The Talossan Law Repatriation (Crimes Repugnant to Talossanity) Bill

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I repeat again that you guys had two months to wake up and suggest amendments here. Our current system, where a Bill is Clarked with 5 days before voting and its opponents go "miéida sant, we didn't think you were serious! Please stop!" is ludicrous and leads to bad law.

You posted a first draft of this bill on February 10th.  I pointed out huge problems on February 13th, and you said nothing for a very long time.  Then more than a month later, on March 17th -- again, that's only two weeks ago! -- you posted the new draft.  Within the week, you received detailed feedback on these specific problems.  That discussion continued in good faith and in detail right up until March 24th, at which point you Clarked the bill.

Perhaps you are thinking of some other bill?  Since you're not describing what you did with this one.  There was no way for anyone to know that you'd just abandoned your first draft after the February exchange -- you never said, "I do see the problem here, so let's fix it."  You just stopped replying and said nothing for a month.  I am not a mind reader.

I also had no way to know that you never looked up the laws you were repealing.  It never would have occurred to me to ask if you'd done that, since such a question would seem very insulting for me to ask.  I certainly would have helped you find them if I had known.  I usually just google "Wisconsin statutes," which is an easy way to get there for me.

I hope that the Ziu sees these manifold problems and more time can be taken to fix this.  You have Clarked numerous bills this term and I'm not sure a single one has lost even one vote from your party, however, so that seems unlikely.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, quite often with you the best way to end a discussion that's going nowhere is just to cease replying, because you always have to have the last word, lol

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM]

I repeat again that you guys had two months to wake up and suggest amendments here. Our current system, where a Bill is Clarked with 5 days before voting and its opponents go "miéida sant, we didn't think you were serious! Please stop!" is ludicrous and leads to bad law.

You posted a first draft of this bill on February 10th.  I pointed out huge problems on February 13th, and you said nothing for a very long time.  Then more than a month later, on March 17th -- again, that's only two weeks ago! -- you posted the new draft.  Within the week, you received detailed feedback on these specific problems.  That discussion continued in good faith and in detail right up until March 24th, at which point you Clarked the bill.

Perhaps you are thinking of some other bill?  Since you're not describing what you did with this one.  There was no way for anyone to know that you'd just abandoned your first draft after the February exchange -- you never said, "I do see the problem here, so let's fix it."  You just stopped replying and said nothing for a month.  I am not a mind reader.

I also had no way to know that you never looked up the laws you were repealing.  It never would have occurred to me to ask if you'd done that, since such a question would seem very insulting for me to ask.  I certainly would have helped you find them if I had known.  I usually just google "Wisconsin statutes," which is an easy way to get there for me.

I hope that the Ziu sees these manifold problems and more time can be taken to fix this.  You have Clarked numerous bills this term and I'm not sure a single one has lost even one vote from your party, however, so that seems unlikely.

You do understand that the Ziu seeks counsel, not because we have to... but because we chose to. The legislative body of this Kingdom is a separate entity... not part of the Sovereign’s day to day. We heard your input... and while we do appreciate the Regent’s desire to be a bit more involved (WAY more than John has in a while)... you also need to learn to stay in the lane of the office you hold. We as a legislative body spend far too much time arguing with the Sovereign/Regent over freaking nonsense. The duties of the Government are handled by the Ziu... not by you... and we will be a better nation when that is clearly understood.

[Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù]

I would say that I think the clerking of this bill without the improvements that were pointed out when originally posted is not in the spirit of what the hopper is for. Its intended for legislation to be discussed and improved for the betterment of our nation. If that improvement does happen I believe that my fellow members are within their right to be angry about it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

On the question of codified vs. statute law. I was talking the other day with various Talossans about our legal definition of treason - never mind why - and my legal search came to the shocking conclusion that, while the Organic Law makes provision for treason, it is nowhere defined in our law except El Lexhatx A.20.5, which applies that term to... bogus "official Talossan websites".  There is nothing in codified Talossan law which criminalises attempting to overthrow the State.

The point of this observation is that you'd have to work a long long time to create Talossan statute law which perfectly covers all our needs. I support the "common law" approach of giving discretion to judges to cover the gaps, although statute law should replace it at our earliest convenience.

I should also point out that the last time Patrick Woolley spoke to me, it was to express his enthusiasm about... bringing back the common-law felonies. So, yeah.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Directing judges to invent crimes as needed is easier than legislating, but it seems unwise and unethical.  A citizen of a country should be able to know what is a crime and what is not.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Treason is an offence against the state itself ("high treason") and not internal violent dissent ("petty treason").  Most nations have dropped the concept of "petty treason" and use "treason" to mean "high treason" - which is what, I presume, we do (and shall do) here in Talossa. For that particular Crime Repugnant to Talossanity I think we have no need for the Justices to be involved in contentious deliberation: the answers to "Is this person trying to kill the monarch?" and "Is this person supporting external war against Talossa?" make the question "Is this (potentially) treason?" a clear one.