Also this:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 08:25:27 AM

WHEREAS there is a large legal loophole that would permit virtually any crime, including very serious crimes such as threats of sexual assault, theft, bribery, or anything else, and

WHEREAS the problem lies with the fact that we're offering unlimited and unqualified sanctuary under terms which clearly reference the medieval Christian practice of offering church protection from secular law, thereby allowing anyone to claim the right of sanctuary if accused of crimes, and

WHEREAS it's hard to find any other way to interpret this bit of the law so that it makes sense, and so therefore this reading probably is going to be a valid one, or at the very least would be an incredible complication that might make it impossible to prosecute someone, and

WHEREAS no one has yet taken advantage of it, but there's no reason to think that will last forever,

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

Quote

10. 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

In looking through, I'm pretty sure that this dots its "i's" and crosses its "t's."  Should work

Submitting for review

The Let’s Make This Official Act

Whereas, the Kingdom recognizes the importance of celebrating important dates and events in Talossan history, and

Whereas, Reunision as the re-uniting of kingdom and republican Talossans marks an incredibly important moment in the history of Talossa, and

Whereas, the day in which King John issued the Proclamation of Reunision, April 20, certainly qualifies for elevation from a day of observance to an official national holiday.

Therefore be it resolved that a new subsection is placed at El Lexhatx F 2.4, with any necessary renumbering of following subsections, to read:

Quote

20 April. Reunision Day. Commemorating the royal proclamation of Reunision and the end of the Third Schism.

Uréu q'estadra så
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Sen-FL, TNC)
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)

The bill appears sound to me.

Yikes!  11 June, and there is no debate thread up, already.  ESB, I hope you're all-right.

Anyway, I vote thusly:

57RZ1 Për
57RZ2 Contra
57RZ3 Për

GV, Fiova

I'm alright.  Just lost track of what was supposed to be posted when.


57RZ1 Contra
57RZ2 Contra
57RZ3 Contra

I already picked over it in the Hopper; it's fine.

I, also, dont see problems here.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 01, 2022, 10:39:32 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 01, 2022, 10:26:53 PM

It means that the Finance Minister is not required to create this Bureau; it is optional and within their discretion.

Then honestly we don't need this law at all, we just need a policy paper. MinFin could create this Bureau tomorrow, should he have the time and energy to do so, with no law required. And if he doesn't want to, this law won't make him.

Correct.  Even though I think this is a very good idea, there are also times when this might not make sense to do, so it is a discretionary scheme that may be enacted at the will of the MinFin.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 01, 2022, 10:39:32 PM

Quote

The law is full of such suggestions.  I think like the first few provisions in the title covering the Government have like three suggestions alone!

Does it? Well, thank you for giving me a place to start the Justice Ministry's project of removing kipple from El Lexhatx.

These sorts of things are relatively common in legal systems everywhere, since allowing no discretion to executive officers can hamper them from actually achieving desired goals.

In looking at this, there doesn't strike me as anything wrong, inherently speaking, with the material as presented.  I think that the question of "advisory" law (shoulds and coulds, etc) might be best decided by the legislature.  IE, in debate on the bill, they can discuss whether or not this is the kind of law worth enacting.  For my own part, the "shoulds" and "cans" absolutely scream for a "if its not explicitly allowed, it is forbidden" type of legalism.  In essence, at least in my reason, "shoulds" and "cans" in law may very well quash the executive discretion you're pointing to, AD.

For future reference, I'd like a consensus from the other members on the broader question that arose:

Quote

We should lay some ground rules as to what "the CRL giving its recommendation" under El Lex H.6.6. Does this mean we have to have a 2/3 majority on an official report back? Or something looser, i.e. all 3 of us or maybe even just 2 of us having our say?

Honestly, I'd say if 2 members weigh in with either a "yup, all good" or "fix XYZ" (and then fixes are made), that should be sufficient.  After all, we're not after substantive stuff (insofar as semantics in law & legislation can not be substantive) here, that's for the Ziu itself to decide.

With the fix, I see nothing inherently wrong with "The Fixing Citizenship Act."