|
|
Post by Iustì Carlüs Canun on Jun 21, 2010 18:27:29 GMT -6
You want it in, post it here.
Name of Act AND final draft, please.
41RZ2: The How Did They Vote Act
41RZ3: The Petty Tyrant Eradication Act Amendment
41RZ4: Clarification on the Appointment of Judges Amendment
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 21, 2010 18:45:16 GMT -6
The Petty Tyrant Eradication Act
Whereas the Organic Law demands that former citizens must bow and scrape before the Cort with an essay explaining just how terribly wrong they were, and further provides that the Cort may impose any penalty it feels appropriate for the sin of having left the nation (Org.XVIII.11), and
Whereas life can be tumultuous, with unusual circumstances or complicated changes of heart occuring from time to time, and causing good citizens to leave Talossa, and
Whereas someone rejoining our country should be a cause for celebration, not vindictiveness, and
Whereas there is certainly no reason why the Cort should have such arbitrary power to slap around someone trying to return to Talossa, and
Whereas there is nonetheless a need to address the special case of former citizens who wish to rejoin us,
Therefore the eleventh section of the eighteenth article of the Organic Law is hereby amended to read:
Section 11. A Citizen who has voluntarily renounced his citizenship (in any fashion) may go through the normal citizenship procedure to have his citizenship restored. This procedure may also be skipped and full citizenship restored by an act of the Ziu, if it deems that the applicant merits extraordinary consideration.
Uréu q'estadra så
Alexander Davis (Seneschal)
|
|
Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN
Puisne Justice; Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar; Cunstaval to Florencia
Dame & Former Seneschal
Posts: 1,157 
Talossan Since: 4-5-2010
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Jun 22, 2010 7:02:18 GMT -6
Clarification on the appointment of Judges (Amendment) Act [/center] WHEREAS there are currently 2 different methods to appoint any Judge to any Court in the Organic Law WHEREAS these methods completely contradict each other WHEREAS these two different methods make are confusing, as one does not know which to following when appointing a Judge WHEREAS there should be only one clear, organic way to appoint a Judge of any court in Talossa THEREFORE the Ziu hereby approves the following amendment to the Organic Law, and transmits it to the people for ratification. Article XVI, Section 1, of the Organic Law shall be amended to read: “The judicial power of Talossa shall be vested in one Cort pü Înalt, in English the Uppermost Cort, and in such inferior courts as the Cosâ may from time to time establish. The judges, both of the Uppermost and inferior courts, shall be elected in accordance with Article XVI, Section 4, and shall hold their offices for life (or until resignation), and may only be removed by a two-thirds vote in the Cosâ with approval by the King and the Senäts.” FURTHERMORE Article XVI, Section 4, of the Organic Law shall be amended to read: “Section 4. In the event of a vacancy, either in the Cort pü Înalt or in an inferior court, any member of the Ziu may nominate a replacement. The nominee shall be approved by a two-thirds vote in the Cosâ and a majority vote in the Senäts in favour of his appointment. Upon such approval the King shall appoint the nominee as a Judge of the Cort pü Înalt or in an inferior court and he shall then take his seat for life (or until resignation) upon the court. The King may, stating his reasons for doing so, refuse to appoint the nominee, in which case the Ziu shall re-consider the nominee or nominate a new nominee. If after re-consideration of the nominee, two-thirds of the Cosâ and a majority of the Senäts has approved the nomination, then the King may not refuse to appoint the nominee as a Judge of the Cort pü Înalt or in an inferior court.” Noi urent q'estadra sa, Litz Cjantscheir (MC, RUMP) Baron Hooligan (MC, RUMP) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2010 10:12:42 GMT -6
The How Did They Vote Act
Whereas, we keep a recorded record of laws that are passed;
Whereas, there lacks a one stop log of who voted for what;
Whereas, it would serve us to better understand how our members of the Ziu have voted;
Whereas, other Secretary of States have posted the Clark to the Website in the past for the sake of posterity;
Whereas, the Secretary of State already provides a link to a permanent copy of the Clark to be found on Wittenberg;
Therefore, at the end of each Clark, the Archivist shall post the link provided by the Secretary of State to the Chancery website.
|
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Jun 22, 2010 20:16:27 GMT -6
The First Matchstick Act WHEREAS Statutory Law 37RZ2 clearly defines the term "Micronation" and as a result ongoing arguments regarding what is or is not a Micronation are moot; and, WHEREAS Statutory Law 25RZ50 prohibits the Government of the Kingdom of Talossa from officially having a relationship with Micronations as defined in 37RZ2; and, WHEREAS There is a segment of the citizenry of the Kingdom of Talossa that desires permission by the Government to particiapate in micronations, in particular The Republic of Talossa; and, WHEREAS There is concern regarding trouble that may be caused by the less savoury types of Micronationalist enthusiasts if we simply repeal either of the two aforementioned Statutory Laws; and, WHEREAS 37RZ2 allows for a "whitelist" of organizations to be held by the Minister of Foreign Affairs which would allow Kingdom citizens to participate in the Republic of Talossa Micronation while still protecting the country from rogue Micronations and Micronationalist enthusiasts while still insulating the Kingdom's Government so not to contravene Statutory Law 25RZ50; now, THEREFORE be it resolved by the Zui that the Micronation known as "The Republic of Talossa" be added to the "Whitelist" referred to in 37RZ2 by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. FURTHERMORE the provisions of a) Seneschal approval as defined in 37RZ2 have been met by the Seneschal voting PER on this Bill and b) Petition as defined in 37RZ2 have been met by the passage of this bill by the Zui. Uréu q'estadra sa; Éovart Grischun (MC - PPT) Brenier Tzaracomprada (Senator, MM - PPT) Flip Molinar (Senator, Benito - PPT) Tycho Van Die (MC - PPT) Dréu Gavárþic'h (MC - PPT) |
|
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 Jun 22, 2010 22:20:35 GMT -6
FURTHERMORE the provisions of a) Seneschal approval as defined in 37RZ2 have been met by the Seneschal voting PER on this Bill and b) Petition as defined in 37RZ2 have been met by the passage of this bill by the Zui. Point of order: Does not the "Therefore" added to this implicitly make this not an Act? If all it takes is the Seneschal to agree, why does the Ziu need to vote on it? If it's a Petition, then the Ziu does not vote on Petitions. This doesn't change existing laws. It doesn't Amend the OrgLaw. It doesn't address any current grievance. What it does do is attempt to meet the obligations of an existing law. This might fall under a "Sense of the Ziu", at best. But I do not feel it meets the requirements of a new Law. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 23, 2010 1:44:25 GMT -6
I believe MC Preston is correct. The whitelist appears to operate at the discretion of the Government.
If an altered bill constituting a Sense of the Ziu in this matter is composed, however, I will use my leeway as Seneschal to allow it to be Clarked without being hoppered.
I should note, incidentally, that I do not acknowledge the section about my vote being legitimate. My consent as Seneschal would be separate from my vote as a Member of Cosa.
I should also note I do not intend to give my consent, for the reasons stated on the bill's thread.
EDIT: Notes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2010 11:10:31 GMT -6
The Protecting the Honour of the Senate Amendment
Whereas, the Senate is the directly elected upper chamber of government set forth by the Organic Law;
Whereas, the Senate must maintain a level of decency, honour, accountability, and legitimacy;
Whereas, a Senator must also maintain a level of decency, honour, accountability, and legitimacy;
Whereas, the Organic Law lacks any clear mechanism for Senators to deal with members of the Senate who have disgraced the chamber due to mis-, mal-, or non- feasance.
Therefore, the Article IV of the Organic Law shall be amended to include:
Section 12. The Senate may impeach any of its members from the Chamber with a 2/3-majority vote. Following impeachment, a vote must be held within a fortnight within the home province for the duration of a fortnight with the issue of expulsion by a simple majority of participating voters. If the province votes in the affirmative for expulsion, the Senator will lose his seat immediately at the close of the polls and the outline for a new Senator in Article IV, Section 10 of the Organic Law will be invoked. If the province votes down expulsion, the impeachment charges will be dropped. Following a failed expulsion, the accused Senator may not again be tried for the same offense, pursuant to OrgLaw XIX.7. The former Senator is not barred from running for office in future elections as long as the former Senator maintains citizenship.
|
|
