Legal Repair Act

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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, and

WHEREAS currently there does not appear to be any sunset on appeals, so something can be appeal even after ten years, and that's not okay, and

WHEREAS we have a law permitting sanctuary on the books, even though it's extremely unclear how that could possibly work,

PART ONE: LEGAL OVERSIGHT

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.

PART TWO: APPEALS

FURTHERMORE a new provision shall be inserted in the first subsection of the third section of Title G of el Lexhatx, reading

3.1.1 There is a 90-day statute of limitations on all judicial appeals.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber the third section of Title G in a sensible fashion.

PART THREE: SANCTUARY

FURTHERMORE the tenth section of Title A of el Lexhatx, which currently reads

10. The Ziu hereby recognizes the historic right of churches and other religious organizations to offer sanctuary to individuals in dire need.

is hereby stricken in its entirety.

FURTHERMORE, the words "Except as provided in A.17," shall be struck from section 16.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber Title A in a sensible fashion.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Still working on my phrasing, here.  Obviously this one is a big deal.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

This is one way to fix the problem, and would do the immediate job. But I prefer a more fundamental reform, which is paradoxically more simple.

Opening paragraph of OrgLaw VII.3:

Section 3 The Ziu shall, subject to this Organic Law, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom, and shall have exclusive power with respect to:

So the long list that follows is issues that only the Ziu, not the provinces, can legislate on; but other than that, the Ziu's legislative power (exercised concurrently with the provinces) is unrestricted. And change OrgLaw IX.6 from:

Section 6 All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces.

to:

The Provinces may exercise all powers under this Organic Law which are not vested exclusively in the Kingdom.

This removes the bad writing going back to 1997 which set up a "bogus federal system" in Talossa, which has never existed - provincial governments have always been subordinated to, and much less active than, the Kingdom government. The proper model for Talossa is not bogus federation, but "devolved government" as and where necessary, as in the United Kingdom or in Spain,

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

This is one way to fix the problem, and would do the immediate job. But I prefer a more fundamental reform, which is paradoxically more simple.

Opening paragraph of OrgLaw VII.3:

Section 3 The Ziu shall, subject to this Organic Law, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom, and shall have exclusive power with respect to:

So the long list that follows is issues that only the Ziu, not the provinces, can legislate on; but other than that, the Ziu's legislative power (exercised concurrently with the provinces) is unrestricted. And change OrgLaw IX.6 from:

Section 6 All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces.

to:

The Provinces may exercise all powers under this Organic Law which are not vested exclusively in the Kingdom.

This removes the bad writing going back to 1997 which set up a "bogus federal system" in Talossa, which has never existed - provincial governments have always been subordinated to, and much less active than, the Kingdom government. The proper model for Talossa is not bogus federation, but "devolved government" as and where necessary, as in the United Kingdom or in Spain,

Completely eliminating the ennumerated powers seems very drastic to me, and dangerous to civil rights.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

So the argument is that there is a benefit to putting limits on the precise subjects about which the Ziu can make law? This is not the case in most countries I'm familiar with, outwith civil rights (which are contained for us in the Covenants).

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I am unwilling to endorse such a broad change to our entire Organic order.  We need fairly definite limits on what the government can do.  The Covenants do not suffice.  It's far too open to abuse, since many of the usual remedies that would face a government are not possible in Talossa.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Name one time a Talossan government has actually been restricted by the enumerated list. The only time I believe we've butted up against that list is precisely on the subject of criminal law, which you are now moving to explicitly include!

I would also appreciate a response to the question of throwing off the "bogus federalism" verbiage and moving to an explicit "devolved government" model.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

So the argument is that there is a benefit to putting limits on the precise subjects about which the Ziu can make law? This is not the case in most countries I'm familiar with, outwith civil rights (which are contained for us in the Covenants).

Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying here you are wrong. The United States Constitution especially the Bill of Rights is completely about restricting the power of the federal government.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I don't believe there is a list of things in the US Constitution that the Congress is only allowed to legislate on - only a list of things it can't legislate on. This list in the Talossan constitution was copied from the Australian (or perhaps Canadian) constitution, which are federal systems and was meant to reserve certain issues to the provinces/state. It makes no sense in Talossa.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I don't believe there is a list of things in the US Constitution that the Congress is only allowed to legislate on - only a list of things it can't legislate on. This list in the Talossan constitution was copied from the Australian (or perhaps Canadian) constitution, which are federal systems and was meant to reserve certain issues to the provinces/state. It makes no sense in Talossa.

Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Ha ha, shows what I know about anything

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Name one time a Talossan government has actually been restricted by the enumerated list. The only time I believe we've butted up against that list is precisely on the subject of criminal law, which you are now moving to explicitly include!

Easily done.  We used to have a law which claimed to make recycling mandatory.  It didn't really have a lot of force, but it was discarded because it wasn't a topic on which the Ziu was permitted to legislate.  That's just the first example to come to mind, but a lot of other bills have died quiet and unnoticed deaths because they were inorganic in the same way, like laws which tried to force provinces or provincial officials to do things not under Ziu power.  I think Mximo proposed a law to make someone in Florencia do something, for example.

I would also appreciate a response to the question of throwing off the "bogus federalism" verbiage and moving to an explicit "devolved government" model.

I think it's a bad idea, and it's not something I'm willing to entertain in the context of this bill.  Limiting the powers of the Ziu is a way of protecting our citizens from future unknown abuse of their civil rights, since I don't think the Covenants are sufficient in the case of a country like Talossa.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

BUMP. I hope the next Cosa will take this issue up again.

This is one way to fix the problem, and would do the immediate job. But I prefer a more fundamental reform, which is paradoxically more simple.

Opening paragraph of OrgLaw VII.3:

Section 3 The Ziu shall, subject to this Organic Law, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom, and shall have exclusive power with respect to:

So the long list that follows is issues that only the Ziu, not the provinces, can legislate on; but other than that, the Ziu's legislative power (exercised concurrently with the provinces) is unrestricted. And change OrgLaw IX.6 from:

Section 6 All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces.

to:

The Provinces may exercise all powers under this Organic Law which are not vested exclusively in the Kingdom.

This removes the bad writing going back to 1997 which set up a "bogus federal system" in Talossa, which has never existed - provincial governments have always been subordinated to, and much less active than, the Kingdom government. The proper model for Talossa is not bogus federation, but "devolved government" as and where necessary, as in the United Kingdom or in Spain,

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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, and

WHEREAS currently there does not appear to be any sunset on appeals, so something can be appeal even after ten years, and that's not okay, and

WHEREAS we have a law permitting sanctuary on the books, even though it's extremely unclear how that could possibly work,

PART ONE: LEGAL OVERSIGHT

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.

PART TWO: APPEALS

FURTHERMORE a new provision shall be inserted in the first subsection of the third section of Title G of el Lexhatx, reading

3.1.1 There is a 90-day statute of limitations on all judicial appeals.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber the third section of Title G in a sensible fashion.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

I am dropping the third provision and keeping it separate, but intend to keep working on this bill with a few other legal bits and bobs that have come up in my time as Clerk of Corts, after consulting with V further.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Side note: while I appreciate your idea, Dama Miestra, I again have to say that 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.