[DISTAIN] Update: Committee for Organic and Statutory Reform

[Ian Plätschisch]

OFFICE OF THE DISTAIN

____________________________________________________________
Update on the Progress of the Committee for Organic and Statutory Reform

Azul fellow Talossans,

Over the course of the current term, the Committee for Organic and Statutory Reform has developed a new, streamlined Organic Law which makes the format of the law easier to follow and removes many provisions which are better suited to statute law.  The Committee is currently working on placing the provisions removed from the Organic Law into el Lexhatx.

Find the draft new Organic Law attached, as well as an annotated copy of the current Organic Law which provides a rationale for the Committee's changes.  As soon as the above additions are made to el Lexhatx, that will be publicly released as well.

Very few substantive changes have been made, and only in cases where substantive changes are necessary to clear up ambiguities.

Terps and questions are welcome.


Ian Plätschisch,
Distain


THIS POST IS ALWAYS UPDATED WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL.  POSTS ELSEWHERE IN THE THREAD MAY BE OUT OF DATE.

Attachments:

Annotated 1997 Organic Law.docx (56.95 KB)

The 2017 Organic Law.docx (38.13 KB)

[Glüc da Dhi]

Assuming the additions to the lexhatx are quite a big product and might take a while, can we see the proposed OrgLaw changes already?

Will the revised OrgLaw be presented as one bill or a series of amendments? (Personally I'm very much in favour of the latter option.)

[Ian Plätschisch]

I spoke to the rest of the Committee with regard to your first question, and we decided that we should release the draft new Organic Law immediately, so find it attached above.  Also find an annotated copy of the current Organic Law, which I created before writing the new draft in order to organize my thoughts.  Hopefully it provides the public with a rationale for our changes.

As to your second question, the new draft Organic Law is so entirely restructured that proposing it as a series of amendments would be fiendishly complicated if not impossible.

Note that the Committee believes the Declaration of Independence should be removed from the Organic Law and become a standalone document.


This version is no longer the most up-to-date.

Attachments:

The 2017 Organic Law.docx (37.37 KB)

Annotated 1997 Organic Law.docx (56.95 KB)

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

I have found one boo-boo in the new document: III, 6: "No senator shall never be required to vacate his place during his term of service, due to a change in the qualifications of Senators."

'No Senator shall never be required...', perhaps, should read, 'No Senator shall be required...'.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 31, 2017 18:22:57 GMT -6 Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h said:

I have found one boo-boo in the new document: III, 6: "No senator shall never be required to vacate his place during his term of service, due to a change in the qualifications of Senators."

'No Senator shall never be required...', perhaps, should read, 'No Senator shall be required...'.

That mistake was is in the current OrgLaw, from which I copy-pasted it into the new one, but good catch!

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Here are a few suggestions that stick out for me, will have to look over with more detail at a later time:

1. Within Article III, I disagree with the removal of the Mençei from OrgLaw. Clean it up, sure, but we can designate a President of the Senäts within OrgLaw.

2. Can we move the powers of the Ziu out of Article IX (of the draft) on Territorial Subdivisions and combine it with something else to create a Ziu section? Perhaps we could merge the Cosa and Senate sections, along with the powers of the Ziu or something.

3. Somewhere in the section on the Senäts it said a Senator vacates their seats plural, when it should be singular.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 31, 2017 19:08:32 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

Here are a few suggestions that stick out for me, will have to look over with more detail at a later time:

1. Within Article III, I disagree with the removal of the Mençei from OrgLaw. Clean it up, sure, but we can designate a President of the Senäts within OrgLaw.

I don't see the need for mentioning the Mençei in OrgLaw since the position has little more than ceremonial power.  I'd be happy to hear why you think differently though.

Can we move the powers of the Ziu out of Article IX (of the draft) on Territorial Subdivisions and combine it with something else to create a Ziu section? Perhaps we could merge the Cosa and Senate sections, along with the powers of the Ziu or something.

A "Ziu" section would be so long as to be unwieldy and overly complicated IMO.  Also, I think the powers of the Ziu section belongs in the Territorial Subdivisions article, because another section in that article says that the provinces have all the power not specifically vested in the Ziu, so it makes sense to have both of these sections together in the same article.

Somewhere in the section on the Senäts it said a Senator vacates their seats plural, when it should be singular.

Thanks, good catch!

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Jul 31, 2017 20:19:42 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jul 31, 2017 19:08:32 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

Here are a few suggestions that stick out for me, will have to look over with more detail at a later time:

1. Within Article III, I disagree with the removal of the Mençei from OrgLaw. Clean it up, sure, but we can designate a President of the Senäts within OrgLaw.

I don't see the need for mentioning the Mençei in OrgLaw since the position has little more than ceremonial power.  I'd be happy to hear why you think differently though.

The Mençei has more than ceremonial power now, given that he is responsible for appointing a Senator to the EC. But beyond that, the Mençei has been more of a reliable ceremonial position as opposed to his counterpart in the Cosâ. I think it distinguishes the Senäts in a way, and I think it dignifies the position of being President of the highest body. I understand the need for OrgLaw reforms, but we don't necessarily have to cut every symbolic thing out; it's a lot different than including Fleetwood Mac's "Tusk" in our points of state, for instance.

Can we move the powers of the Ziu out of Article IX (of the draft) on Territorial Subdivisions and combine it with something else to create a Ziu section? Perhaps we could merge the Cosa and Senate sections, along with the powers of the Ziu or something.

A "Ziu" section would be so long as to be unwieldy and overly complicated IMO.  Also, I think the powers of the Ziu section belongs in the Territorial Subdivisions article, because another section in that article says that the provinces have all the power not specifically vested in the Ziu, so it makes sense to have both of these sections together in the same article.

Having the powers of the Ziu enumerated in our territorial subdivision section is exactly why I think it should be removed from it. I get why it would make sense to have a line stating "provinces have all the power not specifically vested", but it doesn't have to be in the same place. (Given the breadth of powers enumerated to the Ziu, though, one wonders if provinces have any powers at all.) Someone who is looking for legal information on the Ziu would not look first to the section on territorial subdivisions. Even without merging articles, which I do see could get overwhelming real fast, we could move the powers section to the section on legislation, then include a one line article in the territorial subdivisions section that says "Provinces shall have all powers not specifically vested in the King, Ziu, or Government" etc.

[Eðo Grischun]

Jul 31, 2017 18:22:57 GMT -6 Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h said:

I have found one boo-boo in the new document: III, 6: "No senator shall never be required to vacate his place during his term of service, due to a change in the qualifications of Senators."

'No Senator shall never be required...', perhaps, should read, 'No Senator shall be required...'.

I think it's meant to read 'No Senator shall EVER be required...'

[Viteu Marcianüs]

I don't really consider Talossa a federation, or is, at best, a de facto federation, holding similarities to an actual federacy but doesn't actually function as one. We're really a unitary state with nominal nods to federalism.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Here is an updated version which takes the above concerns into account, and makes some other minor changes:
-The typos mentioned have been fixed (and a few other small improvements to clarity and flow)
-The section listing national powers has been moved to the "legislation" section
-The Mencei is back in the OrgLaw
-A provision which keeps the 1997 OrgLaw in effect for three months after the ratification of this Organic Law, to provide time to update statute law.

I might make a few more changes as I think about how to further improve clarity and flow.  More suggestions are welcome.

This attachment is no longer the most up-to-date.

Attachments:

The 2017 Organic Law.docx (37.83 KB)

[Ian Plätschisch]

Here is an updated version which changed orthography after my consultation with SIGN

Attachments:

The 2017 Organic Law.docx (38.13 KB)