Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 22, 2019 18:18:31 GMT -6
The basis for a suit is whether 41RZ6 is inOrganic or not. The King thinks it is. Probably best to find out whether he's right if we are going to attempt to repropose RZ4 (spoiler: we are).
|
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 22, 2019 21:47:34 GMT -6
OK, a bunch of smallish points. The Official Holidays Act, 6RC15, predates the OrgLaw. I believe I did err in assenting to 41RZ6. I'm not trying to test anything here, but rather to be careful to do things correctly. (For instance, I'd have no problem at all with a resolution of the Ziu requesting that I declare or suppress a holiday; and I'd almost certainly comply, unless there were something seriously objectionable about it.) I vetoed a bill once, many years ago, on exactly this ground, that it was attempting to establish a national holiday by statute. I'm not sure this grab bag of mixed-up examples constitute "settled Talossan tradition". I respectfully disagree with the Seneschal's idea that if the OrgLaw gives one person or body "the right" to do something, that others can do it too. And I'm very glad we have no uncharitable people among us. — John R Not exactly. The exact provision reads, "The nation democratically grants the King and his successors certain Royal Powers: The right to declare national holidays," (1) "democratically grants" means "democratically grants." This means it's not an inherent organic royal prerogative. It means, by default, you have the power to declare *national holidays*, which the people can democratically withdraw (i.e., we don't need an organic amendment). You have it until the nation democratically says otherwise. (2) Even if you have the "sole right" to declare national holidays, a plain reading of the provision is to declare *national holidays.* It does not preclude the Ziu from establishing *government holidays* or *public holidays*. Taking a textualist interpretation, national is not synonymous with either government or public. A government holiday or public holiday is distinct from a national holiday. To put another way, you can choose to make something a national holiday, but you don't have any right to declare a government holiday or public holiday. You can't just expand your rights by interpreting three distinct words as synonymous. Also, the Organic Law doesn't really define what a holiday entails. Like, have we ever rolled over State or Government business because of a *national holiday*? So okay, you want to disagree with 1 and 2, fine. Well the Ziu can pass "Days of National Celebration" then. Those aren't *national holidays.* And we can colloquially call them 'holidays' and that will be that. John, you don't have sole authority to enact holidays. You're expanding your authority here. As to whether this can be brought to the UC, Talossa does not explicitly bar advisory opinions. This was left unresolved with the Ben-Ard suo moto controversy. What I did submit to the Cort is that, among common-law countries, the ability varies. The US and Australia prohibit (although Florida and Arizona and some other states allow them but limited to how others do). Canada allows referrals from the PM, the UK from the Government, India from the President, etc. The US has adopted a form of this with "certified questions." That's the ability of a federal court to refer a question to a State's highest court to offer an advisory opinion on a State law. Ultimately, because the issue of advisory opinions and certified questions is unresolved in Talossan law, as the request of the PM, I will ask the Cort for review. John, I will send you the petition before filing for you to review and decide if you'd like to retain counsel. Any lawyer of your choosing will rightfully be appointed Deputy A-G to defend the Crown. Or you can defend the Crown. I think I'm being fair. (I did a number of edits from my phone last night to this post, but Proboards crashed when I hit update. I'm trying to add them now.) John, my question to you--there seems to be a lot of workarounds here even if you disagree with the foregoing. I honestly don't know where the Cort would come out on whether this is a live case or controversy and, if not, whether it will issue an advisory opinion/certified question. My proposition to you, however, is simple--even if you maintain that only you can declare national holidays, do you really take that to mean "public holidays" and "government holidays" even though we never really define what either of those mean by law? To the extent that the Ziu can simply make up a new name and pass it anyway, is this really a battle we want to play out in Cort and potentially provoke what some would frame as a constitutional crisis? I'm not trying to dissuade you from your overall opinion or use a Cort battle to relinquish your authority, what I'm saying is, given that it's potentially so easy for the Ziu to get around the *national holiday* thing, is this really a hill you want to fight on? |
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125 
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on May 23, 2019 3:43:22 GMT -6
With respect to 53RZ5, I draw the Ziu's attention to the clause, "8.7.1.4. Each presiding officer may not share the information with anyone not entitled to the information." We seem to be establishing, by statute, a sort of "classified information" — an exception to the Organic protection of free speech — but the only exception recognized in the OrgLaw is libel ("every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the libelous abuse of that right"). I'm not sure this is wrong, or even inOrganic, but it has something of that flavour to it. Perhaps this should say something like "The presiding officer shall promise not to share the information ..." Before deciding what to do here, I welcome input. — John R It's essentially the same sentence as in the preexisting provincial clause; since you'd be suggesting that sharing personal data is protected by free speech, the following clauses *could* also be inOrganic:
Vetoing this bill would set a very bad precedent, where the right to privacy of Talossans would essentially be rendered partially inOrganic. I'm afraid that I would be forced to look at an override in such a case. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2019 4:26:10 GMT -6
The basis for a suit is whether 41RZ6 is inOrganic or not. The King thinks it is. Probably best to find out whether he's right if we are going to attempt to repropose RZ4 (spoiler: we are). Eh, unfortunately the Cort doesn't issue advisory opinions (or isn't supposed to, anyway). The Cort exists to "try persons for all offences under law, such as a person doing something he should not, or not doing something he should" (Org.XVI.10). In the course of doing that, the Cort may indeed "as part of its written decision" call out problems in the law or issue injunctions to stop inorganic laws from being enforced. "We have a question" shouldn't be the basis for a suit. I do not like this new approach that started with Luc's petition in 2015... the Cort should not be acting as a legislative body. The A-X exists for the Government's legal advice. Everything that goes to Cort should have a cause of action. If a "suit" that just asks for guidance is brought, I hope that the standing for the suit is vigorously challenged. |
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 23, 2019 6:48:08 GMT -6
The basis for a suit is whether 41RZ6 is inOrganic or not. The King thinks it is. Probably best to find out whether he's right if we are going to attempt to repropose RZ4 (spoiler: we are). Eh, unfortunately the Cort doesn't issue advisory opinions (or isn't supposed to, anyway). The Cort exists to "try persons for all offences under law, such as a person doing something he should not, or not doing something he should" (Org.XVI.10). In the course of doing that, the Cort may indeed "as part of its written decision" call out problems in the law or issue injunctions to stop inorganic laws from being enforced. "We have a question" shouldn't be the basis for a suit. I do not like this new approach that started with Luc's petition in 2015... the Cort should not be acting as a legislative body. The A-X exists for the Government's legal advice. Everything that goes to Cort should have a cause of action. If a "suit" that just asks for guidance is brought, I hope that the standing for the suit is vigorously challenged. Unfortunately, we have no case or controversy clause in our Organic Law. This issue came up during the Ben-Ard suo moto action and was never properly resolved. There is stronger tradition in common-law countries for certified questions (e.g. certified questions in the US from Federal to State Court; Florida; Arizona; Canada; United Kingdom, India), than a total ban (e.g. United States, Australia). |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2019 7:38:09 GMT -6
That's a fair point, and I don't think it's entirely clear-cut. But I would argue that the controlling authority here is overwhelmingly going to be the OrgLaw, which has no provisions for certified questions or the like. I feel very strongly about this point for both legal and practical reasons. The latter is that there is a substantial risk of the Cort being pushed into the legislative process if the government can pose questions like this at will. It also inclines people towards that route, rather than reasoning it out and coming to an agreement.
It took like two replies before people started invoking the Cort and disparaging the character of others by presuming bad motivation... how about a thorough conversation by reasonable people, first, folks? Reasonable people can disagree on difficult issues, and they should be able to chat about it and consider it before charging into legal action.
This is a deliberative body, so let's continue to deliberate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 23, 2019 8:38:58 GMT -6
You and I don't disagree regarding cases or controversies. Although I've warmed up to certain types of certified questions, under certain conditions, being permissible.
I do intend to follow the Government's instruction to petition the Cort. I will, as I stated, provide John the unfiled petition in advance for him to review and potentially retain counsel. If that turns out to be you, I have no issue with appointing you Special Counsel to argue for John. But he may want another lawyer so that's up to him.
|
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on May 23, 2019 9:14:22 GMT -6
Eh, unfortunately the Cort doesn't issue advisory opinions (or isn't supposed to, anyway). I'm about 85% sure that the Cort has, in fact, issued advisory opinions, and I'm absolutely sure there's no rule against it. The biggest issue would be that the Cort tends to be so non-functional that timely advisory opinions are unlikely. |
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 23, 2019 9:53:37 GMT -6
Eh, unfortunately the Cort doesn't issue advisory opinions (or isn't supposed to, anyway). I'm about 85% sure that the Cort has, in fact, issued advisory opinions, and I'm absolutely sure there's no rule against it. The biggest issue would be that the Cort tends to be so non-functional that timely advisory opinions are unlikely. It has to some extent. It's been highly controversial recently. There's no rule against or for it. Under Anglo-American tradition, it's either prohibited or heavily restricted, but generally more times out of not, it's the "permitted but heavily restricted" type. I agree that the Cort has a serious issue of not timely issuing decisions. Hence why I think we need to reform the judiciary. |
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 23, 2019 11:14:43 GMT -6
I made some edits to my response to John above. Proboards crashed last night while I was editing, so I tried my best to replicate my thoughts from 13 hours ago with those edits.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on May 23, 2019 11:24:55 GMT -6
With respect to 53RZ5, I draw the Ziu's attention to the clause, "8.7.1.4. Each presiding officer may not share the information with anyone not entitled to the information." We seem to be establishing, by statute, a sort of "classified information" — an exception to the Organic protection of free speech — but the only exception recognized in the OrgLaw is libel ("every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the libelous abuse of that right"). I'm not sure this is wrong, or even inOrganic, but it has something of that flavour to it. Perhaps this should say something like "The presiding officer shall promise not to share the information ..." Before deciding what to do here, I welcome input. — John R It's essentially the same sentence as in the preexisting provincial clause; since you'd be suggesting that sharing personal data is protected by free speech, the following clauses *could* also be inOrganic:
Vetoing this bill would set a very bad precedent, where the right to privacy of Talossans would essentially be rendered partially inOrganic. I'm afraid that I would be forced to look at an override in such a case. Thank you for your thoughts. Here's the sort of difficulty I'm picturing. In accordance with this Bill, Abe is given Bob's email address. Charlie later asks Abe whether he has Bob's address. Abe gives it to him. The Attorney General, or Bob, brings suit against Abe under 8.7.1.4 — Abe defends himself on the grounds that the Covenants guarantee him the right to say anything non-libellous. On the other hand, a government — even a government, like that of the United States or of Talossa, that takes Freedom of Speech quite seriously — can certainly classify information, and make its dissemination illegal. So the question is whether a citizen's contact information should be treated like military secrets. I'm not sure. — John R |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2019 11:47:03 GMT -6
Eh, unfortunately the Cort doesn't issue advisory opinions (or isn't supposed to, anyway). I'm about 85% sure that the Cort has, in fact, issued advisory opinions, and I'm absolutely sure there's no rule against it. The biggest issue would be that the Cort tends to be so non-functional that timely advisory opinions are unlikely. It has issued two to my knowledge, with considerable discord. |
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 23, 2019 15:32:54 GMT -6
Reasonable people can disagree on difficult issues, and they should be able to chat about it and consider it before charging into legal action. If His Maj wanted to "chat" about questions of Organicity, the time to do so was before refusing assent to a Bill which had overwhelming support from both Houses of the Ziu. He's entitled to throw his two bence into the Hopper at any time. |
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 23, 2019 15:58:16 GMT -6
Anyway, thought experiment here. If it were accepted that advisory opinions on whether a certain Act is inOrganic and thus inoperative are barred (and insha'llah they aren't, but we'll find out about that), the Organic Law clearly authorises injunctions. So someone who had standing could act for an injunction against the enforcement of any statutory law on the grounds of inOrganicity. So: who would have standing to question whether statutes enacting public holidays are Organic? The Minister of Culture?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2019 17:13:42 GMT -6
That is a great question, but asking for an injunction is, as I understand it, basically amounts to the same thing. Which makes sense, since it would have essentially the same result.
As I see it, there are several different ways this could arrive at the court in good order. We can override the veto and the king could sue, arguing that the Ziu has overstepped its legal authority and violated his own. In that instance, he would have a cause of action. Or really any citizen in the entire country could sue to have the bill struck down, thanks to our dumb Roman prosecution rules.
We could hypothetically sue right now over the veto, but I just don't think there's any grounds for such a suit, since the king can veto a bill for any reason. Whether or not he is right about the organicity of the bill is almost beside the point.
Alternatively, the government could do something related to holidays that would hypothetically infringe on the same rights that the king wishes to reserve for himself, and he or someone else could bring suit to have The provisions of law that allow for that government actions struck down.
Right now, I think the best thing is to continue to talk it out and see if we can bring the king around to our side, and if we cannot, pass the bill again. that would also be pretty orderly in the sense that there would be a natural timer on it. If we couldn't resolve the issue amicably either by him convincing us or us convincing him, before the end of the next Clark, then the next step would arrive of its own accord.
|
|
