*I deleted my prior response because i'm on my phone and confused threads.

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

Quote from: Viteu on April 28, 2023, 08:25:34 AMBut there is jurisprudence constante.

Which isn't binding, so it's nowhere near as important.

But to say precedent has no relevance in civil is nonsense.

Quote

QuoteI WILL SCREAM THIS FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK--IF YOUR LEGISLATURE CAN ABOLISH YOUR HIGHEST COURT AT THE WHIM OF A SIMPLE MAJORITY, YOU DO NOT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY.

Well I don't know how the UK handles this, but in countries with constitutions the highest court is usually outlined in the constitution, so abolishing it takes more than a simple majority.

The UK Supreme Court was literally created by statute.

QuoteI don't know how that's relevant to the topic though. The legislature still has the (exclusive!) power to change civil and criminal procedure codes as it sees fit, just like with all other laws.

Only if the constitution grants the Legislature the exclusive right to do so.

Show me where in the Org Law the Ziu has the power, let alone exclusice power, to regulate the CpI.

Quote

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?

Show me where in the Org Law the Ziu has the power to regulate the CpI. 

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on April 28, 2023, 07:10:08 AM

Quote from: Viteu on April 27, 2023, 10:18:07 PMOr am I mistaken and civil law countries don't have constitutions, there is no separation of powers but rather fusion of powers, and that the court systems are not independent and can be controlled by the whims of the legislature?

[...]

Whether Talossa should adopt a civil law system is not at all relevant to the question of to what extent, if any, the Ziu can regulate the Uppermost Cort.

Courts are bound by the rule of law like everyone else, and in civil law systems, laws are made by the legislature and only the legislature (there is no stare decisis), thus the laws governing court procedures are necessarily also made by the legislature. Does that constitute a violation of judicial independence in your opinion?

But there is jurisprudence constante.

I WILL SCREAM THIS FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK--IF YOUR LEGISLATURE CAN ABOLISH YOUR HIGHEST COURT AT THE WHIM OF A SIMPLE MAJORITY, YOU DO NOT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY.

Also, 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.

But that bill still represented a positive affirmation by the Ziu of their authority to legislate on those topics.

. . .

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

No, it isn't. But i'll drop it.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 27, 2023, 04:51:21 PM

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 27, 2023, 01:13:36 PMComing 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.

I think we need a full and open debate on this topic. We all want an independent judiciary - but I think we need to determine if the Talossan judiciary really is a "co-equal branch of government" with the King, Cosa and Senäts in Ziu assembled, under our Organic Law - and whether it should be, whether it is or not.

There is a huge problem that US Americans are often barely aware that other forms of government/judicial procedure exist, or that they're not inherently inferior to the US constitution, and so Talossans from US America tend to be surprised when US ways of doing things are not accepted by all as a default. Of course, Talossan jurisprudence is always going to be US-flavoured as long as we are a common law system, just because almost all our CpI Justices have been US Americans. But everything is subject to the Organic Law.

While I tend to agree with your point about United Statesian in general (and I'd wager it's true for most people in other large countries in that I doubt the most people in Brazil, China, Russia, or India know or care that other forms of government/judicial procedure exist), I think it's unfair to say that about Talossans.  Also, Louisiana is a civil law jurisdiction, so most US lawyers know of the system like many attorneys in civil law countries have heard of the common law.  The average lawyer in either jurisdiction will probably not understand the other system. So let's be fair here.

I will also mention that Org.L.VIII.1 is virtually identical to US Const. art. III § 1, and VIII.2 is a truncated version of art. III § 2 (although similar, there are key differences).  Further, it makes sense that we inherited the US common law in much the same way the US inherited it from the UK.  So yes, Talossan  jurisprudence is influenced by the US for the reason you stated but also because the constitutional provisions are similar.  But I still think our framework is somewhere between the US and Australia.

I'll repeat what I said above—the civil law-common law question is not at all relevant to whether the Ziu can control the CpI.  Not to mention, the two systems are not as different as people like to think and they tend to reach the same result.

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 27, 2023, 01:13:36 PMComing 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.

I have absolutely no idea what civil law v. common law has to do with this issue. 

I feel confident that civil law countries have written constitutions, and that those constitutions establish independent judiciaries. (Although I will recognize countries have their own way of doing things.)  I think that I'm safe in saying that many countries with civil law systems have constitutions that enshrine the separation of powers. 

Or am I mistaken and civil law countries don't have constitutions, there is no separation of powers but rather fusion of powers, and that the court systems are not independent and can be controlled by the whims of the legislature?

The differences between the common law and civil law systems are not as vast as people think, and while there are differences, the results tend to align.

Whether Talossa should adopt a civil law system is not at all relevant to the question of to what extent, if any, the Ziu can regulate the Uppermost Cort.  I feel like any time there is a discussion about the Talossan court system, people are quick to bring up the civil law-common law issue without stopping to think, "is it actually germane?" 

I also do not get why you think parliamentary sovereignty is a good thing? Like the UK likes to think it has an independent judiciary (at best I'd say it's quasi-independent because of the respect for convention), but any court that can be abolished at the whims of Parliament isn't truly independent, is it?

Although the Organic Law clearly favors constitutional supremacy and separation of powers à la the US framework, Talossans seem to teeter between that and parliamentary sovereignty à la the UK model  because of, in my estimation, convenience, romanticization, laziness, or ignorance. 

I've long advocated that Talossa should look more to the Australian model, which is much closer to our framework than the US or UK (also, the 1997 Organic Law was modeled after the Australian Constitution).  On the issue of the judiciary, however, Australia is closer to the US. 

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 27, 2023, 01:13:36 PMAnd 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.

I think you need to give yourself a bit more credit—if you can read the Organic Law and understand that the Organic Law is supreme and sets the parameters i nwhich the Ziu and CpI can act, then there is not as much of a knowledge deficit as you think. The civil law-common law question is not relevant or informative here.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 27, 2023, 12:33:25 PMWell, 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. 

I'm aware. And there are a plethora of reasons for this tradition. Off the top of my head—

-IMHO, Talossa seems to have a penchant for trying to replicate the UK model of parliamentary sovereignty and fusion of powers within a US framework of constitutional supremacy and separation of powers. In other words, at times, Talossa wants to be like the UK but just cannot seem to quit the US.

-Most of the time, Talossans cannot be bothered to check what the Organic Law says, and this often translates into the Ziu acting closer to Parliament than Congress. Of course, when we don't like something, it's time to run to the Organic Law.*  (I'm being vague and generalizing.)

*Sidebar—while I put forth an argument questioning the premise of the Legal Repair Act, I loved that you bothered to check and propose a fix to what you perceived was a constitutional issue.

-Many Talossans do not understand, are uninterested, or do not care about how the courts function or their role.  The corts are rarely used, so it's easy to miss questionable legislation.

-We enact legislation for items that ought to be administrative law (i.e. Ministries enacting rules and regulations), and the 1997 Organic Law had items better suited for statutory law.  This likely stems from our small population (i.e not enough people to do different jobs), and that most of our active citizens are MZs. 

-Some do not care or appreciate the separation of powers, maybe because it bores them or the view it as unnecessary given our small size.

I did not say that the Ziu lacks authority to enact legislation concerning the time to take an appeal, I cautioned to tread carefully when one branch seeks to dictate what a co-equal branch can and cannot do. Whether the Ziu can enact legislation that governs the Judiciary depends on what it is trying to legislate.  Not to mention, the Ziu has broad authority to regulate most aspects of the General Cort because it is a creature of statute, which is similar to the fact that Congress can regulate the Federal District Courts and Federal Courts of Appeals because Congress created those courts, but Congress has very limited authority to regulate the Supreme Court because it is a co-equal branch established by the constitution. 

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.

You conveniently gloss over that I said, "It is not my admission that I view any part as wholly Organic, that I agree with the law as written, or that I concede authority.  I'm a sitting Judge on the Uppermost Cort, so I want to be explicitly clear that there may be parts that are outside of the Ziu's authority.  But, again, this is not the place for that debate.  If I start nitpicking, we will get buried in those arguments and no changes will be made.  So I set aside my personal opinions in the spirit of a simple recodification act under the presumption that no one understands this to mean my tacit approval of any part of the legislation, only my thought on how to clean it up."

Let's look at the relevant sections.

Lex.G.3. Appeals and Tribunals. was recodified from Lex.G.4. I said, "I don't believe I made many changes, if anything beyond a typo fix, here."

The actual text is largely from 43RZ3 (drafted and sponsored by Capt. T.M. Asmourescu) with 53RZ22 (drafted and sponsored by by Ian Plätschisch) adding some language.

Lex.G.4. The Clerk of the Corts was recodified from Lex.G.5, and this is said were the only changes "Courts -> Corts, and I believe I made it the Clerk of THE Corts for consistency."

The actual text is from 42RZ4 (drafted and sponsored by Capt. T.M. Asmourescu).

To further illustrate how much I didn't change, you can compare pre-recodification Title G to post-recodification Title G.

I did not write a wholesale revision to Title G. I drafted a recodification bill with great effort to make as little changes as possible, and certainly fixing typos or changing court to cort for consistency are not substantive revisions of the relevant parts.

Not to mention, those statutes were adopted back in 2011 when the article in the Organic Law concerning the corts looked very different.

It bears repeating that I was unequivocal that the bill was not my admission that it is wholly Organic, that I agreed with the law as written, or that I conceded authority, and that there may be parts outside of the Ziu's authority.

Surely this means that my straightforward recodification of Title G was not an admission of permissibility.

I would tread carefully with passing legistlation (or even an Organic amendment) dictating what a co-equal branch can and cannot do.

*edit -- this isn't a threat but only a concern that the balance of power between bracnches and an independent judiciary are essential.

Anyone?

The UC has promulgated a rule addressing the issues surrounding a sitting UC Judge also serving as an MZ. 

I am politely nudging Councillors @Eðo Grischun, @Chirbi Scherpa-Carriedo, and @Adam Grigoriu for the input on the following: 

I nominated myself as Premier, which Councillor Lenxheir effectively seconded.

There are pending nominations for Councillor Lenxheir and Councillor Grigoriu for the office of Presiding Officer, neither of which have been seconded. 

We require at least one other person to second a nomination for Presiding Officer. I ask the remaining Councillors to nominate another person for either office or state their support for any existing nominee. 

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 16, 2023, 08:48:44 PMIt kind of feels like a big national thing won't happen, like the last time it was proposed with the Council of Governors (back when that existed).  I know that both Etho and V, two significant figures in Vuode, have said that they thought it would be a non-starter to try to nationalize a grassroots effort between provinces.

I'm not trying to be contrarian, but I'm unsure what you mean by "grassroots effort between provinces."
Speaking only for myself—I am against any formal merging of Vuode with other provinces beyond the M-M scheme; I take no position on what other provinces may wish to do if Vuode is not involved.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 13, 2023, 03:29:19 PM

Quote from: Viteu on February 13, 2023, 03:21:05 PMThis entire manufactured outrage of someone equating being an a*sh*le with masculinity sounds pretty #NotAllMen to me.

My advice was to not be "outraged" about this, but if someone was, I don't think they'd be manufacturing anything. There are an abundance of examples of it happening, but again, they are of no importance.

If it doesn't apply to you as you might presuppose, then why are you responding?

Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on February 13, 2023, 03:26:48 PM

Quote from: Viteu on February 13, 2023, 03:21:05 PMThis entire manufactured outrage of someone equating being an a*sh*le with masculinity sounds pretty #NotAllMen to me.

1. My offense isn't manufactured just as, I assume, your offense at "gay erasure" isn't manufactured.
2. Taking offense is not the same as being outraged. Words have meanings.

1. oooookkkkaaayyy #NotAllMen

2. Kewl.

This entire manufactured outrage of someone equating being an a*sh*le with masculinity sounds pretty #NotAllMen to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen

I'll just leave this here.