[CRL] The Let the Chief Legal Advisor Advise Amendment

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I still don't understand the controvery over this one so am queueing it up for additional legislative review:

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, can't request an an advisory opinion from the Cort pü Inalt, and

Whereas, it seems reasonable for the Government's chief legal advisor to have the ability to also seek advice from the Judiciary.

Therefore, be it enacted by the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa, that Article VIII, Section 6, which currently reads as follows:

Until such time as inferior corts are established, a Judge may sit as a nisi prius cort in all civil and criminal matters.

No decision or order issued by an inferior cort or nisi prius cort shall bind a coordinate cort.

The decisions or orders of the Cort pü Inalt shall bind all lower corts according to the doctrine of stare decisis provided that that the panel was composed of no less than three Judges after necessary recusal. The Cort pü Inalt may, as it deems appropriate, issue decisions or orders that are non-binding provided that it explicitly states that intention in the decision or order.

A nisi prius cort or an inferior cort deviating from binding precedent must state so with clarity and refer the matter for appellate review.

Notwithstanding 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.

A matter arising under the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms is appealable as of right to the Cort pü Inalt. In all other instances, the Cort pü Inalt may not be compelled to exercise its appellate authority. However, when declining to do so, the Cort pü Inalt must issue an order declaring such, and no such declaration shall be deemed as the Cort pü Inalt adopting or setting as binding precedent the appealed from decision or order.

The Cort pü Inalt, and any other cort existing under this article, shall interpret all matters through the lens of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms.

Any Judge that is a named party in a matter shall recuse himself or herself from hearing any and all parts of the matter.

Is amended to read as follows:

Until such time as inferior corts are established, a Judge may sit as a nisi prius cort in all civil and criminal matters.

No decision or order issued by an inferior cort or nisi prius cort shall bind a coordinate cort.

The decisions or orders of the Cort pü Inalt shall bind all lower corts according to the doctrine of stare decisis provided that that the panel was composed of no less than three Judges after necessary recusal. The Cort pü Inalt may, as it deems appropriate, issue decisions or orders that are non-binding provided that it explicitly states that intention in the decision or order.

A nisi prius cort or an inferior cort deviating from binding precedent must state so with clarity and refer the matter for appellate review.

Notwithstanding any contrary proscription, the King, the Secretary of State, the Seneschal, or the Avocat-Xheneral 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.

A matter arising under the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms is appealable as of right to the Cort pü Inalt. In all other instances, the Cort pü Inalt may not be compelled to exercise its appellate authority. However, when declining to do so, the Cort pü Inalt must issue an order declaring such, and no such declaration shall be deemed as the Cort pü Inalt adopting or setting as binding precedent the appealed from decision or order.

The Cort pü Inalt, and any other cort existing under this article, shall interpret all matters through the lens of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms.

Any Judge that is a named party in a matter shall recuse himself or herself from hearing any and all parts of the matter.

Uréu q'estadra så
Breneir Tzaracomprada (MC-GREEN)

[Sir Lüc]

The enacting clause is missing both a section number and the name of the thing you're seeking to amend (obviously the Organic Law, but this really should not have to be inferred by the reader)

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The enacting clause is missing both a section number and the name of the thing you're seeking to amend (obviously the Organic Law, but this really should not have to be inferred by the reader)

Are you a member of the CRL?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The Hopper is free for all to make comments on legislation, and Lüc is doing someone a favour here who has done nothing to deserve it.

[Sir Lüc]

The enacting clause is missing both a section number and the name of the thing you're seeking to amend (obviously the Organic Law, but this really should not have to be inferred by the reader)

Are you a member of the CRL?

I am a member of the Scribery, which is mandated by both H.2.1.5.1. and C.1.3.2. to assist the CRL and individual legislators in crafting bills for what concerns style and formatting - which is what I did both here and in other bills that were just referred to the CRL.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@GV
@Dr. Pôl dal Nordselvă

Folks, these bills need your review, please.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I think that it is understood this is intending to modify Article VIII, Section 6 based on the inclusion of that header in the text as currently read and as being changed. (Having not scrutinized the text prior to the suggested edits above, this may have been added in response to the suggestions.) I would prefer to see "Article VIII, Section which currently reads as" have the number "6" added, but clearly its exclusion is a typo that (in my opinion) would not affect the implementation of this amendment should it pass.

I have concerns regarding the scope of the CRL as a whole that may operate to delay or prevent the introduction of a bill by a duly elected member of the Ziu. I will limit any formal objections to situations where I strongly feel they are needed; this is not one of them.

In my capacity as a member of the CRL, no objections. I would strongly suggest the edit above be made, however; see Lex.H.2.1.7.2.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Thanks very much, I will make the requested changes ASAP.

[Dr. Pôl dal Nordselvă]

Have the requested changes been made?

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Have the requested changes been made?

Yep, just now.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

Then, no objections to Clarking on my side. Not being fluent in Latin, this change relates to one of the only parts of Article VIII Section 6 which I understand.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Have the requested changes been made?

Mr. A/X, I can confirm the changes have been made. Does this bill have your approval?
@Dr. Pôl dal Nordselvă