Whereas, presently the King, Seneschal, and Secretary of State can request an advisory opinion from the Cort pü Inalt, and
Whereas, presently the Government's chief legal advisor, the Avocat-Xheneral, nor the principal originators of legislation-members of the Ziu, can request an an advisory opinion from the Cort pü Inalt, and
Whereas, by removing this advisory opinion we can adopt a preferable "case or controvery" approach to legislative consultation rather than using them as "ad-hoc lawmaking."
Therefore, be it enacted by the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa, that paragraph five (5) of OrgLaw Article VIII.6, which currently reads:
QuoteNotwithstanding any contrary proscription, the King, the Secretary of State, or the Seneschal may refer an issue to the Cort pü Inalt for an advisory opinion provided that any such panel reviewing the position is composed of no less than three Judges after any necessary recusal, there lacks a live case or controversy that would otherwise determine the issue, and there is a reasonably need for resolution of the question.
is hereby deleted.
Uréu q'estadra så
Breneir Tzaracomprada (MC-Green)
I strongly caution against this.
While I have never been in support of advisory opinions, I do see the logic in the case of executive officials such as the Seneschal, the King, and (most especially) the Secretary of State. If someone must make a decision in the course of their duties, and they are truly concerned that decision will be challenged (causing a huge headache), I get why advance guidance is appreciated.
The same does not apply to any old MZ who just wants to humor their curiosity in the absence of a live controversy.
Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on December 15, 2025, 06:44:40 PMI strongly caution against this.
While I have never been in support of advisory opinions, I do see the logic in the case of executive officials such as the Seneschal, the King, and (most especially) the Secretary of State. If someone must make a decision in the course of their duties, and they are truly concerned that decision will be challenged (causing a huge headache), I get why advance guidance is appreciated.
The same does not apply to any old MZ who just wants to humor their curiosity in the absence of a live controversy.
Do you support allowing the A-X to seek an advisory opinion?
Advisory opinions should be minimized as much as possible. In many countries, they are used as a method of ad hoc lawmaking. I'd prefer advisory opinions be removed completely, and instead use a "case or controversy" standard.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 16, 2025, 01:30:02 PMAdvisory opinions should be minimized as much as possible. In many countries, they are used as a method of ad hoc lawmaking. I'd prefer advisory opinions be removed completely, and instead use a "case or controversy" standard.
Removing the advisory opinion entirely is an option I had not considered and I would support if it means creating the new approach you describe. I will edit the current proposal to that effect now.
This change would ensure that a lawsuit could be brought only when there was a live case or controversy. The court would only hear a case if there was some existing problem that they could solve, in other words. I think it's a problem because it makes the judiciary into an ad hoc legislature that is only presented with one side before making their ruling, rather than an adversarial process.
Such a change kind of seems like the opposite of what you were going for, which was expanding the advisory opinion role in which authorized people can just ask the court to rule about something that's not in front of them. So I'm very surprised to hear you say that.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 16, 2025, 01:59:57 PMThis change would ensure that a lawsuit could be brought only when there was a live case or controversy. The court would only hear a case if there was some existing problem that they could solve, in other words. I think it's a problem because it makes the judiciary into an ad hoc legislature that is only presented with one side before making their ruling, rather than an adversarial process.
Such a change kind of seems like the opposite of what you were going for, which was expanding the advisory opinion role in which authorized people can just ask the court to rule about something that's not in front of them. So I'm very surprised to hear you say that.
You may find this hard to believe, Alexandreu, but I do find calm, logical arguments persuasive. You presented an alternative which persuaded me.
As someone who has been in all three roles that permit advisory opinions, my thoughts are that while it may be seen by some as ad hoc legislating, these types of opinions are definitely useful in certain cases. Not every official has an attorney on staff, and not every official is an attorney. I would support removing so-called advisory opinions but it would be useful if someone like the Chancellor or the Bar or some other lawyerly type was available to provide guidance in cases that don't rise to the high bar of the Cort pu Inalt.
On the other hand, this removal also gives even less work to the already very light work of the Cort. Just some thoughts from one who has been at all levels, including the Cort.
-Txec R
Quote from: King Txec on December 16, 2025, 03:05:23 PMI would support removing so-called advisory opinions but it would be useful if someone like the Chancellor or the Bar or some other lawyerly type was available to provide guidance in cases that don't rise to the high bar of the Cort pu Inalt.
-Txec R
I think this is a fantastic idea and I'm wondering if it might be achieved by internal government policy. Assuming the removal of the advisory opinion the alternative advice mechanism might not need additional legislation.
@Sir Lüc Would you please move this item into the CRL for review?
Done.
I have an issue with the way this bill is formatted. It makes it really difficult to see at a glance what exactly is being changed, since both versions of OrgLaw.VIII.6 look almost the same.
I would recommend changing it to instead say something to the effect of "Paragraph 5 of OrgLaw.VIII.6, which currently reads: <...>, is hereby deleted".
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 27, 2025, 07:36:18 PMI have an issue with the way this bill is formatted. It makes it really difficult to see at a glance what exactly is being changed, since both versions of OrgLaw.VIII.6 look almost the same.
I would recommend changing it to instead say something to the effect of "Paragraph 5 of OrgLaw.VIII.6, which currently reads: <...>, is hereby deleted".
Excellent suggestion, I have made that change.
I approve.
@Béneditsch Ardpresteir@Tric'hard Lenxheir If possible, I'd like to try and get this on the first Clark. Would you please review this bill?
Looks okay to me