I agree 100% with Marcel.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on April 28, 2023, 08:41:29 AM

QuoteAlso, the separation of powers is rooted in civil law. I don't know why you lot cannot grasp that the civil law-common law question is just an excuse to not bothering to read the Org Law or understand it.

Separation of powers doesn't mean that the courts are above the law, or that the legislature mustn't make laws legislating court procedures. Again how is this relevant?

The fact that we don't read the Organic Law through the lenses of the US Constitution doesn't mean that we don't read the Organic Law. The world is not composed only of the US and the UK: Supremacy of Parliament in the UK constitution is not the only alternative to the US Constitution.

The Distain didn't sign it. Does he agree with this being posted here?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 25, 2023, 06:33:48 AMYes, I am fairly sure that this would cover everything.  What you describe would be covered by "defence of the Kingdom, and parts thereof" and "[m]atters incidental to the execution of Federal government."

That's how we intende until now (and I am of the opinion that the other parts are already de facto covered in the org law by other provisions) but my point is: if we explicitly spell it in the OrgLaw, I believe we should make it general to cover the administration of justice and the definition of (civil and) criminal law. If we value clarity and simplicity in the law, this is a good occasion to do it.

Coming from a civil law system I don't really understand/share many of your point of views (especially the American one because at least in the UK there's parliament supremacy) because we have a different understanding of how a judicial system works. And this has always been a problem for talossans like me, because you all take things for granted that for us are not: there is a very large knowledge deficit with regard to this issue.

Wouldn't be better to have it fixed by law instead?

Done.

Mmm... To me it better conveys the fact that  they are full members and anyone appointed to perform their functions are deputising for them without bring full members. But as I'm neither a layperson nor an English native speaker, and in my native language those Latin jargons are familiar to laypeople as well (in many high schools Latin is compulsory) I won't probably be the best judge on that. If you feel that "full member" conveys the same meaning and if @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB believes that it won't be a substantial change to the hoppered bill, I'll be happy to modify it.

Piedéu qe acestilor proxhets estadra insertats in el próxim Clark: / I ask for the followings to be clarked:

- Ün proxhet per regular els Prüms Diktats

- Ün proxhet per inovar el CRL

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 26, 2023, 07:41:42 AMI approve the bill.

Tangentially, would you mind titling your bill threads in such as way so that they don't all start with the same phrase, even if the actual bill title begins with "Ün proxhet per" each time?

Use the English title version instead of the Talossan one in threads?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 26, 2023, 07:44:25 AMI mostly approve, but I'd like to inquire about 6.5.3.  Is there a reason or substantive effect to making the language more complicated?

As I explained in the Hopper, the reason is to add flexibility to our legislative process to allow the CRL to always have a quorum also in situations where one or more of its members are not available for a period (like holidays).

Can I also ask to omit the renumbering clause? Most of the maintenance bill is ready and full of sections numbers (it is already in the Hopper) and I'd prefer to reduce the sections numbers that needs to be renumbered in that bill as well  :D

On this one:

Quote20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.

Are you sure this cover everything? Most of A 7 (Crimes against the Kingdom, Crimes against state property) doesn't seem to fall under this definition imho.

Referéu acest proxhet àl Comità.

---

Edited (see here):

Ün proxhet [legeu] per inovar el CRL - The Update of the CRL Bill [Act].

WHEREAS given the nature of the Ziu, it is important to try to improve the quality of legislation;

WHEREAS the CRL's task in the legislative process should not be a duplication of the Hopper but should be focused primarily on the technical quality of legislation;

WHEREAS it is better to make this purposes explicit in the law;

WHEREAS it is considered appropriate for Scribery to fulfil its advisory role in this regard already provided for in Lexh.C.1.3.2;

WHEREAS in view of the other tasks of the Mençéi and the Túischac'h, it is appropriate to add potential flexibility providing for the possibility to appoint a Senator or MC to carry out their role in the CRL on the condition that they remain the ex officio members so that the CRL always has a quorum and that they can revoke this delegation at any time;

BE IT ENACTED by Regeu, Cosă and Senäts in Ziu assembled that Lexhatx § H.6.5 which currently reads

Quote6.5. A Legislative Advisory Committee of Talossa (in Talossan, el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu; and hereinafter, "the CRL") shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper once they have moved to committee; and may recommend acceptance or rejection, or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
6.5.1 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
6.5.2 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
6.5.3. The CRL may create further committees to which their functions may be delegated, as concerns any bill or category of bills. Such a committee must have at least 3 members, including at least 1 MC and at least 1 Senator.

shall be amended to read as follows:

Quote6.5. For each Cosă term is created a Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu (in english Legislative Advisory Committee),  hereinafter "the CRL", which shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper once they have moved to committee; and may recommend acceptance or rejection, or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
    6.5.1 The main, but not exclusive, purpose of the CRL, with the assistance of the Scribery, shall be to evaluate bills from the technical point of view of the quality of the legislation, the correctness of the language, the internal consistency of the document and consistency with existing legislation.
    6.5.2. The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
    6.5.3. The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
          6.5.3.1. The Mençéi and the Túischac'h may at any time appoint and dismiss one Senator and one Membreu dal Cosă, respectively, to serve as a member of the CRL in their place.
    6.5.4. The CRL may create further committees to which their functions may be delegated, as concerns any bill or category of bills. Such a committee must have at least 3 members, including at least 1 Membreu dal Cosă and 1 Senator.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Üc R. Tärfâ (MC, FREEDEM)

Referéu acest proxhet àl Comità.

I'm proposing a complete new text of Title Z in my maintenance bill (you can already read it in the hopper), so can we skip that part?

Ps: as the first three parts are very different from eachother, why don't you split them in 3 different bills?