CRL Committee for the 57th Cosa

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

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

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?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Anyone commenting on a proposal in any fashion suffices, as far as I'm concerned.  The entire CRL process is an annoying chore for both legislators and the members of the committee, so we should make it as minimally annoying as possible.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I'm sorry to hear you don't feel that the job of legislative proofreading is an important one. I thought I remembered you being the guy who got annoyed at how much badly written law was being pushed through because no-one bothered to read it. I hope the Mençéi intends to take this Committee more seriously.

[esbornatfiglheu]

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

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm sorry to hear you don't feel that the job of legislative proofreading is an important one. I thought I remembered you being the guy who got annoyed at how much badly written law was being pushed through because no-one bothered to read it. I hope the Mençéi intends to take this Committee more seriously.

Much of the problem with bad legislation is caused by (among other things) groupthink and the deferral of decisionmaking away from the actual legislative chamber, and the solution is not any kind of legislative babysitter.  I will continue to assist with it, and I set it up and got it running in a professional manner since it's my duty, but you should not be surprised that I still oppose this sort of program.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Much of the problem with bad legislation is caused by (among other things) groupthink and the deferral of decisionmaking away from the actual legislative chamber

That sounds intriguing, please expand on your thoughts

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Here's a bill for review: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1401.0

I think it's fine.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Thanks for bringing that forward, will give it a look-see soon

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

2.8.9 The Finance Minister is empowered to create the Bureau of Corporations, which body shall be responsible for the registration of all Talossan businesses, the enforcement of applicable business laws, and such further tasks as may seem fit by the Ziu.

"Empowered to"? Does that mean they have an option as to whether to do so or not? Why not "shall create", if this is supposed to bind the Government?

Sample articles may be offered at the Bureau's discretion.

Putting a "may" clause in a law makes no sense. If there is no law against "providing sample articles", then logically the Ministry of Finance "may" do that.

This number shall be composed of three digits to indicate the year of registration combined with three digits to indicate the order a business was registered, beginning with 001.

You might emphasise "Talossan year" here?

Changes to this numbering scheme may be made at the discretion of the Bureau, but are discouraged.

It is encouraged for the Bureau to provide a fancy certificate to any registered business.

Statements of "discouragement" or "encouragement" have no place in positive law. Either you are compelling the Ministry of Finance to do something, or it should not be in the bill.

Generally this bill suffers from being an attempt to set Government policy from opposition. The Ziu may very well compel the Government to do things, or to not do things; but laws have no place in attempting to offer suggestions.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I'd like to submit the Seneschal Selection and Reselection Amendment

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

2.8.9 The Finance Minister is empowered to create the Bureau of Corporations, which body shall be responsible for the registration of all Talossan businesses, the enforcement of applicable business laws, and such further tasks as may seem fit by the Ziu.

"Empowered to"? Does that mean they have an option as to whether to do so or not? Why not "shall create", if this is supposed to bind the Government?

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

Sample articles may be offered at the Bureau's discretion.

Putting a "may" clause in a law makes no sense. If there is no law against "providing sample articles", then logically the Ministry of Finance "may" do that.

Yes, but the law is full of suggestions of this kind, intended to guide application of those fulfilling it, but without binding their hands.

This number shall be composed of three digits to indicate the year of registration combined with three digits to indicate the order a business was registered, beginning with 001.

You might emphasise "Talossan year" here?

That makes sense, thank you.

Changes to this numbering scheme may be made at the discretion of the Bureau, but are discouraged.

It is encouraged for the Bureau to provide a fancy certificate to any registered business.

Statements of "discouragement" or "encouragement" have no place in positive law. Either you are compelling the Ministry of Finance to do something, or it should not be in the bill.

Generally this bill suffers from being an attempt to set Government policy from opposition. The Ziu may very well compel the Government to do things, or to not do things; but laws have no place in attempting to offer suggestions.

I disagree.  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!  It doesn't always make sense to require everything as mandatory or else not mention it at all.  Often the Ziu can and should provide guidance where it sees fit, even if the execution can ultimately be trusted to those on the ground -- which is, in fact, exactly the opposite of trying to set policy from opposition.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

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.

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.

Seriously: the purpose of this Committee is to raise technical issues rather than discuss policy, so I think I've said my piece here. I'd love to hear the Mençéi's opinion.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

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.

[esbornatfiglheu]

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.

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.

[esbornatfiglheu]

I'd like to submit the Seneschal Selection and Reselection Amendment

For clarification, is it the Amendment as contained in this linked post?  https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1441.msg12111#msg12111

Apologies, @Ian Plätschisch , Just want to make sure.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Yes

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

Well, the discretion lies in creating the bureau, which is why the MinFin is "empowered to" create it.  But once it exists, it is mandated ("shall") to issue licenses in a standardized format, although it is assigned discretion to change the format if it wishes ("may") and has the choice of whether or not to provide a fancy certificate ("it is encouraged").

I have tried to carefully structure the bill to account for varying degrees of burden and practicality on the part of the MinFin.  They can create the bureau -- but once they do so, it has legal requirements for its function.  They can change the numbering scheme if they think they come up with a better one, but that's left to them to decide, and they can issue a certificate, but even a MinFin who feels like it's wise to open the Bureau and has time to make a list might not have time to do a certificate if they have a lot going on.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

If it is not specifically forbidden, it is allowed. Period.
That is a prerequisite of personal freedom.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If it is not specifically forbidden, it is allowed. Period.
That is a prerequisite of personal freedom.

So just so you're aware, this is the CRL Committee.  It's fine to comment here, but be aware that this is not the thread for a specific bill.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what exactly you're speaking about?  It's certainly true for citizens that anything not specifically forbidden is allowed, but the Government operates within specific parameters.  The Secretary of State can't exempt bills from the Hopper requirements just because he likes the font, for example.  Or to pick another example, the Ziu can't make laws about what hats I'm permitted to wear, since that's not a subject over which the people have democratically granted them the authority to make laws.