Wittenberg

WHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and

WHEREAS this means that basically none of our criminal laws or rules about the cort system actually work, and

WHEREAS currently there does not appear to be any sunset on appeals, so something can be appeal even after ten years, and that's not okay, and

WHEREAS we have a law permitting sanctuary on the books, even though it's extremely unclear how that could possibly work,


THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:

Quote20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.

FURTHERMORE a new provision shall be inserted in the first subsection of the third section of Title G of el Lexhatx, reading

Quote3.1.1 There is a 90-day statute of limitations on all judicial appeals.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber the third section of Title G in a sensible fashion.


FURTHERMORE the tenth section of Title A of el Lexhatx, which currently reads

Quote10. The Ziu hereby recognizes the historic right of churches and other religious organizations to offer sanctuary to individuals in dire need.

is hereby stricken in its entirety.

FURTHERMORE, the words "Except as provided in A.17," shall be struck from section 16.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber Title A in a sensible fashion.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

Still working on my phrasing, here.  Obviously this one is a big deal.

This is one way to fix the problem, and would do the immediate job. But I prefer a more fundamental reform, which is paradoxically more simple.

Opening paragraph of OrgLaw VII.3:

QuoteSection 3 The Ziu shall, subject to this Organic Law, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom, and shall have exclusive power with respect to:

So the long list that follows is issues that only the Ziu, not the provinces, can legislate on; but other than that, the Ziu's legislative power (exercised concurrently with the provinces) is unrestricted. And change OrgLaw IX.6 from:

QuoteSection 6 All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces.

to:

QuoteThe Provinces may exercise all powers under this Organic Law which are not vested exclusively in the Kingdom.

This removes the bad writing going back to 1997 which set up a "bogus federal system" in Talossa, which has never existed - provincial governments have always been subordinated to, and much less active than, the Kingdom government. The proper model for Talossa is not bogus federation, but "devolved government" as and where necessary, as in the United Kingdom or in Spain,

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 31, 2022, 04:10:24 PM
This is one way to fix the problem, and would do the immediate job. But I prefer a more fundamental reform, which is paradoxically more simple.

Opening paragraph of OrgLaw VII.3:

QuoteSection 3 The Ziu shall, subject to this Organic Law, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom, and shall have exclusive power with respect to:

So the long list that follows is issues that only the Ziu, not the provinces, can legislate on; but other than that, the Ziu's legislative power (exercised concurrently with the provinces) is unrestricted. And change OrgLaw IX.6 from:

QuoteSection 6 All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces.

to:

QuoteThe Provinces may exercise all powers under this Organic Law which are not vested exclusively in the Kingdom.

This removes the bad writing going back to 1997 which set up a "bogus federal system" in Talossa, which has never existed - provincial governments have always been subordinated to, and much less active than, the Kingdom government. The proper model for Talossa is not bogus federation, but "devolved government" as and where necessary, as in the United Kingdom or in Spain,

Completely eliminating the ennumerated powers seems very drastic to me, and dangerous to civil rights.

So the argument is that there is a benefit to putting limits on the precise subjects about which the Ziu can make law? This is not the case in most countries I'm familiar with, outwith civil rights (which are contained for us in the Covenants).

I am unwilling to endorse such a broad change to our entire Organic order.  We need fairly definite limits on what the government can do.  The Covenants do not suffice.  It's far too open to abuse, since many of the usual remedies that would face a government are not possible in Talossa.

Name one time a Talossan government has actually been restricted by the enumerated list. The only time I believe we've butted up against that list is precisely on the subject of criminal law, which you are now moving to explicitly include!

I would also appreciate a response to the question of throwing off the "bogus federalism" verbiage and moving to an explicit "devolved government" model.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 31, 2022, 06:11:32 PM
So the argument is that there is a benefit to putting limits on the precise subjects about which the Ziu can make law? This is not the case in most countries I'm familiar with, outwith civil rights (which are contained for us in the Covenants).

Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying here you are wrong. The United States Constitution especially the Bill of Rights is completely about restricting the power of the federal government.

I don't believe there is a list of things in the US Constitution that the Congress is only allowed to legislate on - only a list of things it can't legislate on. This list in the Talossan constitution was copied from the Australian (or perhaps Canadian) constitution, which are federal systems and was meant to reserve certain issues to the provinces/state. It makes no sense in Talossa.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 01, 2022, 01:00:50 AM
I don't believe there is a list of things in the US Constitution that the Congress is only allowed to legislate on - only a list of things it can't legislate on. This list in the Talossan constitution was copied from the Australian (or perhaps Canadian) constitution, which are federal systems and was meant to reserve certain issues to the provinces/state. It makes no sense in Talossa.

Article I, Section 8:

QuoteThe Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Ha ha, shows what I know about anything

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 31, 2022, 06:39:01 PM
Name one time a Talossan government has actually been restricted by the enumerated list. The only time I believe we've butted up against that list is precisely on the subject of criminal law, which you are now moving to explicitly include!

Easily done.  We used to have a law which claimed to make recycling mandatory.  It didn't really have a lot of force, but it was discarded because it wasn't a topic on which the Ziu was permitted to legislate.  That's just the first example to come to mind, but a lot of other bills have died quiet and unnoticed deaths because they were inorganic in the same way, like laws which tried to force provinces or provincial officials to do things not under Ziu power.  I think Mximo proposed a law to make someone in Florencia do something, for example.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 31, 2022, 06:39:01 PM
I would also appreciate a response to the question of throwing off the "bogus federalism" verbiage and moving to an explicit "devolved government" model.

I think it's a bad idea, and it's not something I'm willing to entertain in the context of this bill.  Limiting the powers of the Ziu is a way of protecting our citizens from future unknown abuse of their civil rights, since I don't think the Covenants are sufficient in the case of a country like Talossa.

BUMP. I hope the next Cosa will take this issue up again.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 31, 2022, 04:10:24 PMThis is one way to fix the problem, and would do the immediate job. But I prefer a more fundamental reform, which is paradoxically more simple.

Opening paragraph of OrgLaw VII.3:

QuoteSection 3 The Ziu shall, subject to this Organic Law, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom, and shall have exclusive power with respect to:

So the long list that follows is issues that only the Ziu, not the provinces, can legislate on; but other than that, the Ziu's legislative power (exercised concurrently with the provinces) is unrestricted. And change OrgLaw IX.6 from:

QuoteSection 6 All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces.

to:

QuoteThe Provinces may exercise all powers under this Organic Law which are not vested exclusively in the Kingdom.

This removes the bad writing going back to 1997 which set up a "bogus federal system" in Talossa, which has never existed - provincial governments have always been subordinated to, and much less active than, the Kingdom government. The proper model for Talossa is not bogus federation, but "devolved government" as and where necessary, as in the United Kingdom or in Spain,

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:28:04 PMWHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and

WHEREAS this means that basically none of our criminal laws or rules about the cort system actually work, and

WHEREAS currently there does not appear to be any sunset on appeals, so something can be appeal even after ten years, and that's not okay, and

WHEREAS we have a law permitting sanctuary on the books, even though it's extremely unclear how that could possibly work,

PART ONE: LEGAL OVERSIGHT

THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:

Quote20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.

PART TWO: APPEALS

FURTHERMORE a new provision shall be inserted in the first subsection of the third section of Title G of el Lexhatx, reading

Quote3.1.1 There is a 90-day statute of limitations on all judicial appeals.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber the third section of Title G in a sensible fashion.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

I am dropping the third provision and keeping it separate, but intend to keep working on this bill with a few other legal bits and bobs that have come up in my time as Clerk of Corts, after consulting with V further.

Side note: while I appreciate your idea, Dama Miestra, I again have to say that I am not comfortable removing the ennumeration of the Ziu's powers.  It would be a drastic expansion of government power, and any such change should be considered in isolation and carefully.

WHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and

WHEREAS this means that basically none of our criminal laws or rules about the cort system actually work, and

WHEREAS currently there does not appear to be any sunset on appeals, so something can be appeal even after ten years, and that's not okay, and

WHEREAS we have a law permitting sanctuary on the books, even though it's extremely unclear how that could possibly work,

PART ONE: LEGAL OVERSIGHT

THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:

Quote
20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.

PART TWO: APPEALS

FURTHERMORE a new provision shall be inserted in the first subsection of the third section of Title G of el Lexhatx, reading

Quote
3.1.1 There is a 90-day statute of limitations on all judicial appeals.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber the third section of Title G in a sensible fashion.

PART THREE: HOUSEKEEPING

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to eliminate from el Lexhatx all "empty" provisions, as when a provision has been deleted but left empty, and to renumber the Titles in question in a sensible fashion.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is further directed to repair any cross-references within el Lexhatx that were created as a result of these repairs.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

Consider this the reintroduction of this act for the new Cosa.

I would be advising the Free Dems to support this, but I can't abide by this provision:

QuoteFURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to eliminate from el Lexhatx all "empty" provisions, as when a provision has been deleted but left empty, and to renumber the Titles in question in a sensible fashion.

As I've said before, but I can't find where, there are too many places where cross-references in El Lex have been rendered inoperative due to renumberings. "This section intentionally left black" works well in some cases.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 04, 2023, 02:50:38 PMI would be advising the Free Dems to support this, but I can't abide by this provision:

QuoteFURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to eliminate from el Lexhatx all "empty" provisions, as when a provision has been deleted but left empty, and to renumber the Titles in question in a sensible fashion.

As I've said before, but I can't find where, there are too many places where cross-references in El Lex have been rendered inoperative due to renumberings. "This section intentionally left black" works well in some cases.

Sure.  I'll add in a provision directing the Scribe to fix any cross-references.

FWIW, Lex.H.17 also contains broken cross-references - I noticed them recently while looking for the missing Tuischac'h election provisions.

I bet there's a good number of them!  I think it might make sense to try to collect miscellaneous fixes like that in this bill, and I'll put it on my to-do list.  Let me know if you notice any others!

A cross-referencing fix now to repair the law might be a good endeavour.

However in the future "renumbering provisions" in bills should be simply avoided to avoid (sic!) generating many of those broken references.

I haven't followed most of the proposed legislation in the Hopper in may years for reasons stated elsewhere, so tonight is my first time seeing this Act.

I appreciate the general idea behind this Act and have long advocated for bill drafters to reference the part of the Org Law that gives the Ziu authority to act in that area. So I'm kinda loving what this Act is doing.

Based on a quick comparison of (what I hope is) most of the provisions in Title A and G of el Lexhatx to the Org Law, it appears that there may be an argument that the Ziu may have acted within its authority.

I post this only for consideration and am not entirely convinced either way on the issue.

Org.L.Art.VII.3 vests the Ziu with the "power to make laws for peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom with respect to:"
2. census and statistics
3. weights and measures
4. currency, coinage, and legal tender
6. copyrights, patents, and trademarks
7. Postal, telegraphic, telephonic, radio, television, internet, and other like services
8. Defense of the Kingdom
11. Immigration
12. Treason and sedition
15. Matters referred to the Ziu by the Government of the Province
16. Execution of the Federal Government
17. Symbols etc. of the Kingdom

The provisions of Title A could fall within the foregoing as follows:

Lexh.A.1 – 6 – No comment
7.1  - definitions of fraud and harassment
7.2 – Crimes Against the Kingdom –
7.2.1 – Treason – see VII.3.12
7.2.2. – Perverting the course of justice – see VII.3.16
7.2.3 – Sedition – see VII.3.12
7.2.4 – Contempt of Court – maybe VII.3.16
7.2.5 -  Perjury – see VII.3.16
7.2.6 – Crimes against state property –
   7.2.6.1 – see VII.3.4, 8, 16
   7.2.6.2 – see VII.3.6
   7.2.6.3. – see VII.3.7
   7.2.6.4 – see VII.8 and 16
7.2.7 – Solicitation – this is fine if the crime itself is permissible (meaning, solicitation of sedition would pass muster, see supra)
7.2.8 – Conspiracy – see solicitation, supra.
7.2.9 – Bribery – see VII.3.8
7.2.10 – Bringing Talossa into Disrepute – see VII.3.8 and 16

7.3 Crimes against the person
7.3.1 – Physical and Sexual Violence
7.3.2 – Fraud and harassment – depends on how it is done (e.g. over the internet? By phone?)
7.3.3 – theft or invasion of privacy – depends on the exact nature of the crime (e.g. monetary value could fall under VII.3.4; IP clearly falls under VII.3.6, etc.). But see the Fourth Covenant for the right to privacy.  .
7.3.4 – Defamation – if done by computer, phone, etc., see VII.3.7 but also, the First Covenant says a person shall be responsible for the libelous abuse of the right to speak, write, and publish freely.
7.3.5 – Deprives an individual of the free exercise of rights under Org Law – see Tenth Covenant

7.15 – see VII.3. 7 and 11,

7.18 – see VII.3.7 and 16

7.20 – see VII.3.17

Most of the remaining sections under Title A may not actually constitute criminal law.

Next, Title J. Telecomuna – doesn't appear to be a criminal statute, but see VII.3.7 and 16,

In terms of criminal punishment, perhaps the Fifth Covenant, which also grants the Ziu the power to enforce it with appropriate legislation.

The Sixth Covenant withholds all rights from a person who engages in activities to injure, endanger, risk, or compromise the physical health, privacy or tranquility of other person through pretended exercise of said right.
 
The Ninth Covenant speaks directly to criminal prosecutions by the Crown.
 
The Tenth Covenant protects against infringement of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Covenants and permits recovery of punitive and compensatory damages. (Perhaps more civil?)

Of course, VII.3.15 suggests that a workaround might be if all of the provinces passed laws allowing the National Government to enact criminal statutes.
 
I am 50-50 on whether the Act is correct in that all or part of Title A or G is inorganic as is or if the comparison outlined above is correct.  For a conclusive answer, however, the King, SOS, or Seneschal may refer the issue to the Uppermost Cort for an advisory opinion pursuant to VIII.6.

Hope this is helpful.

Separately, as it relates to the time to appeal, I no reason why the UC cannot promulgate a rule requiring all appeals be filed within 90 days.  This is exactly how it works in our neighbor to the South. I will ask the UC to consider promulgating such a rule; of course, however, our deliberations will be confidential.

V

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 04, 2023, 03:06:54 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 04, 2023, 02:50:38 PMI would be advising the Free Dems to support this, but I can't abide by this provision:

QuoteFURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to eliminate from el Lexhatx all "empty" provisions, as when a provision has been deleted but left empty, and to renumber the Titles in question in a sensible fashion.

As I've said before, but I can't find where, there are too many places where cross-references in El Lex have been rendered inoperative due to renumberings. "This section intentionally left black" works well in some cases.

Sure.  I'll add in a provision directing the Scribe to fix any cross-references.

I was thinking about my own idea here, and I actually think it's a bad one.  It's too much of a burden on the Scribe.  There's no rush with this bill, since it's an amendment, so let's just try and actually find and fix the broken references.

I am grateful for the judge's opinion, above. I do think that some of our criminal laws could be shoehorned in under existed provisions of the OrgLaw, but some cannot.  It seems wiser to recognize that we do want the capability to enact criminal laws and to regulate some administrative aspects of the justice system.  Should the Cort pu Inalt begin actively working on its own administrative stuff, consistently, then I would support that very much and would be happy to get the Ziu out of its way with any statutes.  So overall, I do think these provisions are very necessary.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 07, 2023, 07:03:36 AMI am grateful for the judge's opinion, above. I do think that some of our criminal laws could be shoehorned in under existed provisions of the OrgLaw, but some cannot.  It seems wiser to recognize that we do want the capability to enact criminal laws and to regulate some administrative aspects of the justice system.  Should the Cort pu Inalt begin actively working on its own administrative stuff, consistently, then I would support that very much and would be happy to get the Ziu out of its way with any statutes.  So overall, I do think these provisions are very necessary.

Regarding administration, I fear that this could be used by the Ziu to control/punish the UC especially if done under the guise of responding to the populist whims of the majority angry at an unpopular decision.

As I have said elsewhere, either Talossa wants an independent and impartial Judiciary, a necessary component to the Rule of Law, or it does not.

I'm glad that the proposed subsection 20 is settled, then.

I'd be willing to back off of the proposed subsection 21 if it were possible, but Cort efforts to regulate themselves have been very thin on the ground, and even you yourself have proposed statutes by which the Ziu makes rules about Cort administration.  So this provision would just recognize the reality of things.  It's not helpful to just pretend otherwise and hope no one else but me and Miestra notices the problem.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 04, 2023, 02:50:38 PMI would be advising the Free Dems to support this, but I can't abide by this provision:

QuoteFURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to eliminate from el Lexhatx all "empty" provisions, as when a provision has been deleted but left empty, and to renumber the Titles in question in a sensible fashion.

As I've said before, but I can't find where, there are too many places where cross-references in El Lex have been rendered inoperative due to renumberings. "This section intentionally left black" works well in some cases.

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 06, 2023, 06:29:51 PMA cross-referencing fix now to repair the law might be a good endeavour.

However in the future "renumbering provisions" in bills should be simply avoided to avoid (sic!) generating many of those broken references.

The simplest fix to the problem of "moving references" is to change ALL law names, and paragraph numbers, etc. to something unchangeable. So law XYZ would have paragraphs 1, 2, 17, 29, 33 because law ABC (which, in time, followed the adoption of law XYZ) has removed those paragraphs 3-16, 19-28 etc., or negated their contents. This would, at most, involve marking any altered/deleted paragraphs with reference to the *subsequent* law which removed/changed them. Thus ALL back references would be correct.....

BUT if there are two (or more) back references to a changed paragraph - and we must always assume that there will be - then each reference must either point to "paragraph 27.3 of law XYZ of date <date>" or point to "paragraph 27.3 of law XYZ as updated at the time of consultation". I grant that this makes back references a little longer to type - but they NEVER have to be subsequently altered - only an additional label attached to a modified / deleted paragraph stating that it is deleted or indicating where the "next" version of that law/paragraph may be found... which may mean following a longer chain (tedious - but not difficult).

AND THEN we would no longer have need to "put off till tomorrow" the cross-numbering references throughout the whole law, every time there is a change to the law.

...This is what other countries do. And Talossa, being Great, can learn from other nations, and adopt useful techniques from them.

(P.S. "We have never done that before" is NOT a good argument for "we can't do that now".)

Quote from: Ián Tamorán S.H. on February 10, 2023, 03:46:44 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 04, 2023, 02:50:38 PMI would be advising the Free Dems to support this, but I can't abide by this provision:

QuoteFURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to eliminate from el Lexhatx all "empty" provisions, as when a provision has been deleted but left empty, and to renumber the Titles in question in a sensible fashion.

As I've said before, but I can't find where, there are too many places where cross-references in El Lex have been rendered inoperative due to renumberings. "This section intentionally left black" works well in some cases.

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 06, 2023, 06:29:51 PMA cross-referencing fix now to repair the law might be a good endeavour.

However in the future "renumbering provisions" in bills should be simply avoided to avoid (sic!) generating many of those broken references.

The simplest fix to the problem of "moving references" is to change ALL law names, and paragraph numbers, etc. to something unchangeable. So law XYZ would have paragraphs 1, 2, 17, 29, 33 because law ABC (which, in time, followed the adoption of law XYZ) has removed those paragraphs 3-16, 19-28 etc., or negated their contents. This would, at most, involve marking any altered/deleted paragraphs with reference to the *subsequent* law which removed/changed them. Thus ALL back references would be correct.....

BUT if there are two (or more) back references to a changed paragraph - and we must always assume that there will be - then each reference must either point to "paragraph 27.3 of law XYZ of date <date>" or point to "paragraph 27.3 of law XYZ as updated at the time of consultation". I grant that this makes back references a little longer to type - but they NEVER have to be subsequently altered - only an additional label attached to a modified / deleted paragraph stating that it is deleted or indicating where the "next" version of that law/paragraph may be found... which may mean following a longer chain (tedious - but not difficult).

AND THEN we would no longer have need to "put off till tomorrow" the cross-numbering references throughout the whole law, every time there is a change to the law.

...This is what other countries do. And Talossa, being Great, can learn from other nations, and adopt useful techniques from them.

(P.S. "We have never done that before" is NOT a good argument for "we can't do that now".)

I read this a couple of times, but don't quite get it, I'm sorry.  Why would this force people to be better about checking for broken cross-references?  It's only human that we're going to sometimes miss some, and I'm not sure moving away from a clear legal code in a single law would be helpful.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu link=msg=16543I am not comfortable removing the ennumeration of the Ziu's powers.  It would be a drastic expansion of government power, and any such change should be considered in isolation and carefully.

Except that it's not an "expansion of state power" VS citizens: according with IX.6 those powers not enumerated in VII.3 are organically vested in the Provinces.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2022, 11:01:28 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 31, 2022, 06:39:01 PMI would also appreciate a response to the question of throwing off the "bogus federalism" verbiage and moving to an explicit "devolved government" model.

I think it's a bad idea, and it's not something I'm willing to entertain in the context of this bill.  Limiting the powers of the Ziu is a way of protecting our citizens from future unknown abuse of their civil rights, since I don't think the Covenants are sufficient in the case of a country like Talossa.

So, using your own words, today the citizens are not protected from any "future unknown abuse of their civil rights" because those powers are not limited: Provinces have them. "Future unknown abuses of their civil rights" you are afraid of could be carried even today by the Provinces.

And I hope you all agree with me that in Talossa the national level is more suited and equipped (and active) to protect citizens from abuses than the provincial ones.

This is one of the few instances (there are more, like the whole VII.3.15) when in the OrgLaw survives a "U.S. federal approach" which is not part of the nature of our nationette that we should get rid of in my opinion. In by far the greatest part of the OrgLaw clearly the sovereignty flows top-down (from the Kingdom to Provinces) and not bottom-up. From a constitutional point of view Provinces derives their existence, powers and authority from the OrgLaw, they are created by the OrgLaw and partake in the Kingdom's own and exclusive sovereignty, and not the opposite way. One big fat evidence of this is the fact that Provinces do not need to consent to OrgLaw amendments because they are not the source of the Kingdom sovereignty (as in federal nations like the U.S., Canada, Australia, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, etc...).

Those very few "U.S. instinctly surviving" pieces of the OrgLaw should be modified accordingly.

Your bill is fine -as it is (and with the agree that we should stop to add renumbering clauses in the future) but the above is a topic worth to be addressed I believe.

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 02:30:51 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu link=msg=16543I am not comfortable removing the ennumeration of the Ziu's powers.  It would be a drastic expansion of government power, and any such change should be considered in isolation and carefully.

Except that it's not an "expansion of state power" VS citizens: according with IX.6 those powers not enumerated in VII.3 are organically vested in the Provinces.

It would functionally be a significant expansion of government power, I'd suggest, considering that the provinces have virtually no laws outside of those strictly governing and labeling themselves.

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 02:30:51 AMSo, using your own words, today the citizens are not protected from any "future unknown abuse of their civil rights" because those powers are not limited: Provinces have them. "Future unknown abuses of their civil rights" you are afraid of could be carried even today by the Provinces.

And I hope you all agree with me that in Talossa the national level is more suited and equipped (and active) to protect citizens from abuses than the provincial ones.

I'm not worried about whether or not we've given the active and well-equipped national government sufficient power over citizens.  I'm worried about giving the active and well-equipped national government too much power over citizens.

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 02:30:51 AMYour bill is fine -as it is (and with the agree that we should stop to add renumbering clauses in the future) but the above is a topic worth to be addressed I believe.

I'm glad you're okay with the bill, and I think the federalism issue is definitely worth further discussion.  But if we're going to make such a sweeping change, it should probably be considered on its own, rather than as a solution to this particular problem.  If you'd like to create a thread, I'd be delighted to continue this discussion about it further -- I am very much enjoying your excellent ideas and points :)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 10, 2023, 04:31:48 PM...
I read this a couple of times, but don't quite get it, I'm sorry.  Why would this force people to be better about checking for broken cross-references?  It's only human that we're going to sometimes miss some, and I'm not sure moving away from a clear legal code in a single law would be helpful.

The whole point is, I think, the reverse of what you have said. My suggestion means that no-one has to chase back to previous legislation unless the old law/clause (etc.) is mentioned in the new law. If a new law mentions an old one, then it is a simple act of editing the record of the old law - which can be done by someone other than the instigators of the new law. This process makes the legal code even clearer.

If a new law inadvertently affects an old law, without mentioning it - as will (inevitably) frequently happen - then it is up to the Corts (as now) to decide what the law actually was, at the time of a litigious event. Partial incompatibilities and partial conflicts between old and new laws which are spotted outside of discussion of a new law are, themselves, items to be passed through the same processes as relate to a new law. I absolutely agree that inadvertent back-incompatibilities cannot be arbitrarily be changed outside of our current due process.

My suggestion does not change the necessary examination of the whole law to determine what the law is, but can make that examination process shorter.

No, I guess I'm not being clear: I mean I don't even understand what you're proposing.  You said:

Quote from: Ián Tamorán S.H. on February 10, 2023, 03:46:44 PMThe simplest fix to the problem of "moving references" is to change ALL law names, and paragraph numbers, etc. to something unchangeable.

But we have basically only one statute, so there's only two law names: el Lexhatx and the Orglaw.  And the titles and articles essentially never change.  So I don't know what you mean when you say we should change all law names to something unchangeable.  It sounded like you were proposing setting aside the legal code and going back to what it used to be.  What laws?

Quote from: Ián Tamorán S.H. on February 10, 2023, 03:46:44 PMSo law XYZ would have paragraphs 1, 2, 17, 29, 33 because law ABC (which, in time, followed the adoption of law XYZ) has removed those paragraphs 3-16, 19-28 etc., or negated their contents. This would, at most, involve marking any altered/deleted paragraphs with reference to the *subsequent* law which removed/changed them. Thus ALL back references would be correct.....

BUT if there are two (or more) back references to a changed paragraph - and we must always assume that there will be - then each reference must either point to "paragraph 27.3 of law XYZ of date <date>" or point to "paragraph 27.3 of law XYZ as updated at the time of consultation".

So are you saying that all references to another section of the law should include the date on which the reference is being made, and that would be the solution?  Since that seems like it would be hard to manage for a lot of reasons: inscrutability to laypeople, impracticality of researching a section every time you look up the law, and the unwieldiness of it all.

I wasn't arguing with you before -- I was just saying I didn't understand what exactly you were proposing to do.

I might add two sections on references between brackets like (53RZ18) because many are wrong because of the copy/paste of them in bills so we have new text with circular references to the old acts rather than the new

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 13, 2023, 08:12:14 AMI might add two sections on references between brackets like (53RZ18) because many are wrong because of the copy/paste of them in bills so we have new text with circular references to the old acts rather than the new

Yeah... I thought it was a good idea to include those notes back in the day, but at this point it's become more of a problem than a help. So maybe that Title Z rule requiring the notes needs to be eliminated.  It hasn't turned out to be that helpful, generally.

Should we just eliminate that rule and delete the notes entirely?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 13, 2023, 08:47:47 AM

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 13, 2023, 08:12:14 AMI might add two sections on references between brackets like (53RZ18) because many are wrong because of the copy/paste of them in bills so we have new text with circular references to the old acts rather than the new

Yeah... I thought it was a good idea to include those notes back in the day, but at this point it's become more of a problem than a help. So maybe that Title Z rule requiring the notes needs to be eliminated.  It hasn't turned out to be that helpful, generally.

Should we just eliminate that rule and delete the notes entirely?

Indeed!

I plan to move forward with this, with some changes.  If the CpI promulgates any rule on appeals, I will eliminate that provision.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:28:04 PM

The Legal Repair Amendment

WHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and

WHEREAS this means that basically none of our criminal laws or rules about the cort system actually work,

THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:

Quote20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

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?

Ok.

Amended.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:28:04 PM

The Legal Repair Amendment

WHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and

WHEREAS this means that basically none of our criminal laws or rules about the cort system actually work,

THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:

Quote20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

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.

Yes, 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."

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.

Adding ennumerated powers to the Ziu is a huge step, and I'm not prepared to add anything beyond what seems strictly necessary.  I am not opposed to other additions, necessarily, but I want to limit the scope of this bill to the specific purpose we're trying to achieve: to rectify the grey area in which the Ziu has been operating as it legislates on these very topics, even though it's not immediately clear that it can do so.

"21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system."

What do you think this means?

Let's say this is adopted, and the Ziu set 90 days for a party to appeal to the CpI. What would happen if the party filed it on day 91?

Would it deprive the CpI of its appellate jurisdiction under VIII.2? 

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 10:22:52 AM"21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system."

What do you think this means?

It would mean that the Ziu would have the power to make laws to provide for the functioning of the justice system, such as specifying infrastructure, reporting, and procedural aspects.

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 10:22:52 AMLet's say this is adopted, and the Ziu set 90 days for a party to appeal to the CpI. What would happen if the party filed it on day 91?

Would it deprive the CpI of its appellate jurisdiction under VIII.2? 

Yes, I think?  We already have a lot of that.  G.3.2, for example, prohibits a judge from increasing the sentence of someone on appeal.  If someone is sentenced to a year of general civil disability for a crime, the Cort would be forbidden from increasing their sentence to two years on appeal.  This would be ensuring that such provisions -- which we have had for generations -- are firmly within the bounds of Organicity.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 28, 2023, 10:50:01 AM

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 10:22:52 AM"21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system."

What do you think this means?

It would mean that the Ziu would have the power to make laws to provide for the functioning of the justice system, such as specifying infrastructure, reporting, and procedural aspects.

The Ziu already has the power with the inferior corts. Why is it necessary to give the Ziu authority to control the CpI?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 28, 2023, 10:50:01 AM

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 10:22:52 AMLet's say this is adopted, and the Ziu set 90 days for a party to appeal to the CpI. What would happen if the party filed it on day 91?

Would it deprive the CpI of its appellate jurisdiction under VIII.2? 

Yes, I think?  We already have a lot of that.  G.3.2, for example, prohibits a judge from increasing the sentence of someone on appeal.  If someone is sentenced to a year of general civil disability for a crime, the Cort would be forbidden from increasing their sentence to two years on appeal.  This would be ensuring that such provisions -- which we have had for generations -- are firmly within the bounds of Organicity.

Where in the Organic Law does it give the Ziu the authority to strip the CpI of appellate jurisdiction? The reality is that Talossan statutes rarely, if ever, get challenged in cort. A statute's longevity on the books does not make it Organic. Also, the numerous amendments to the 1997 Organic Law and the adoption of the 2017 Organic Law with subsequent amendment may impact the constitutionality of a statute.
The text of G.3.2 predates the Judiciary Amendment of 2020.

Bringing in a point from the CCX case, Org.L.VIII.2 explicitly states that the CpI has appellate jurisdiction over all inferior corts established by the Ziu.  Org.L.VIII.6 states that matters arising under the Covenants are appealable as of right to the CpI. The Twelfth Covenant expressly grants ONLY the CpI authority to revoke citizenship as punishment for a crime. The Ziu decided to statutorily define what a Tribunal of the Crown is, ostensibly stripping the power of the CpI to sit as such, and then pass legislation saying that an appellate court, in this instance the CpI, cannot enlarge a criminal punishment on appeal, without actually stating where the Ziu gets this authority, which, in effect, strips the CpI of the power to revoke citizenship as a criminal punishment.

This is literally writing a provision out of the Covenants without going to the amendment procedure outlined in Org.L.XII.

If you disagree, explain how then the CpI could ever exercise that power?  Also, maybe perhaps point to where the Ziu has authority to regulate the CpI's appellate jurisdiction.

*Edit: This is partially addressed in the Commentary on El Regeu v. CCX thread. Insofar as the Tribunal can impose the punishment of loss of citizenship to be confirmed by the CpI, I'm fine with that. Insofar as the Ziu defined for which crimes loss of citizenship can be imposed, that is strictly reserved for the CpI. Insofar as that the Ziu thinks it established or gets to set the parameters of what can constitute the Tribunal of the Crown at the exclusion of the CpI, I'm not convinced that has Organic support.

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 01:17:52 PMInsofar as the Ziu defined for which crimes loss of citizenship can be imposed, that is strictly reserved for the CpI.

Is the argument here sincerely that the CpI can impose loss of citizenship for any crime it pleases? That's stretching the Organic text like chewing gum, based on a reading of "determined" in the Twelfth Covenant which is possible but mischievous.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 28, 2023, 06:17:53 PM

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 01:17:52 PMInsofar as the Ziu defined for which crimes loss of citizenship can be imposed, that is strictly reserved for the CpI.

Is the argument here sincerely that the CpI can impose loss of citizenship for any crime it pleases? That's stretching the Organic text like chewing gum, based on a reading of "determined" in the Twelfth Covenant which is possible but mischievous.

It is not a stretch. That is the plain and obvious meaning of the text.  If the Organic Law says that only the CpI can do the thing, and grants no other institution in Talodds authority to do the thing, then only the CpI can do the thing. 

The Organic Law has had this exact wording since at least 1999. (https://web.archive.org/web/20000902195005/http://www.bahnhof.se/~anglemar/clark/orglaw.html) (The third clause was added in 2013).

Obviously, this has not been an issue in the last 24 years. And it obviously has not been followed.

Nevertheless, I do actually prefer the scheme that my debate with discussion yielded – the Inferior Cort can impose it as a punishment, and it must be confirmed by the CpI. That, I think, shields the CpI from criminally punishing someone with revocation of citizenship for chewing gum. (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32090420)

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 07:50:39 PMNevertheless, I do actually prefer the scheme that my debate with discussion yielded – the Inferior Cort can impose it as a punishment, and it must be confirmed by the CpI. That, I think, shields the CpI from criminally punishing someone with revocation of citizenship for chewing gum. (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32090420)

Your debate? That was my interpretation!

You said and you are saying instead that Lexh.A is inorganic where (and in many other parts) it defines to which crimes lost of citizenship can be imposed, and that only the CpI can define that!

I explained here (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2377.msg19720#msg19720)

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 28, 2023, 08:10:44 PM

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 07:50:39 PMNevertheless, I do actually prefer the scheme that my debate with discussion yielded – the Inferior Cort can impose it as a punishment, and it must be confirmed by the CpI. That, I think, shields the CpI from criminally punishing someone with revocation of citizenship for chewing gum. (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32090420)

Your debate? That was my interpretation!

You said and you are saying instead that Lexh.A is inorganic where (and in many other parts) it defines to which crimes lost of citizenship can be imposed, and that only the CpI can define that!

I explained here (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2377.msg19720#msg19720)

And you are wrong there.