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.

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.

I am also the Avocat-Xheneral, and don't plan on making an official public statement on the matter at this time.

Yeah, I agree with most of your reasons about why people struggle with this.  Most people don't actually know their own system of government that well in terms of the principles involved (although Talossans punch above their weight in that regard, as a rule).  Here, we're talking about also knowing the principles involved in a very different system, plus our own fast-changing system.

The Talossan system is like someone took a photocopy of a photocopy of the US Constitution and stuffed it together with a madman's account of 19th century Britain.

It's glorious.

Quote from: Viteu on April 27, 2023, 09:28:54 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 27, 2023, 12:33:25 PMIt was just a few years ago that you yourself wrote and sponsored a wholesale revision to Title G (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=645.0), which itself includes the current laws regulating appeals.  Surely if it was permissible then, it's permissible now.

This is a gross misrepresentation of what I did and, I dare say, a patent lie.

You leave out that I said it was not a reform bill, did not change substantive areas except those I identified, and was only meant to cut out fat.

Well, yes, I did leave that out.  None of that is relevant.  The breadth of the ennumerated powers of the Ziu to enact legislation doesn't expand to accommodate our good intentions.  If it's Organic for the Ziu to set a limit on appeals, then that's true whether or not we're cutting fat.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time.  I know you were just trying to limit the scope of your changes and make it all read like a cohesive whole.  And you didn't actually change a lot of those things you consider questionable.  But that bill still represented a positive affirmation by the Ziu of their authority to legislate on those topics.

Imagine that the appeals provision was challenged on the basis of a flaw in the original legislation, back when the appeals limit was created.  Let's say that the bill didn't actually pass because the Secretary of State got drunk and miscounted the votes.  And now someone wants to appeal their conviction for being a Floridian after five years, and says that the limit on appeals never really became a part of the law.  Is a cort going to agree with him?  No, they'd note that the Ziu passed the same language in your bill.

I don't think you did wrong by not fighting over every point, and also it was absolutely the sane thing to do.  I did the same thing with el Lexhatx, which is why the stupid sanctuary thing is still in the law: we just slapped all the dozens of laws together into one weird casserole.

And I don't want to make too much of this, either way.  I think this instance of judicial oversight is fine, and I think we'll hopefully make it doubly fine by allowing the Ziu to explicitly do this sort of thing.  Even more, I think it's probably downright good for the CpI to actively promulgate rules about its own operations. 

There's a lot more here that we agree on than disagree, so let's just leave this particular point alone.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 27, 2023, 01:52:30 PMThank you. To be clear, I'm mostly concerned about not setting a precedent that could be abused later; I'm not disputing that this bill's substance was properly debated.

That was how I understood it  :)

Looks good; I approve.

Well, I guess I agree that we should be careful, S:reu Cadì, but there's a very long history in Talossa of the Ziu dictating the terms under which the corts shall operate.  It was just a few years ago that you yourself wrote and sponsored a wholesale revision to Title G (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=645.0), which itself includes the current laws regulating appeals.  Surely if it was permissible then, it's permissible now.

When I initially discussed this bill, I said that I would not have proposed it if there was a cort rule addressing the topic. Currently, I think it's barely legal to legislate on the matter at all, and it comes down to a case-by-case basis for individual provisions about whether or not there is organic backing for laws about cort administration. It is almost certainly not organic right now for us to purport to overrule any cort decision on procedure. We can say that there has to be a law protecting to process or speedy justice under the Covenants, but that doesn't really hold true if such a rule already exists.

So with the advent of that rule, I don't think this bill would be organic, plus I am honorbound to keep my word.

This bill is withdrawn, as the Cort has acted with astonishing rapidity to address the issue.

Oh, also you misspelled a word in the first sentence. The.

Before proceeding to that question, I just want to make it clear that the law says that a bill that has cleared this CRL may be put on the Clark, with or without changes - by letter and spirit, that means that you can and should change it as necessary to clear this committee. It has not been past practice to hold over a bill for another month because it has been changed in response to CRL feedback, and that won't be changing in the future. A bill should not be changed after the CRL process is over, I think, unless it's brought back for another quick review, but you can absolutely make changes to the bill here in response to feedback without needing to go through the process again.

Anyway, I approve the bill as it is. I'm not a huge fan of complicated language for its own sake, and the original language in this respect seemed completely fine and more clear, but it's not a question of form or function, really.

Whatever your preference might be... I just would personally appreciate if it were easier to see which bill was which, based on the short beginning excerpt available at the top of a tab in my browser. It's not a big deal, so if you feel strongly about it, that's okay too.

No, I'm asking why you want to substitute the Latin jargon ex officio in there. It makes it a little harder for laypeople to read, so I wanted to know if there was a substantive reason for the change. Is it necessary, in your opinion, for the new subclause to work?

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 26, 2023, 08:27:25 AMI've never actually removed a bill so I will have to get the help of MPF as I don't have that ability myself.

I apologize for the hassle.  Can we officially consider it withdrawn, even if it technically runs on the Clark, either way?

I 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?