Therefore, these Orders are unnecessary, and serve only to make what is obvious explicit.
Once again, these orders make what is obvious explicit.
Defining what these Orders are, at best, simply says things that Conclave already does…
From my understanding, this is serving at the general crux of your argument.
Given that, what you find obvious now may not be obvious to others at the present nor obvious in future times. I think being more explicit will protect this interpretation when it comes to the Conclave exercising its power to enforce Orders; leaving it as an unofficial interpretation (which is what it is) could lead to legal challenges and issues down the line if someone unhappy with the Conclave using those Orders decides to challenge them on it. I’m personally not a fan of allowing that to happen.
Case in point, a lot of people stated their opinion that this Order was illegal, although it is the 5th type of Order which you say the Conclave should be able to enact through its own procedures (if I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying here, I apologize).
If we want this power to safely exist without a question of whether the power itself is allowable every time it is used, then it needs to be explicitly stated somewhere.
at worse, limits Conclave action.
And yes, that is the point. The power proposed in Section 12 is exceedingly broad - the Conclave could very well order a nation to have a red flag via an Order and then put them on trial for not doing so. When we’re giving a branch such a broad, abusable power, then it must follow we put as many reasonable limits as we can. Hence, the white list as stated in the Conclave Act - which, as you’ve implied, is generally a list of functions the court would need in its day to day basis. Any further type of Order, which would most likely be exceedingly rare, can still be made though via the Magisterium mechanism, so it isn’t strongly limiting the Conclave.