The Cunstaval Reform Amendment

Started by Baron Alexandreu Davinescu, December 31, 2025, 07:45:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

owenedwards

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on January 15, 2026, 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.
Senior Justice

Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir

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)

Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

#22
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on Yesterday at 03:47:03 AMIn 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.

Just to be clear: this aspect of the law would not be changed.  The current law already allows provinces to make their own decisions about that, and they can give any powers they wish to their cunstaval.  My bill isn't actually changing this.

So while I understand your criticism, it's a separate issue -- you're asking me to make an additional, complicated change that would restrict the provinces in a new way.

If I were to create this new restriction, I'm not sure how to word it.  It would be complicated to phrase it in such a way that it would be meaningful -- "you're not allowed to assign your cunstaval any powers" would essentially defeat our whole purpose here, so we'd need to... I don't know, make a list of powers that we're permitting them to assign?

I'm open to suggested amendments, if you have any language to add, but you're just demanding something outside of the scope of the bill.
Alexandreu Davinescu, Baron Davinescu del Vilatx Freiric, Seneschal del Regipäts Talossan

ESTO·BENIGNUS·ESTO· FORTIS·VERUM·QUAERE

                   

Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 07:05:48 AM
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on Yesterday at 03:47:03 AMIn 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.

Just to be clear: this aspect of the law would not be changed.  The current law already allows provinces to make their own decisions about that, and they can give any powers they wish to their cunstaval.  My bill isn't actually changing this.

So while I understand your criticism, it's a separate issue -- you're asking me to make an additional, complicated change that would restrict the provinces in a new way.

If I were to create this new restriction, I'm not sure how to word it.  It would be complicated to phrase it in such a way that it would be meaningful -- "you're not allowed to assign your cunstaval any powers" would essentially defeat our whole purpose here, so we'd need to... I don't know, make a list of powers that we're permitting them to assign?

I'm open to suggested amendments, if you have any language to add, but you're just demanding something outside of the scope of the bill.
That is a min understanding of what I said.

I my point was literally from the start was one specific thing, I only explained the above as reasons I believe my original point is actually more important than i put across before and why the bill should at least say that
"Should a Cunstaval be of the same province they are from, they shall not be eligible to be the head of government or executive of legislative branches of said province"

I think the wording is more clear than wha to have said in previous posts. I think other points about also being a senator or member of the legislature in a province should be thought about too, but that isn't a discussion for this bill. And my only priority here (which I should have been clearer about in my last response and I'm sorry that I wasn't) is to stop the possibility of the Cunstaval being the head of government in any province as has been my main concern from the start. Especially as this change has the potential to have a Cunstaval be from the same province which jm not against but only if the language of this bill reflects that in so far as saying in that scenario the Cunstaval will be ineligible to hold the executive office whilst they are Cunstaval. The law is always better with being clear on such things, especially in regards to separation of powers.
I'm just worried that if we don't pit that in now, it may cause issues down the line.

Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

You're kind of talking past me a bit, here.

Unless I'm mistaken, currently provinces are permitted to arrange their governments mostly how they please, including making the Cunstaval the head of any branch, right?  You're asking for these additional restrictions to be added on the provinces.
Alexandreu Davinescu, Baron Davinescu del Vilatx Freiric, Seneschal del Regipäts Talossan

ESTO·BENIGNUS·ESTO· FORTIS·VERUM·QUAERE