The I Can Count to Ten Act

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

WHEREAS 49RZ21 did away with Lexh.E.10.; and,
WHEREAS this is all good, and well, but 49RZ21 forgot to direct the Scribe of Abbavilla to renumber the subsequent sections accordingly; and,
WHEREAS this could be very, very confusing for absolutely anyone; and,
WHEREAS jurisprudence is already confusing enough as it is; now,

THEREFORE be it enacted by the Ziu that, starting from Lexh.E.11, the sections in Title E be renumbered accordingly to ensure continuity in the numbering, and to compensate for the gap that the repeal of section E.10. by 49RZ21 has caused.

Uréu q’estadra så:

Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac'hlerglünä da Lhiun (Scribe of Abbavilla)

[Ian Plätschisch]

Oops. I thought sections got renumbered automatically.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Apr 16, 2017 19:51:47 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Oops. I thought sections got renumbered automatically.

They do not, because there are two possibilities:

Either, one preserves the original numbering (this may be useful for future reference in jurisprudence, for lawyers, and judges, and Justices to understand why the law does this, and not that) with a reference in the deleted space to the former existence of a law there; or, one asks the Scribe to renumber the subsequent sections accordingly.

The problem is that the Scribery cannot go off renumbering Sections on its own, because that would be an illegal tampering with legal records.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

(Ahem - polite cough from the sidelines)

There is a method of avoiding ALL of these renumbering problems, which is never to renumber anything. Ever.

Bill and subsections of bills receive numbers and numbers in the sub-headings, and so on, upon being adopted. Thereafter these numbers are fixed, and all references are to - and must be to - these original numberings. The only change to an existing section/subsection is to prefix it with a statement saying something of the form "This section nnn.nn.nn has been deleted as of date dddd." or "This section xxx.xx.xx.xx has been deleted and replaced by nnn.xxx.yyy as of date dddd". No renumbering is then required, and no renumbering is permitted.

To get the current text of any bill you go to the *first*(master) copy of it, and follow the links forward. If there are any cross-references between bills/acts (etc.) then those cross references must specify the date upon which the cross-reference was made, in order that we know to what exactly we are referring to. If this chain becomes too tangled to be followed easily, then a larger section can be marked as deleted, pointing forward to a (larger sized) replacement, and so on.

If you never have to renumber anything, then you will never get the numbers wrong. AND you have a built-in history of the way in which any piece of legislation changes over time.

... but that's just me moaning again. Sigh.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I will Clark this in the second Clark. Any objections?

This bill is hereby withdrawn from the Hopper. The Scribery has adopted new means of reconciling such gaps by means of Scribal notes on the margin.