The Nobody Feels Like Writing Acts Just to Fix Typos Act

[Ian Plätschisch]

WHEREAS There is currently no way to change a bill after it has been clarked, and

WHEREAS This is perfectly fine for the most part, except for when there are grammar/formatting errors in the bill which nobody notices until it has been clarked, and

WHEREAS This necessitates either the creation of another bill just to fix that error, or rejecting an otherwise fine bill, and

WHEREAS That seems ridiculous


THEREFORE Subsubsection C.1.2.3 is added to el Lexhatx which reads:

C.1.2.3 If the Scribe finds an error in the formatting, grammar, or spelling of a bill that has already been clarked, or alerted of same, he shall work with the sponsor of the bill to fix said error(s).

C.1.2.3.1 The Scribe shall publicize any proposed changes to a bill, and said changes may only be implemented after they have been public for seven days

C.1.2.3.2 If, before the proposed changes are implemented, a petition of MCs representing at least 1/3 of the seats in the Cosa, or a petition of at least 1/3 of the Senators, goes before the Scribe in protest of the proposed changes to the bill, the Scribe may not implement the changes.

C.1.2.3.3 If a disagreement arises over the interpretation of a law that was amended though this process, the language originally enacted by the Ziu is superior and shall be used in interpretation

C.1.2.3.4 The Scribe shall keep a record of the original language of bills that were amended in this way for use according to C.1.2.3.3

Uréu q'estadra så
Ian Plätschisch (MC-MRPT)

[Françal Ian Lux]

I fancy the idea, don't get me wrong, but why not encourage bill makers to do it the correct way before submitting it?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

The Scribe used to have the power to edit laws, until the Circumscribe the Scribe Act was passed about two years ago. For background, you may wish to read the Hopper thread for that bill. I'm still inclined to think that every jot and tittle of the law should be approved by the Ziu, and it's the Ziu's responsibility to get things right or fix them.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Well, nobody's perfect...

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 14, 2015 20:17:32 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

The Scribe used to have the power to edit laws, until the Circumscribe the Scribe Act was passed about two years ago. For background, you may wish to read the Hopper thread for that bill. I'm still inclined to think that every jot and tittle of the law should be approved by the Ziu, and it's the Ziu's responsibility to get things right or fix them.

Interesting read.

I included provisions that protect against this power being abused, and the Scribe does not get the power to fix past acts.

While I agree that legislators should take care to write and format clearly, it is a burden on everyone if our laws are poorly formatted and have typos.  Since, as the title of my bill points out, bills that only fix typos are no fun, this bill would encourage more fixes than would occur if a new bill had to be passed to fix said issues.

Also, the Ziu gets to look at the changes before they become law.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Nobody's perfect, but there's no reason a bill under consideration - like the one this bill is designed to fix - can't be sent back the next month with the changes actually fixed. If a bill is a serious emergency, then pass it and we can fix the errors later. If it's not, fix the errors and then pass it. It seems to me that if an Organic amendment is important enough to be passed, we can take an extra month and do it right. If you're passing a change to the country's highest law in such haste that you you're fixing errors on the fly while it's being passed, then that seems like a problem to me.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

I do acknowledge that this proposal has more safeguards than the law before the Circumscribe the Scribe Act. I'll think about it.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I endorse this bill. In general, the principle of "the Ziu must ensure perfect grammar and meaning in every bill it passes" is used as a stick so that those of us talented in legal English can shame and disregard well-meaning but non-native Anglophones who attempt to introduce legislation. It's a weapon in the hands of conservatives, in other words, keeping the legislative power effectively in their own hands.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Or maybe the guy who spent months codifying the law to make it accessible to everyone just doesn't relIsh the thought of it filling with errors, ambiguities, and problems.

Our laws are in English. They should be in clear and correct and unambiguous English, because they have actual meaning and people actually use and obey them.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jul 14, 2015 22:21:34 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

It's a weapon in the hands of conservatives, in other words, keeping the legislative power effectively in their own hands.

It does seem pretty sneaky and underhanded, doesn't it: wanting to keep the legislative power in the hands of the legislature?

You voted for the Circumscribe the Scribe Act, right?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 14, 2015 23:37:10 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Or maybe the guy who spent months codifying the law to make it accessible to everyone just doesn't relIsh the thought of it filling with errors, ambiguities, and problems.

Our laws are in English. They should be in clear and correct and unambiguous English, because they have actual meaning and people actually use and obey them.

This is exactly why we should have these provisions, to correct typos and formatting errors before they become part of the law code.

[Françal Ian Lux]

This sounds good. Who's the Scribe by the way?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jul 15, 2015 8:13:00 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jul 14, 2015 23:37:10 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Or maybe the guy who spent months codifying the law to make it accessible to everyone just doesn't relIsh the thought of it filling with errors, ambiguities, and problems.

Our laws are in English. They should be in clear and correct and unambiguous English, because they have actual meaning and people actually use and obey them.

This is exactly why we should have these provisions, to correct typos and formatting errors before they become part of the law code.

It's interesting, though, that this bill would allow the sponsor to change a bill after it has received votes, as long as he or she has the approval of the SoS. And since the SoS may submit bills, this essentially means that the SoS could submit a bill about how the Ziu likes monkeys, then change it to a bill voting Chancery employees a monetary stipend, right before the voting is up. He could verify that his bill hadn't changed significantly, and there'd be no time for a petition to stop him. The Scribe would have to note the changes then, so it could only be actually added to the law a week after passage.

So this bill opens us up to corruption, as long as you are or have the cooperation of the SoS (not that he would do that, but he won't be SoS forever). If you're going to propose this, you should probably fix that loophole.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Jul 15, 2015 9:27:39 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Jul 15, 2015 8:13:00 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

This is exactly why we should have these provisions, to correct typos and formatting errors before they become part of the law code.

It's interesting, though, that this bill would allow the sponsor to change a bill after it has received votes, as long as he or she has the approval of the SoS. And since the SoS may submit bills, this essentially means that the SoS could submit a bill about how the Ziu likes monkeys, then change it to a bill voting Chancery employees a monetary stipend, right before the voting is up. He could verify that his bill hadn't changed significantly, and there'd be no time for a petition to stop him. The Scribe would have to note the changes then, so it could only be actually added to the law a week after passage.

So this bill opens us up to corruption, as long as you are or have the cooperation of the SoS (not that he would do that, but he won't be SoS forever). If you're going to propose this, you should probably fix that loophole.

Maybe the Túischac’h and Mençéi need to make public, and together approve any changes, which the Scribe intends on making?
We could call this group the “Triumscribate”?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jul 14, 2015 19:10:39 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

H.14.1  If typos, errors in formatting, or grammatical errors are found in a bill that has already been clarked, the sponsor of said bill may work with the Scribe of Abbaville to fix the error(s) before the Scribe transcribes the bill into Law.  However, the Secretary of State must verify that the changes do not affect the content of the bill, otherwise the changes may not be made.

H.14.1.1 The Scribe of Abbaville must make public the changes to the bill at least one week before transcribing the bill into Law.

Point of clarification: what do you mean by "transcribes the bill into Law" and "transcribing the bill into Law"? I ask because, under the OrgLaw, the Scribe has no role in the actual lawmaking process. It's a statutory position responsible for maintaining and publishing the laws, but publication by the Scribe isn't what makes a law a law. It seems to me that you would need to amend the OrgLaw for anything the Scribe does to affect the actual text of the law (as opposed to the appearance of the law as published by the Scribery).