Scribery Sweeping Powers Act

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

WHEREAS minor orthographical errors in proposed bills always happen, and are not always caught in time; and,

WHEREAS nobody wants to draw up a bill just to fix tiny orthographical errors, so that they just remain as such in our bodies of law; and,

WHEREAS the law currently allows for Scribes to propose changes to laws only during them being in the Clark, and at least seven days before voting upon it is finalised, which is not feasible; and,

WHEREAS we want our bodies of law to look and be consistent; now

THEREFORE be it enacted by the Ziu that Title C, Section 1, Subsection 2, Subsubsection 3 of the Lexhatx (Lexh.C.1.2.3.) and onward, which currently reads:

1.2.3 If the Scribe, or their deputy(s), finds an error in the formatting, grammar, or spelling of a bill which is currently in the Clark, or is alerted of same, they shall work with the sponsor of the bill to fix said error(s). (48RZ22)

1.2.3.1 The Scribe, or their deputy(s), shall publicize any proposed changes to a bill, with the approval of the author. The changes are deemed to have been implemented after they have been public for seven days, unless the changes are disallowed by the conditions of C.1.2.3.2 (48RZ22)

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 a bill, the changes cannot be implemented. (48RZ22)

1.2.3.3 (48RZ22)

1.2.3.4 (48RZ22)

shall forthwith be replaced with the following text, and thus read as follows:

1.2.3. The Scribe of Abbavilla is tasked with maintaining uniform, and consistent Bodies of Law as to their orthography, and typography. To achieve this, the Scribe is empowered to unilaterally:

1.2.3.1. change any instances of the letters ‘a’ or ‘â’ (A with Circumflex) in feminine nouns or feminine adjectives of Talossan origin, or words derived from such feminine Talossan nouns or adjectives, to the letter ‘ă’ (A with Breve),

1.2.3.2. change any instances of U.S. American orthography found within a statute to reflect the British orthographical standard, such that, e.g. the word ‘misdemeanor’ is respelt as ‘misdemeanour’,

1.2.3.3. change any instances of quotations that use the ambidextrous single quote, also known as typewriter single quote ('), with curved single quotation marks (‘…’),

1.2.3.4. change any instances of quotations that use the ambidextrous double quote, also known as the typewriter double quote ("), with curved double quotation marks (“…”),

1.2.3.5. rectify any obvious orthographical or typographical errors, if these do not change the sense of the word in question.

Uréu q’estadra så:
Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac'hlerglünä da Lhiun (Scribe of Abbavilla)

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Again, I rise, for similar reasons discussed elsewhere, to say that I intend to vote no on this measure. While I appreciate you're trying to streamline a process, it is no more the Scribe of Abbavilla acts a sort of clerk to the Ziu, and in a sense, a sort of librarian, and it is no more the job of the library to edit the books they shelve than it is the scribe to edit the law that has been passed. 

Further, while I appreciate this measure seeks to limit the authority and identifying a strict convention adherence, at least when it comes to the Talossan language, for unilateral changes, I cannot say I am fully in agreement with permitting the English changes. Although not my desire, we are supposed to use British English in Talossa, it is still the MC's or Senators choice, and I shan't empower the Scribe to override that choice. Further, and again, I concede that the good proponent of this measure does seek to narrow their ability to make unilateral changes, but what is missed here is the intentional typo, or the very choice spelling to convey a point, or, to put another way, the use of language to achieve the measure one desires without the parameters of someone ex post facto changing what was enacted merely because they perceived a typographical or orthographical error. 

I could, to some extent, explore the idea of bestowing some authority on the Scribe of Abbaville, if they so desire to transition from the role of library to that of editor, to, a they notice potential typos that exist in law, have the power to draft a once a Cosâ bill that would fix all those areas identified as requiring remedy with the ability to submit the bill to the Ziu for a passage by acclamation, and unless one MC or Senator speaks up, the fixes are to said to be passed by acclamation, but upon the protest of no less than one MC or Senator, said bill must go through the same process as any other bill. 

Such a bill, having the awesome ability to be passed without a vote actually occurring, must contain the reason for fixing the alleged typo. If those are the circumstances proposed, one where the Ziu maintains oversight, where the author can protest a change, and one where we can establish a legislative history that can be followed, I would be more inclined to vote in the affirmative. But until then, while I find what is being proposed admirable and efficient, as a matter of procedure and to protect the authority of the Ziu, I cannot support this act. 

[Viteu Marcianüs]

And I do apologize for commenting so late on both of these bills. I realize they're both Clarked at the moment. Nevertheless, I will vote no.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Sweeping powers are just that - sweeping powers. They wipe away group decision; they permit (at first) single, undiscussed changes to be made without opposition; they change the very law that has been passed after discussion and acclamation. They are sweeping powers.

Such powers sweep away both what might be unintentional errors but also careful ambiguities, and (as my esteemed colleague herein has observed) intentional or subtle hints encoded in the agreed (non-)orthography. In allowing this - no matter what our good intentions - these powers sweep away freedom too. To start with, it is not much freedom - but remember how sand is created? Each wave takes not much from a rock - surely we can ignore that? But the next wave, and the next, and the next....

Freedom must be guarded everywhere, no matter how awkward and infuriating that guardianship may be.

We must not - we must never - grant sweeping powers.