This version of Wittenberg is now the legal national forum for Talossa! Feel free to explore it, and to check out the threads for feedback, requests and criticisms to make sure Wittenberg is tailored to you.

Author Topic: The Hat Redistribution Act  (Read 478 times)


  • Guest
The Hat Redistribution Act
« on: March 18, 2020, 04:55:20 AM »
WHEREAS, in general, Talossa suffers from scarcity of warm bodies; and

WHEREAS, in times like these, we shouldn't limit our most active people from holding multiple offices, as long as it does not constitute an obvious conflict of interest; so

THEREFORE, we, the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa, hereby amend El Lexhatx as follows:

El Lexhatx C.1.1.3 is amended to read: "An individual may not hold the offices of Seneschal, Distáin or any cabinet portfolio while simultaneously holding an active appointment to a secretary office. In addition, any Secretaries within the Ministry of Justice may not serve as a Justice of the Uppermost Cort or a judge in any inferior court."

El Lexhatx C.5 is amended to read: "The Secretary of State shall hold no seat in the Cosa."

Ureu q'estadra sa,

Lüc da Schir (Senator-BE)


  • Guest
Re: The Hat Redistribution Act
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2020, 05:12:19 AM »
This act:

1. Allows the King to serve as PermSec, and Justices to serve as PermSecs as long as the position isn't under the Justice Ministry.

2. Allows the SoS to serve in the Senate, but keeps the ban on serving in the Cosa.

It is "linked" to the amendment I also presented, in that they are in the same spirit; though they are not "interlocked", which is why there is no clause that this only takes effect if the amendment also succeeds, and also why I didn't publish a single "act and amendment".

Offline Glüc da Dhi S.H.

  • Posts: 391
  • Taking a break from Talossa
    • View Profile
Re: The Hat Redistribution Act
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2020, 02:57:51 PM »
With provincial activity down and not likely to recover anytime soon, the Chancery is likely to keep conducting most senatorial elections.

Also, `just recently I made a decision that cost a senator (the senator of my own province no less) her seat. Of course I would argue I did not have a real choice because I was just following the law, but it is clear that interpretations of the law can differ and others would have come to a different conclusions.

I have been very wary of even expressing a public opinion on senatorial races. What constitutes an "obvious" conflict of interest might be rather subjective. Personally I don't think the Secretary of State should also be a senator.

I do agree with the other changes proposed in this act and the other amendment.