we've compared our constitutional structure to Australia before -- and in fact I believe @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC has stated that similarities are intentional -- but the reality is that we are more like Spain than Australia: a unitary state, divided into provinces that may legislate on certain areas on their own. A "strong" upper house (or at least one as strong as the Senäts) is incompatible with the concept of responsible government in a unitary state. To return to the Australian comparison, they are federal in nature, and this juxtaposition between responsible government and federalism precipitated what is likely their most dire constitutional crisis:

QuoteAs in most Westminster system parliaments, Australia's government is ordinarily formed by the party enjoying the confidence of the lower house of parliament, the House of Representatives. Australia's Parliament also has a powerful upper house, the Senate, which must pass any bill initiated by the House of Representatives if it is to become law. The composition of the Senate, in which each state has an equal number of senators regardless of that state's population, was originally designed to attract the Australian colonies into one Federation. Some at the time of Federation saw the contradiction in the Constitution between responsible government, in which the executive owes its existence to the legislature or one dominant house of the legislature, and, federations with the houses of bicameral legislatures operating independently and possibly deadlocking. Certain delegates predicted that either responsible government would result in the federation becoming a unitary state or federalism would result in an executive closer to federal theory. For instance, delegate Winthrop Hackett stated at the 1891 Convention that as a result of the combination of a strong Senate with responsible government, "there will be one of two alternatives—either responsible government will kill federation, or federation in the form in which we shall, I hope, be prepared to accept it, will kill responsible government".

A few things I would ask sceptics to keep in mind:
- A "house of sober second thought" is the usual role for the upper house in parliamentary legislatures (House of Lords, Canadian Senate, the German and Austrian Bundesrats, the House of Councillors in Japan, etc.)
- This change will also likely lead to a "de-politicization" of Senäts elections, which is healthy if we're trying to make Talossa a more tolerable place for people to spend their time.
- I know you personally have expressed several points of opposition to unicameralism before, chief among those being a safeguard on excessive Organic amendments. Please note that the requirement of the Senäts' consent is not affected in cases of Organic amendment.

Quote from: Mximo Malt on January 25, 2026, 03:27:08 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on January 25, 2026, 01:43:07 PM

Quote from: Mximo Malt on January 24, 2026, 07:08:40 PMÉu fostadréu tir zirat acest avant...


86 47.

Aßei vala aßei.

Acest isch toct.

MM

Quand q'eu sint à pünt d'acurd, c'è non tréi basat es schovan

Éu veleveu acürat à satisfiar el scrütì del S:reu Autófil. ;)

Så, c'esteva toct ünă representaziun unsinçar? Explicta. 🤨

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on January 21, 2026, 02:28:11 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 21, 2026, 11:42:59 AM

Quote from: xpb on January 21, 2026, 10:38:17 AMI will see the Kings ante and have raised my "bet" to $50 on the Kingdom so we're at $75 thus far to the $250 goal.

So nice to see pockets opening for the Kingdom.
When the will is there good things are possible.

I will also be donating $20.00. Can I get a link to the donation page?

see https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4019.0
Regarding remissions to the treasury

clarification - Riley and Cone were recognized as US Ambassadors TO Talossa...

I'd be interested in Westarctica, Ladonia, and would suggest we add the Dominion of Vancouver Island which is active and nearby (for Talossans in Canada's British Columbia).

Also Asgardia seems to be another self-serious outfit.