Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760 
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Jul 12, 2012 5:08:37 GMT -6
Of course it was in jest. You people don't get my sense of humour yet.  I'd have to be pretty lacking in insight to not be joking, considering that the ZRT "owns" Fiôvâ almost as much as the RUMP owns Nacho Land. Fiova is going to be Talossa's Western Cape Province |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 12, 2012 5:09:39 GMT -6
Thank goodness this election is almost over! Although it's sure been exciting!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pôl d'Aurìbuérg on Jul 12, 2012 5:20:42 GMT -6
...the RUMP owns Nacho Land. Is this a theme park? 'Cause it sounds awesome! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2012 7:05:21 GMT -6
The learning curve to understand Miestra's sense of humor is a bit steep. But I know I'm slowly catching it. The internet is making it difficult though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eldsfäts Blasiüs on Jul 12, 2012 19:14:32 GMT -6
I will break the slavery of the ZRT dominance in Fiova by getting a CeR majority there in the next election!
... and monkeys will also fly out my posterior
|
|
|
|
Post by Iustì Carlüs Canun on Jul 12, 2012 21:01:45 GMT -6
Yes, you'll get them... And their little dog, too!
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 12, 2012 21:09:46 GMT -6
The ZRT head honcho in Florenciâ, Mximo Carbonel, has planted a seed in the Nacho Lands which will surely flower into a dazzling Republican orchid.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jul 12, 2012 21:15:41 GMT -6
The ZRT head honcho in Florenciâ, Mximo Carbonel, has planted a seed in the Nacho Lands which will surely flower into a dazzling Republican orchid. Really? I thought it would be more like the sweet smell of the Carrion flower ? |
|
|
|
Post by Ceváglh Scurznicol on Jul 13, 2012 17:04:06 GMT -6
Let a hundred flowers bloom!
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 13, 2012 22:10:11 GMT -6
A note on MY votes cast:
I voted "non" on 43RZ19 because 1) I want to preserve the traditional subdivisions of cantons; 2) linking territorial subdivision boundaries to U.S. census boundaries is tremendously helpful in keeping abreast of the demographics of our Cestour population, until such time as Talossa can afford to conduct its own census of the Cestours; and 3) the amendment makes the final sentence of Art XVII Sec 1 meaningless. What does it matter if cantons are the smallest possible territorial subdivision which can organically be transferred from one province to another, if the provinces and Ziu can alter the boundaries of cantons and create new cantons without amending the OrgLaw?
Regarding 43RZ25, I note that the amendment has not yet been ratified (obviously), but elections for the senators of Fiova, Maritiimi-Maxhestic, and Benito are already on the ballot. I can only imagine that Fiova's Senäts seat is up for election now due to the existing OrgLaw's vacancy provisions. Thus, when the amendment goes into effect at the end of these 44th Cosa elections, section 3 of the bill specifically requires Fiova's Senäts seat to be one of the three up for grabs in the next election. So whoever is elected Senator from Fiova now will be serving only until the 45th Cosa elections?
I abstained on 43RZ32. I have misgivings about Cort cases being decided by one justice simply due to happenstance, with no possibility of appeal should the one justice who happens to be available during a given three-week period holds an unorthodox view on a particular point of law. Perhaps (given recent population growth) it's time to think about a five-justice Cort, with a quorum of three.
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jul 14, 2012 4:19:38 GMT -6
I abstained on 43RZ32. I have misgivings about Cort cases being decided by one justice simply due to happenstance, with no possibility of appeal should the one justice who happens to be available during a given three-week period holds an unorthodox view on a particular point of law. I voted "Non" for almost exactly the same reason. |
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Jul 14, 2012 5:19:42 GMT -6
I abstained on 43RZ32. I have misgivings about Cort cases being decided by one justice simply due to happenstance, with no possibility of appeal should the one justice who happens to be available during a given three-week period holds an unorthodox view on a particular point of law. I voted "Non" for almost exactly the same reason. I wanted to... but I've found out that on the ballot I was missing 43RZ25, and while adding it and reading again all of them I made a mistake... |
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on Jul 14, 2012 7:18:05 GMT -6
2) linking territorial subdivision boundaries to U.S. census boundaries is tremendously helpful in keeping abreast of the demographics of our Cestour population, until such time as Talossa can afford to conduct its own census of the Cestours; Yeah, sure, it would let us do that — but it would require us to radically revise the borders of Talossa and Talossa's provinces to maintain the link. See, the US changed the boundaries of census tracts fairly dramatically in the 2010 Census. What was Pórt Maxhestic (tract 153) was abolished, the western two-thirds joined with non-Talossan territory across the river in the new tract 1874, the eastern third put into a new tract 9800. At the same time, what was Maritiimi (tract 109) was also abolished and split into three—new tract 1869, new tract 1870, and the coastline put into the new combination tract 9800. Dún Cestoûr had its coastline (and thus the entire coastline of Vudoe) sliced off and handed to the new combination tract 9800. The US revision of tract boundaries also handed a chunk of Florencia to Maricopa, and a chunk of Benito to Atatürk. So, we had to either seriously revise both the borders of Talossa and of the various provinces to conform to the 2010 changes in census tracts, or de-link the cantons from census tracts. We could have specifically picked a previous census's tract boundaries, but the territorial compromise between Fiôvâ and M-M already involved using a 2010 Census line. Nobody's planning to radically revise things, but between the US penchant for revising the census tract boundaries without consulting us and the desire to take the wishes of both Fiôvâ and M-M into account, it was time to take the definition of our internal subdivisions entirely into our own hands. So whoever is elected Senator from Fiova now will be serving only until the 45th Cosa elections? Yes, as was explained to Fiovans during the drafting of that provision, which they were cool with. |
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 15, 2012 5:19:21 GMT -6
Yeah, sure, it would let us do that — but it would require us to radically revise the borders of Talossa and Talossa's provinces to maintain the link. True. The fact that the U.S. keep changing the tract boundaries is concerning. I remember how indignant Ben was about the 1990-2000 changes. The U.S. Census Bureau does release relationship files making it possible to compare the results from one census to the previous census for a changed tract, but I don't think it's practical to compare results across more than two censuses (e.g. 1990 census to 2010 census). But what about the inconsistency in stating that 1) the Organic Law prohibits the transfer of subdivisions smaller than cantons between provinces, but 2) the provinces involved and the Ziu can decide to call a square inch of land a "canton" and transfer it between the provinces without an Organic Law amendment? |
|
I'd have to be pretty lacking in insight to not be joking, considering that the ZRT "owns" Fiôvâ almost as much as the RUMP owns Nacho Land.
"Ceterum censeo republicam proclamandum esse."