|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2008 21:09:28 GMT -6
I am inclined to follow His Majesty's recommendation. This would allow us to change the name of Mussolini while being able to leave the Organic Law untouched. Whenever such a change is possible, why not go for it? No sense in changing OrgLaw when we don't need to. Otherwise we'll not even recognize it after a while.
|
|
EM Vürinalt
Citizen since 12-20-2007
Parletz, am?c, en entrez
Posts: 979
|
Post by EM Vürinalt on Mar 25, 2008 6:34:07 GMT -6
This makes sense. It would allow us to change the name on the board and stuff officially immidiately. However, I do see a problem in the future with this "interpreting Mussolini to be Benito." I view this as more of a transitional thing, but I think in the future to avoid confusion (and with enough new people, new laws, etc.) we will have to change to OrgLaw and StatLaw. Yet, I think the nation's needs today does not mandate this change, so I'm all for the interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 25, 2008 13:02:41 GMT -6
We can't simply decide which interpretation we like and make that one the right one. Let us have a legal opinion before we proceed, to give us some advice.
Personally, I don't see how it can be organic. If we can make one mass change without bothering to specify the laws thus changed, then essentially that provision is neutralized. I can write a law on immigration, declare that it changes all the others as needed, and soon we have a huge mess.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2008 19:14:09 GMT -6
His Majesty's recommendation does not appear to be inorganic, Lt. Davis.
Simply put because it does not really amend anything. It merely states that the name, but not the identity of Mussolini is changed.
The difference between the example of writing your own law on immigration and having it change everything as needed is the following:
The move to change the name of Mussolini was brought about by a Provincial resolution passed by the Corporative Chamber of Mussolini. Within the Province, the change has already occurred and is law.
The bill proposed merely needs to achieve national approval and direct the Witt Administrator to change the name of our boards, as well as applicable changes on the website.
By stating that Benito is Mussolini and Mussolini is Benito we are simply saying that wherever "Mussolini" is written in the Statutory Law or Organic Law, it applies to Benito, because though the name has changed, the identity of the province is still the same. Essentially, it is like us saying "I legally changed my name to Chaim Bobowitz, but my social security number is the same." If we have a statutory law on the books that states that Mussolini is now known as Benito, there really is no need to change the Organic Law. The bill would not conflict with the Organic Law in any way, so what's the problem?
And lastly, though King John did resign from the Bar upon ascending the throne, I imagine his expertise is intact, so I do consider this legal advice, not simply "deciding which interpretation I like better"
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Mar 25, 2008 19:20:07 GMT -6
Besides being confusing... I must agree with Senator Davis here. If the Statutory law says "you're in Mussolini Province" and we take that to mean "Benito Province"... that's kind of hard to understand. Plus, isn't it the cort's job to interpret the law?
If this law passes (without the actually changes to the law), I will seriously consider taking this up in cort.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2008 19:27:34 GMT -6
The point is that no laws are being changed. This law does not change the manner in which other laws are executed. The OrgLaw contains one reference to Mussolini, and that is merely the rotation of Senators.
The Statutory Law has one mention of Mussolini, in the People to Provinces Act. If you pass another bill that says "Mussolini is now known as Benito" it does not change the OrgLaw mention of Mussolini or the People to Provinces Act, all it does is say "Mussolini is now known as Benito."
That's it, it serves just as a court order effecting a person's name change does in US Court, a document that says "This is now known as that" no laws are being changed. Why are we amending Organic Law if we are not even changing a law? That is like amending Organic Law to insert a comma. (where such punctuation would not change the meaning or interpretation of the Law)
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Mar 25, 2008 19:29:04 GMT -6
Waitaminute there. Now... wouldn't that be a definition? Aren't you REDEFINING Mussolini? I thought definitions belonged in a dictionary. No? At least... that's what the people on the last clark thought.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2008 19:30:43 GMT -6
No you are not, you are not redefining Mussolini. You are renaming Mussolini. As King John said, Mussolini would be known as Benito but that in no way changed the identity of the Province.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Mar 25, 2008 19:31:44 GMT -6
okay then... what's wrong with changing the laws? If Musso was known as Benito, doesn't it make sense to change the laws? Otherwise you'll have a bunch of citizens stuck in pergatory.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2008 19:36:29 GMT -6
*blinks* I think I may need to slap you.....
Because you are not "redefining" Mussolini, the applicable laws remain completely valid. The passage of another law that affects the nomenclature of Mussolini simply provides us legal justification to send people who would otherwise be sent to Mussolini over to Benito, since the proposed law states that Benito and Mussolini are the same place.
I would argue, instead, that mandating a change to Organic Law would be inorganic. The people of a province are not prevented from renaming their province, and the Organic Law and no time specifies that the provincial names are set in stone. Since an amendment to the OrgLaw must be put up for a referendum, that means that a whole bunch of people could deny the people of Mussolini the right to choose their name.
A name which, is already law within the Province, by the way, and does not conflict with any Statutory Law or Organic Law as neither have a rule establishing that we cannot make the change ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Mar 25, 2008 19:39:54 GMT -6
Everyone gets that feeling sometimes Hmm... very well. I guess the OrgLaw shouldn't be changed. However, I still think for anti-confusing-dumb-people-like-me purposes, you should change the StatLaw
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2008 19:45:11 GMT -6
meh
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 25, 2008 19:48:15 GMT -6
*blinks* I think I may need to slap you..... Wanna borrow my stick?
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Mar 25, 2008 20:53:34 GMT -6
I'll defend him, however much I may feel that way at times too.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 25, 2008 21:24:50 GMT -6
Just a couple musings, from my corner:
1. I think that the Mussolini / Benito residents should decide how this Bill is presented to the Clark, and the Nation. They can ask other's opinions, but ultimately if falls to them, and them only , as to how to progress.
2. I have always felt that the less we change, the less we alter, the less we fuss with stuff, the better. Brevity is the soul of Wit.
3. We all will know that "The Province Formerly Known as Mussolini" is/will be called "Benito". If you can't figure that out, then we need to cut backthe number of crayons in your box from 64 to 8.
4. King John is Wise. Cresti is Wise. You need to listen to them, because they have no vested interest in how this turns out. They will tell you exactly how they think things should go, without bias.
5. I want my stick back, when you are done with it.
|
|