Legal Repair Act

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I am not comfortable removing the ennumeration of the Ziu's powers.  It would be a drastic expansion of government power, and any such change should be considered in isolation and carefully.

Except that it's not an "expansion of state power" VS citizens: according with IX.6 those powers not enumerated in VII.3 are organically vested in the Provinces.

It would functionally be a significant expansion of government power, I'd suggest, considering that the provinces have virtually no laws outside of those strictly governing and labeling themselves.

So, using your own words, today the citizens are not protected from any "future unknown abuse of their civil rights" because those powers are not limited: Provinces have them. "Future unknown abuses of their civil rights" you are afraid of could be carried even today by the Provinces.

And I hope you all agree with me that in Talossa the national level is more suited and equipped (and active) to protect citizens from abuses than the provincial ones.

I'm not worried about whether or not we've given the active and well-equipped national government sufficient power over citizens.  I'm worried about giving the active and well-equipped national government too much power over citizens.

Your bill is fine -as it is (and with the agree that we should stop to add renumbering clauses in the future) but the above is a topic worth to be addressed I believe.

I'm glad you're okay with the bill, and I think the federalism issue is definitely worth further discussion.  But if we're going to make such a sweeping change, it should probably be considered on its own, rather than as a solution to this particular problem.  If you'd like to create a thread, I'd be delighted to continue this discussion about it further -- I am very much enjoying your excellent ideas and points :)

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

...
I read this a couple of times, but don't quite get it, I'm sorry.  Why would this force people to be better about checking for broken cross-references?  It's only human that we're going to sometimes miss some, and I'm not sure moving away from a clear legal code in a single law would be helpful.

The whole point is, I think, the reverse of what you have said. My suggestion means that no-one has to chase back to previous legislation unless the old law/clause (etc.) is mentioned in the new law. If a new law mentions an old one, then it is a simple act of editing the record of the old law - which can be done by someone other than the instigators of the new law. This process makes the legal code even clearer.

If a new law inadvertently affects an old law, without mentioning it - as will (inevitably) frequently happen - then it is up to the Corts (as now) to decide what the law actually was, at the time of a litigious event. Partial incompatibilities and partial conflicts between old and new laws which are spotted outside of discussion of a new law are, themselves, items to be passed through the same processes as relate to a new law. I absolutely agree that inadvertent back-incompatibilities cannot be arbitrarily be changed outside of our current due process.

My suggestion does not change the necessary examination of the whole law to determine what the law is, but can make that examination process shorter.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

No, I guess I'm not being clear: I mean I don't even understand what you're proposing.  You said:

The simplest fix to the problem of "moving references" is to change ALL law names, and paragraph numbers, etc. to something unchangeable.

But we have basically only one statute, so there's only two law names: el Lexhatx and the Orglaw.  And the titles and articles essentially never change.  So I don't know what you mean when you say we should change all law names to something unchangeable.  It sounded like you were proposing setting aside the legal code and going back to what it used to be.  What laws?

So law XYZ would have paragraphs 1, 2, 17, 29, 33 because law ABC (which, in time, followed the adoption of law XYZ) has removed those paragraphs 3-16, 19-28 etc., or negated their contents. This would, at most, involve marking any altered/deleted paragraphs with reference to the *subsequent* law which removed/changed them. Thus ALL back references would be correct.....

BUT if there are two (or more) back references to a changed paragraph - and we must always assume that there will be - then each reference must either point to "paragraph 27.3 of law XYZ of date <date>" or point to "paragraph 27.3 of law XYZ as updated at the time of consultation".

So are you saying that all references to another section of the law should include the date on which the reference is being made, and that would be the solution?  Since that seems like it would be hard to manage for a lot of reasons: inscrutability to laypeople, impracticality of researching a section every time you look up the law, and the unwieldiness of it all.

I wasn't arguing with you before -- I was just saying I didn't understand what exactly you were proposing to do.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

I might add two sections on references between brackets like (53RZ18) because many are wrong because of the copy/paste of them in bills so we have new text with circular references to the old acts rather than the new

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I might add two sections on references between brackets like (53RZ18) because many are wrong because of the copy/paste of them in bills so we have new text with circular references to the old acts rather than the new

Yeah... I thought it was a good idea to include those notes back in the day, but at this point it's become more of a problem than a help. So maybe that Title Z rule requiring the notes needs to be eliminated.  It hasn't turned out to be that helpful, generally.

Should we just eliminate that rule and delete the notes entirely?

[Üc R. Tärfă]

I might add two sections on references between brackets like (53RZ18) because many are wrong because of the copy/paste of them in bills so we have new text with circular references to the old acts rather than the new

Yeah... I thought it was a good idea to include those notes back in the day, but at this point it's become more of a problem than a help. So maybe that Title Z rule requiring the notes needs to be eliminated.  It hasn't turned out to be that helpful, generally.

Should we just eliminate that rule and delete the notes entirely?

Indeed!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I plan to move forward with this, with some changes.  If the CpI promulgates any rule on appeals, I will eliminate that provision.

The Legal Repair Amendment

WHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and

WHEREAS this means that basically none of our criminal laws or rules about the cort system actually work,

THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:

20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

[Üc R. Tärfă]

I'm proposing a complete new text of Title Z in my maintenance bill (you can already read it in the hopper), so can we skip that part?

Ps: as the first three parts are very different from eachother, why don't you split them in 3 different bills?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Ok.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Amended.

The Legal Repair Amendment

WHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and

WHEREAS this means that basically none of our criminal laws or rules about the cort system actually work,

THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:

20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

[Üc R. Tärfă]

On this one:

20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.

Are you sure this cover everything? Most of A 7 (Crimes against the Kingdom, Crimes against state property) doesn't seem to fall under this definition imho.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Yes, I am fairly sure that this would cover everything.  What you describe would be covered by "defence of the Kingdom, and parts thereof" and "[m]atters incidental to the execution of Federal government."

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Yes, I am fairly sure that this would cover everything.  What you describe would be covered by "defence of the Kingdom, and parts thereof" and "[m]atters incidental to the execution of Federal government."

That's how we intende until now (and I am of the opinion that the other parts are already de facto covered in the org law by other provisions) but my point is: if we explicitly spell it in the OrgLaw, I believe we should make it general to cover the administration of justice and the definition of (civil and) criminal law. If we value clarity and simplicity in the law, this is a good occasion to do it.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Viteu]

"21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system."

What do you think this means?

Let'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?