The National Statutory Laws Cleanup Act

[Istefan Perþonest]

The National Statutory Laws Cleanup Act

WHEREAS, the Digest of the Laws includes a number of statutes that are outdated, superseded, in contradiction to the Organic Law, or simply not observed because they're obvious nonsense, and

WHEREAS, such acts include putting Robert Madison in charge of making stamps worth fifteen hundredths of a US cent, closing the polls because of the neighborhood former citizens lived in, putting party leader email addresses in a book no longer published, bypassing immigration bureaucracy that no longer exists, and similar things, and

WHEREAS, such things do not belong on the statute books even if they're perfectly appropriate bits of history to be recorded, now

THEREFORE we the Ziu, hereby repeal the following dozen acts:

1. Talossan Statute 6RC6 - The Postal Administration Act
2. Talossan Statute 6RC26 - Cosa Decision Making Process Act
3. Talossan Statute 6RC30 - Vote by Phone Act
4. Talossan Statute 7RC6 - The Debate Via the Clark Enabling Act
5. Talossan Statute 7RC14 - The Vote-By-Post Stabilization Act
6. Talossan Statute 8RC5 - An Act to Finally Put a Limit on How Many Bills You Can Submit
7. Talossan Statute 9RC12 - Bill Sensibility Act
8. Talossan Statute 16RC3 - It's Midnight in Talossa... Do You Know Where Your Voters Are?
9. Talossan Statute 23RZ33 - The Inclusion Of Information Act
10. Talossan Statute 29RZ8 - The Primary Intelligence Group Act
11. Talossan Statute 31RZ21 - THE LAW OF RETURN
12. Talossan Statute 32RZ4 - The Postmaster-General Establishment Act

FURTHERMORE, we the Ziu amend Talossan Statute 16RC11 - MCs are Responsible for Their Own Votes Act, the words “or to Undersecretary of State Madison” being stricken, and

FURTHERMORE, we the Ziu acknowledge that the Pôst Naziunál as an institution has already been rechartered as the Royal Bank and Post, and that the Royal Bank and Post as an institution is the same entity that was founded as Vudoe Post.

Uréu q'estadra sa: Istefan Perþonest (MC-CSPP)

[Brad Holmes]

I think we tried this not too long ago. I think it was defeated in favor of a non-omnibus version. Which hasn't been done yet.

Besides, what is your logic for removing each of these bills?

[Istefan Perþonest]

Mar 5, 2012 7:44:26 GMT -6 Brad Holmes said:

I think we tried this not too long ago. I think it was defeated in favor of a non-omnibus version. Which hasn't been done yet.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again?

Mar 5, 2012 7:44:26 GMT -6 Brad Holmes said:

Besides, what is your logic for removing each of these bills?

In specific:

1. 6RC6. With the existence of the Royal Bank & Post, we don't need a Pôst Naziunál run by Robert Madison limited to issuing stamps worth fifteen hundredths of a US cent.

2. 6RC26. Giving the King a vote to break ties in the Cosa is, under the current Organic Law, inorganic.

3. 6RC30. We don't need a law that makes Ben Madison "Eternal Deputy Secretary of State."

4. 7RC6. We don't do debates on the Clarks themselves or publish bills in them the month before they're up for a vote, we should bring the law in line with practice.

5. 7RC14. The formatting rules here are unnecessary, outdated, and not followed anyway.

6 & 7. 8RC5 and 9RC12. Limits on bills proposed by a party are unnecessary, regularly violated, and of questionable Organicity. Especially the follow-up where co-sponsoring a bill counts toward the limit.

8. 16RC3. In the era of the Internet, we don't need a 7:30 pm poll closing time to makes sure people can get out of Jahn's neighborhood before it's dark.

9. 23RZ33. Nobody publishes hardcopies of Ar Pats for new citizens anymore, and the political parties are all mentioned on the kingdom's website. Outdated, irrelevant.

10. 29RZ8. De facto repealed by the Cabinet Refinishing Act already, does Talossa need a Minister of Intelligence or a spy agency?

11. 31RZ21. This law allows one Berber a month to bypass difficult immigration procedures that no longer exist. If Berbers want to become Talossans, the current immigration regime is actually easier than the one contemplated by this bill, since it doesn't involve the Uppermost Cort in decisions.

12. 32RZ4. I'm reasonably certain that Mark Hamilton is no longer a citizen, which makes it kinda weird for him to be Postmaster General, especially since the Royal Bank & Post already has its own head (and so does the Pôst Naziunál).

[Ceváglh Scurznicol]

Wouldn’t it be better to propose twelve bills each repealing a law?

As for #11, if only Colonel Qaddafi had known about this law! He could have disguised himself as a Berber.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Mar 5, 2012 18:18:48 GMT -6 Ceváglh Scurznicol said:

Wouldn’t it be better to propose twelve bills each repealing a law?

It could be done that way, of course. I figured it would be less spammy to propose one omnibus bill of what seemed to me to be the least controversial dead letters still listed as live, and if anyone objected to any of the specific line items during the time in the Hopper, cut those lines out. One coarse winnowing, which could later be followed up by detailed efforts.

[Hooligan]

Are all of these bills categorised as "In-Force"? Given the fact that so many of them predate the ratification of OrgLaw, I would be surprised if they are still "In-Force". Also, any subsequent acts (such as Cabinet Refinishing, mentioned above) should have caused any prior conflicting acts to be marked "Repealed". Is this simply a failing of the Law Library maintainers (The Scribe of Abbavilla, but not the particular one in office now, certainly), in some cases?

Hool

[Istefan Perþonest]

Mar 13, 2012 20:07:38 GMT -6 Hooligan said:

Are all of these bills categorised as "In-Force"?

Yes, every single one listed is from the list of laws in force (this list).

It is, of course, possible that a number of them are so marked by error, but formal repeal will certainly eliminate any ambiguity about their correct status. Are there really any that anyone wants to preserve? If there are, I'll delete those from this bill.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Maybe it would be a good idea to just winnow these down to the ones that are actually in force, and not just listed there in error.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Mar 13, 2012 21:54:07 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Maybe it would be a good idea to just winnow these down to the ones that are actually in force, and not just listed there in error.

If the Scribe of Abbavilla (or some other volunteer) wants to go read through the full list of Acts of the Ziu to see if any of these acts were repealed, and make judgments as to which were invalidated by the OrgLaw without the Cort explicitly saying so, they are welcome to make that effort.

But I am not volunteering to do that labor when it's just as effective to get them off the list of acts-in-force by explicitly repealing them, with no need of extensive research.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Fair enough.

[Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN]

Mar 13, 2012 23:02:21 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

Mar 13, 2012 21:54:07 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Maybe it would be a good idea to just winnow these down to the ones that are actually in force, and not just listed there in error.

If the Scribe of Abbavilla (or some other volunteer) wants to go read through the full list of Acts of the Ziu to see if any of these acts were repealed, and make judgments as to which were invalidated by the OrgLaw without the Cort explicitly saying so, they are welcome to make that effort.

But I am not volunteering to do that labor when it's just as effective to get them off the list of acts-in-force by explicitly repealing them, with no need of extensive research.

A repeal is express; as when it is literally declared by a subsequent law or implied, when the new law contains provisions contrary to or irreconcilable with those of the former law.

Therefore, the above bills have, in my opinion, already been repealed by the Ziu, through an express repeal, whereby a statute specifically indicates that the former law shall be revoked and abrogated, or through an implied repeal, which arises when the later statute contains provisions that are so contrary or irreconcilable with those of the prior law that only one can remain in force. Thus, I do not think it is possible nor Organic, for the Ziu to posses the powers pass a Law repealing Acts that have already been repealed. It would be akin to deleting a file of your computer then writing a letter to yourself asking yourself to delete the already deleted file. In addition, it creates a unnecessary Law of questionable Organicity and creates a duplicate of Laws already on our books repealing said Laws/Acts.

Beside the legal complexities this Bill creates and the above points, I think there is no need for this Bill and instead it should be re-worded to a "Sense of the Ziu", in which the Ziu asks the Scribe and/or his appointed agent to look into determining if the above stated acts are in force and to classify them into their correct category. This would allow the Scribe to go through each Act, determine if they are still in force (if there are any questionable Acts he can refer them to Witt and we can thrash out if it is or isn't in force) and clean-up the Law books without adding another Law to duplicate what previous laws have already done.

Just my thoughts on the issue,

-- Litz

[Istefan Perþonest]

Mar 17, 2012 10:05:13 GMT -6 Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN said:

Therefore, the above bills have, in my opinion, already been repealed by the Ziu, through an express repeal, whereby a statute specifically indicates that the former law shall be revoked and abrogated, or through an implied repeal, which arises when the later statute contains provisions that are so contrary or irreconcilable with those of the prior law that only one can remain in force.

Talossa's Organic Law does not allow implied repeal. Article IX, Section 11 specifies, "If any bill seeks to amend, change, or repeal any Article of the Organic Law or any Law, the bill must specify exactly the Law(s) or Article(s), which it seeks to amend, change, or repeal."

So when the later statute contains provisions that are so contrary or irreconcilable with those of the prior law that only one can remain in force, and the later statute has not done what the Organic Law says it must do in order to amend/change/repeal the prior law, the prior law remains unamended/unchanged/unrepealed; the later statute is only in force insofar as it does not contradict the prior law.

This is, of course, the reverse of normal expectations created by the study of non-Talossan bodies of law. It is unfortunate that the Witt archives are lost; there was, if I am recalling correctly, an old Uppermost Cort case involving immigration law that turned specifically on this issue.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

Mar 13, 2012 23:02:21 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

If the Scribe of Abbavilla (or some other volunteer) wants to go read through the full list of Acts of the Ziu to see if any of these acts were repealed, and make judgments as to which were invalidated by the OrgLaw without the Cort explicitly saying so, they are welcome to make that effort.

Mar 17, 2012 10:05:13 GMT -6 Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN said:

...it should be re-worded to a "Sense of the Ziu", in which the Ziu asks the Scribe and/or his appointed agent to look into determining if the above stated acts are in force and to classify them into their correct category. This would allow the Scribe to go through each Act, determine if they are still in force (if there are any questionable Acts he can refer them to Witt and we can thrash out if it is or isn't in force) and clean-up the Law books without adding another Law to duplicate what previous laws have already done.

I have been scouring the laws in order to get acquainted with them and feel I might as well help with something productive while I'm at it. If it is so desired by the folks in charge, I would be happy to make detailed notes of any apparent contradictions I find and present them to the appropriate parties so that appropriate actions, if there be any actions deemed appropriate, could be taken. I would also volunteer to make notes of certain grammatical errors, such as the confounded double negative in Article V, Section 2 of the Organic Law.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Mar 19, 2012 11:48:23 GMT -6 Vitxalmour Conductour said:

I have been scouring the laws in order to get acquainted with them and feel I might as well help with something productive while I'm at it. If it is so desired by the folks in charge, I would be happy to make detailed notes of any apparent contradictions I find and present them to the appropriate parties so that appropriate actions, if there be any actions deemed appropriate, could be taken. I would also volunteer to make notes of certain grammatical errors, such as the confounded double negative in Article V, Section 2 of the Organic Law.

Finding contradictions would be useful.

However, what it will mostly do is emphasize the need for this law, because of the requirement for the later law to "specify exactly the Law(s) . . . which it seeks to amend, change, or repeal." Maybe some such specifications were overlooked, but, mostly, what contradictions will show are cases where a later law is inorganic because the earlier law was never specified as being amended, changed, or repealed.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

Mar 17, 2012 14:27:05 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

Mar 17, 2012 10:05:13 GMT -6 Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN said:

Therefore, the above bills have, in my opinion, already been repealed by the Ziu, through an express repeal, whereby a statute specifically indicates that the former law shall be revoked and abrogated, or through an implied repeal, which arises when the later statute contains provisions that are so contrary or irreconcilable with those of the prior law that only one can remain in force.

Talossa's Organic Law does not allow implied repeal. Article IX, Section 11 specifies, "If any bill seeks to amend, change, or repeal any Article of the Organic Law or any Law, the bill must specify exactly the Law(s) or Article(s), which it seeks to amend, change, or repeal."

So when the later statute contains provisions that are so contrary or irreconcilable with those of the prior law that only one can remain in force, and the later statute has not done what the Organic Law says it must do in order to amend/change/repeal the prior law, the prior law remains unamended/unchanged/unrepealed; the later statute is only in force insofar as it does not contradict the prior law.

This is, of course, the reverse of normal expectations created by the study of non-Talossan bodies of law. It is unfortunate that the Witt archives are lost; there was, if I am recalling correctly, an old Uppermost Cort case involving immigration law that turned specifically on this issue.

Article IX, Section 11 prohibits implied repeal by a bill, however Article XXI, Section 1 expressly states implied repeal when bills are contradicted by Organic Law. "The Organic Law is the supreme law of the land. Any national, provincial or territorial laws which violate its provisions are null and void."
This would apply to at least a couple of these by my reading, particularly 6RC26.