CpI Advisory Opinion Expansion Amendment

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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 which currently reads as:

Article VIII, Section 6

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 Senechal 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:

Article VIII, Section 6

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 Senechal, the Avocat-Xheneral, or Ziu members representing at least 1/3rd of seats in either the Cosa and/or Senate 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 (Avocat-Xheneral)

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Folks, this bill proposes the expansion of the ability to request an advisory opinion from the CpI to the Government's chief legal advisor, Avocat-Xheneral, and/or a  group of legislators representing one third of the Ziu.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@Sir Lüc
This one will be ready for CRL tomorrow.
And ahead of it being moved to the CRL I indicate my approval.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Leaning to oppose this on the grounds of being unnecessary, and suspicious coming from the incumbent A-XH

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Leaning to oppose this on the grounds of being unnecessary, and suspicious coming from the incumbent A-XH

I think it is reasonable for the prinicipal legal advisor to the Government to be able to seek legal advice from the Judiciary so that they can best advise the Government.

Edited out the last sentence as it is not conducive to the dialogue. This is not a political maneuver. This is something, upon a review of El Lex, after being appointed as A-X that seemed like a common-sense change.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The A-Xh is not a directly elected role, but acts as part of a collectively responsible Cabinet led by the Seneschal. I think it's right that the Government, represented by the Seneschal, should have the right to ask for an advisory opinion. If the A-Xh feels the need to act independently from (opposed to?) the rest of the Government, we are in constitutional crisis territory and they should resign.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The A-Xh is not a directly elected role, but acts as part of a collectively responsible Cabinet led by the Seneschal. I think it's right that the Government, represented by the Seneschal, should have the right to ask for an advisory opinion. If the A-Xh feels the need to act independently from (opposed to?) the rest of the Government, we are in constitutional crisis territory and they should resign.

This seems to have missed my point and is needlessly inflammatory. Why would the King and SoS have the right to request an opinion but not the Government's chief legal advisor? I recognize that there is still distrust here but we are still not making sense with our opposition to a common-sense action.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The Ziu thing makes sense, but there's no reason at all for the A-X to need to call for an advisory opinion.  The Seneschal speaks for the Government.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The Ziu thing makes sense, but there's no reason at all for the A-X to need to call for an advisory opinion.  The Seneschal speaks for the Government.

As I disagree, I am moving forward. (Clarifying that I disagree that there is no reason for the A-X to be able to request an advisory opinion not that that the Seneschal manages the Government.)
Every member of the Ziu can vote as they please.

[Sir Lüc]

Personally, the A-X should not only have the right to request an advisory opinion from the CpI -- if anything they should probably be the one Government official that's primarily in charge of those, just as the MinFin (and not the Seneschal) has been in charge of the Budget for a few years now. Besides, the Seneschal has the implicit right to also request an advisory opinion by D.2.1.

(Also, there's a typo in that section of the OrgLaw -- Seneschal)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Personally, the A-X should not only have the right to request an advisory opinion from the CpI -- if anything they should probably be the one Government official that's primarily in charge of those, just as the MinFin (and not the Seneschal) has been in charge of the Budget for a few years now. Besides, the Seneschal has the implicit right to also request an advisory opinion by D.2.1.

(Also, there's a typo in that section of the OrgLaw -- Seneschal)

Would the Seneschal have that power? If the OrgLaw says the A-X does, I don't think a statute could assign that power to someone else.

For my money, btw, either one makes sense - just not both.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Personally, the A-X should not only have the right to request an advisory opinion from the CpI -- if anything they should probably be the one Government official that's primarily in charge of those, just as the MinFin (and not the Seneschal) has been in charge of the Budget for a few years now. Besides, the Seneschal has the implicit right to also request an advisory opinion by D.2.1.

(Also, there's a typo in that section of the OrgLaw -- Seneschal)

Thank you very much @Sir Lüc
I didn't want to argue with people about it but really believed that it should be the A-X. So I will add it back.

[Sir Lüc]

The bill has been rejected by the Ziu and has been returned to the Hopper.