|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jul 31, 2015 12:06:04 GMT -6
The King has lost his grace ever since he rejected a ratified amendment. This thread is still as was before.
Otherwise, I concur with Ian.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jul 31, 2015 12:19:44 GMT -6
The King has lost his grace ever since he rejected a ratified amendment. This thread is still as was before. There was some exaggeration there I just don't believe I have ever spoken to him before.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Aug 15, 2015 4:15:45 GMT -6
The sponsor may then amend the bill, in which case it is considered a new amendment, or he may submit the original amendment to the next Clark.
Does this help? SIde observation (though not, alas, in the real world irrelevant): what happens should the sponsor, or one of the sponsors, die, or become otherwise unavailable between the discussion of the bill, and the King's (ahem - Monarch's) objections?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 15, 2015 6:15:43 GMT -6
The sponsor may then abandon the bill, amend the bill (in which case it is considered a new amendment), or submit the original amendment to the next Clark.
New change reflecting your concerns.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 16, 2015 8:13:33 GMT -6
I think you may want to include language giving the option for somebody else to pick up the failed bill, should the sponsor become unavailable. That is, I believe, what J. Tamorán was trying to tell you.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 16, 2015 8:17:32 GMT -6
I can't think of any solution that wouldn't have crazy-convoluted language. Maybe the solution here is to amend el Lexhatx to allow people to hand bills off to a new sponsor in general, and have it count as the original bill.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 16, 2015 9:43:35 GMT -6
Why not just: "Following a rejection [or whatever we call it in that bill], sponsorship may be assumed by any Member of the Ziu with the explicit or tacit approval of the original sponsor." ?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 16, 2015 12:03:13 GMT -6
The sponsor (or another MZ, with the tacit or explicit approval of the original sponsor) may then abandon the bill, amend the bill (in which case it is considered a new amendment), or submit the original bill to the next Clark.
How does that sound? This is my solution for amendments passed in the last Cosa term. Improvements to the language are heartily welcomed
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 16, 2015 15:52:04 GMT -6
I don't like parentheses in texts of law. How about this:
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 16, 2015 16:50:33 GMT -6
Nothing should be tacit in matters this serious, imo. Make it the explicit approval... no reason to do otherwise, I think, and tacit approval is dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Aug 16, 2015 17:38:40 GMT -6
Consent to take the bill up should be explicit, unless we investigate the possibility of allowing any of the sponsors of the amendment to take it up. That way, it needn't be the primary sponsor who takes it up, but anyone whose name is on the original bill.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 16, 2015 18:13:45 GMT -6
Well, the idea for the need of a tacit approval is that the original proposer (OP) goes AWOL. What then? In that case, somebody else should be able to continue where the OP left off, and not have to go through the whole ordeal again.
|
|
|
Post by Françal Ian Lux on Aug 16, 2015 18:42:36 GMT -6
Well, the idea for the need of a tacit approval is that the original proposer (OP) goes AWOL. What then? In that case, somebody else should be able to continue where the OP left off, and not have to go through the whole ordeal again. I agree. There should be a safety net
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 16, 2015 19:15:15 GMT -6
What would "tactic approval" be? Can you give me an example?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Aug 16, 2015 21:52:12 GMT -6
I don't like the idea of the King being able to completely overrule both the Ziu and the people, no matter how mundane the issue is The King does have a point, though. The Ziu and a majority of the people don't always get what they want, because written constitutions are supposed to be antimajoritarian to some extent. And one way the OrgLaw antimajoritarian is in preserving checks and balances by allowing one institution to block attempts by other institutions to undermine it. For example, even if the Ziu votes unanimously to abolish Vuode, and an amendment to that effect is supported in a referendum by every single citizen outside of Vuode, the amendment will fail and Vuode will survive unless a majority of its citizens agree to the amendment. I can't think of any solution that wouldn't have crazy-convoluted language. Maybe the solution here is to amend el Lexhatx to allow people to hand bills off to a new sponsor in general, and have it count as the original bill. I agree that a solution to sponsorship problems may be better suited for el Lexhatx. I think the Organic Law already has too many petty administrative details about things like the process of sponsoring legislation that in other countries aren't even statutory law, much less spelled out in the constitution. They're just part of the legislature's internal rules. Setting aside the broader issue discussed above, I think I'd rewrite the proposed section 2 to say something like this:
|
|