Call for Bills - 52nd Cosa, 4th Clark - November 2018

[Glüc da Dhi]

It is my pleasure to open call for bills of the November 2018 Clark.

Bills can be posted here (please include a link to the hopper thread) or submitted directly using the database.

Eventually, the clark can be viewed in real time here:

www.talossa.ca/files/cosa_vote_result.php?cosa=52&clark=4 (for the votes)

and here:

www.talossa.ca/files/clark.php?cosa=52&clark=4 (for the bills)

OFFICIALLY you have until the morning of the 31st of this month to submit bills, provided your bills have been in the Hopper before end of business day the 21st, of course. I will make the Clark on the morning of October 1st and bills submitted up to a few hours before that will probably also be taken.

PLEASE note that in order to support a bill, you need to:

1 ) Be a Senator, the Secretary of State or the King
or
2 ) Have been nominated as a Cosa Member for the upcoming Clark BEFORE the 21st,

To vote on the Clark, you will once again have 2 options:

1 ) You will be able to vote in the Clark thread (which will be created later on the 1st of November), as usual. I will enter your votes in the DB.

2 ) You will be able to vote directly in the database, using your citizen number and DB password (which you can retrieve at: www.talossa.ca/files/login.php using the PSC of the election) or by login via Facebook (which needs manual activation on my part).

Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Clark me up one OrgLaw Convention Bill, if you please.

(NOTE: the text may change up to deadline since I think Dien's still grumpy at the Seneschál.)

[Viteu Marcianüs]

I fully intend to submit the Judiciary Reform Amendment. The text may change prior to 10/31.

[Glüc da Dhi]

I will be clarking The Call Me Maybe Not Act and The Logical Act.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I would like to Clark The Transparency in Government Positions Act and The Ailing BHAID Act

[Glüc da Dhi]

Oct 29, 2018 5:53:08 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

I fully intend to submit the Judiciary Reform Amendment. The text may change prior to 10/31.

To be clear, is this a request to clark whichever version is listed in the thread when the clark is assembled or simply stating your intention to make such a request or submit the bill to the database later?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Oct 31, 2018 10:22:58 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Oct 29, 2018 5:53:08 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

I fully intend to submit the Judiciary Reform Amendment. The text may change prior to 10/31.

To be clear, is this a request to clark whichever version is listed in the thread when the clark is assembled or simply stating your intention to make such a request or submit the bill to the database later?

I think Viteu Marcianüs has said elsewhere that he won't be Clarking it this time

[Glüc da Dhi]

Oct 31, 2018 14:28:49 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Oct 31, 2018 10:22:58 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

To be clear, is this a request to clark whichever version is listed in the thread when the clark is assembled or simply stating your intention to make such a request or submit the bill to the database later?

I think Viteu Marcianüs has said elsewhere that he won't be Clarking it this time

Thanks. I had missed that before. I guess I will not interpret the above as a request to clark it now then.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Oct 30, 2018 14:32:18 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I would like to Clark The Transparency in Government Positions Act

Oct 5, 2018 20:04:49 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

THEREFORE a new Lex.D.1.5, which reads:

[...]

It's too late to change it now, and I'm not gonna refuse it on the clark because the intention is obvious enough. I also know it is risky to point out such errors knowing that I usually make loads of them myself. Still, for future bills the operative part should be a complete sentence. (A new lex.D.1.5. shall be added, etc. Preferably even more explicit about the location: "A new sub-section shall be added to El Lexhatx following Lex.D.1.4. , which will read: "1.5. ...", etc, but that is up to the author.) Otherwise it could be argued to be ineffective in which case it should be refused under Lex.H.11.1

(Actually, possibly the scribe could still choose to not amend the lexhatx if it passes if he believes the instructions to be unclear. I assume he won't but theoretically that seems like a possibility, though undoubtedly such a decision could be challenged in court.)

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'd just like to add as a side note to this comment that I have always appreciated the effort that you and the Seneschal put into the presentation of your bills. The style is consistent, the formatting is clear, and the language is careful. Thank you guys!