The Keep Making Sense Act

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

WHEREAS the Ziu has the responsibility to enact laws in the Kingdom of Talossa AND
WHEREAS the Scribe of AbbaVilla and the Secretary of State have the joint responsibility of managing said laws, either for initial publication in the clark or the Secretary of State website in the case of the secretary of State or in the repository of statutes in the case of the Scribe of AbbaVilla AND
WHEREAS 3 important laws, 31RZ5, The Making Sense Bill, 31RZ16, The Really Make Sense Act and 35RZ24, The Royal Household Cleaning Act give the authority to both offices to make cosmetic and grammatical changes to published laws AND
WHEREAS It is important that our canon of laws be easy to read via proper grammar and formatting AND
WHEEAS this Whereas is mispelled and that without those laws, only an amendment would allow to correct it AND
WHEREAS this authority has come to challenge on the very valid basis that laws should be in effect as adopted by the Ziu AND
WHEREAS several countries publish their laws in multiple languages, with one version of the languages having priority

THEREFORE the Ziu hereby:

- Repeals the Circumscribe the Scrive Act if it passes AND
- Directs both the Secretary of State (as per 31RZ16) and the Scribe of AbbaVilla (as per 35RZ24) to, from now on, either jointly or seperatly keep two official copies of each laws and statutes: an original copy as adopted by the Ziu, and, if applicable, a corrected or formatted version for easier display
- Declares that The Scribe and AbbaVilla and Secretary shall be allowed to publish the corrected version by default, but that at all times, the original version should be available for review from at least one official source
- Declares that the original version of the law takes precedence over the corrected copy in case of legal discrepancies.

Uréu q’estadra så: Marti-Pair Furxheir, MC RUMP

------------------

Please note that this bill is a personal initiative and is not supported or proposed by my party.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jul 25, 2013 4:37:00 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

THEREFORE the Ziu hereby:

- Repeals the Circumscribe the Scrive Act if it passes AND

How does one repeal a Law that has not passed?

I'm all for Talossan Time Travel and such, but one cannot preempt something that hasn't happened.

That Can I ask that we repeal "The Keep Making Sense Act" if it passes? If my law passes, and so does yours, does that mean the Circumscribe the Scrive Act is un-repealed?

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Then how do you specify in advance that you want your law to have priority over another on the clark? ( this is NOT a rhetorical question, if there is another formulation, I will use it!!)

The goal of that line is to avoid the Humprhey situation where there are 2 bills that clearly cannot both pass.

So, I am clearly saying: if you are in favor of the other bill, vote against mine, because mine would trump it.

I am avoiding the situation of both bills being adopted despite opposing objectives.

I could have put "If Circumscribe the Scrive Act passes, this act is automatically repealed", if I thought mine was less important.

This could have been the case if, for example, mine was a less controversial subset of the other one, and I was putting it in case the other one is rejected, so that part of it is kept.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jul 25, 2013 6:46:16 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Then how do you specify in advance that you want your law to have priority over another on the clark? ( this is NOT a rhetorical question, if there is another formulation, I will use it!!)

The goal of that line is to avoid the Humprhey situation where there are 2 bills that clearly cannot both pass.

So, I am clearly saying: if you are in favor of the other bill, vote against mine, because mine would trump it.

I am avoiding the situation of both bills being adopted despite opposing objectives.

I could have put "If Circumscribe the Scrive Act passes, this act is automatically repealed", if I thought mine was less important.

This could have been the case if, for example, mine was a less controversial subset of the other one, and I was putting it in case the other one is rejected, so that part of it is kept.

I would say that you can't specify one bill having precedence over any other bill. Each Bill is as important as any and every other Bill.

Because we have two competing Bills addressing the same concept, but with opposing objectives, I daresay one will be passed, and one won't.

IF the one you don't like passes, THEN you submit your Bill to have it repealed.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jul 25, 2013 7:01:36 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

I would say that you can't specify one bill having precedence over any other bill. Each Bill is as important as any and every other Bill.

Because we have two competing Bills addressing the same concept, but with opposing objectives, I daresay one will be passed, and one won't.

IF the one you don't like passes, THEN you submit your Bill to have it repealed.

Duly noted, thank!

Here is the updated bill:

---

WHEREAS the Ziu has the responsibility to enact laws in the Kingdom of Talossa AND
WHEREAS the Scribe of AbbaVilla and the Secretary of State have the joint responsibility of managing said laws, either for initial publication in the clark or the Secretary of State website in the case of the secretary of State or in the repository of statutes in the case of the Scribe of AbbaVilla AND
WHEREAS 3 important laws, 31RZ5, The Making Sense Bill, 31RZ16, The Really Make Sense Act and 35RZ24, The Royal Household Cleaning Act give the authority to both offices to make cosmetic and grammatical changes to published laws AND
WHEREAS It is important that our canon of laws be easy to read via proper grammar and formatting AND
WHEEAS this Whereas is mispelled and that without those laws, only an amendment would allow to correct it AND
WHEREAS this authority has come to challenge on the very valid basis that laws should be in effect as adopted by the Ziu AND
WHEREAS several countries publish their laws in multiple languages, with one version of the languages having priority

THEREFORE the Ziu hereby:

- Directs both the Secretary of State (as per 31RZ16) and the Scribe of AbbaVilla (as per 35RZ24) to, from now on, either jointly or seperatly keep two official copies of each laws and statutes: an original copy as adopted by the Ziu, and, if applicable, a corrected or formatted version for easier display
- Declares that The Scribe and AbbaVilla and Secretary shall be allowed to publish the corrected version by default, but that at all times, the original version should be available for review from at least one official source
- Declares that the original version of the law takes precedence over the corrected copy in case of legal discrepancies.

Uréu q’estadra så: Marti-Pair Furxheir, MC RUMP

------------------

Please note that this bill is a personal initiative and is not supported or proposed by my party.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

But doesn't this bill then conflict with Circumscribe the Scribe? What happens if they both pass, and the Scribe must both present laws without any edits and only as the Ziu passed them and present a copy of the laws with edits for grammar?

In the past, such conflict is either worked out by the bill sponsors, or the bills are competing party lines and receive according votes. In this case, neither seems possible, so you may have to wait until next Clark, if you're agreeable?

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

But that's the thing, I am proposing my bill as an alternative to Circumscribe the Scribe.

I don't want it to pass, and I don't want just to bicker. So, I am proposing an alternative to it which fits with the goal of Circumscribe the Scribe, without losing the ability to make the publication of laws easy to read.

That's why I wanted my law to ovverride Circumscribe the Scribe.

If both passes, then mine supercedes, but it also means that people knew that it would do that so they voted knowing full well that Circumscribe the Scribe would be rejected.

Someone might think:

- I don't like the status quo, I want the cort to have access to the original bill
- Circumscribe the Scribe is good, so I will vote for it
- Keep Making Sense is better, since it is a good compromise, so I will vote for it.
- If only 1 passes, I am fine with it
- If both pass, when Keep Making Sense will come into an act and thus, no dilemma

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

The whole dueling bills thing might be overcome by an amendment phase in our lawmaking process, don't you think?

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jul 25, 2013 8:57:03 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

But that's the thing, I am proposing my bill as an alternative to Circumscribe the Scribe.

I don't want it to pass, and I don't want just to bicker. So, I am proposing an alternative to it which fits with the goal of Circumscribe the Scribe, without losing the ability to make the publication of laws easy to read.

That's why I wanted my law to ovverride Circumscribe the Scribe.

If both passes, then mine supercedes, but it also means that people knew that it would do that so they voted knowing full well that Circumscribe the Scribe would be rejected.

Someone might think:

- I don't like the status quo, I want the cort to have access to the original bill
- Circumscribe the Scribe is good, so I will vote for it
- Keep Making Sense is better, since it is a good compromise, so I will vote for it.
- If only 1 passes, I am fine with it
- If both pass, when Keep Making Sense will come into an act and thus, no dilemma

What prevents the author of the "Circumscribe the Scribe" bill from adding a "Therefore:" that overrides this Bill, if this bill passes too?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Ordinarily, the Hopper serves in that capacity. But this is an example of one of those binary issues that can't really be resolved: either the Scribe can make grammatical changes or they can't. There might be some Gordian solution here or one of the sponsors might back down, but I can't think of any amendment that might suit to bring the two bills into concord.

At such times, the comity of the Ziu will ideally prevail, and votes on contradictory bills can take place over the course of two Clarks, in the order in which they're Hoppered (which usually justly has the "response" bill going second). That seems to me the easiest and best solution to these situations.

Actually, as formal leader of the Cosa, CCX, you could take the opportunity to establish such a procedure of civility as the norm, endorsing it!

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jul 25, 2013 9:06:41 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Ordinarily, the Hopper serves in that capacity. But this is an example of one of those binary issues that can't really be resolved: either the Scribe can make grammatical changes or they can't. There might be some Gordian solution here or one of the sponsors might back down, but I can't think of any amendment that might suit to bring the two bills into concord.

At such times, the comity of the Ziu will ideally prevail, and votes on contradictory bills can take place over the course of two Clarks, in the order in which they're Hoppered (which usually justly has the "response" bill going second). That seems to me the easiest and best solution to these situations.

Actually, as formal leader of the Cosa, CCX, you could take the opportunity to establish such a procedure of civility as the norm, endorsing it!

Just for a procedural question - could the Mençei also establish that procedure?

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Jul 25, 2013 9:06:41 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Ordinarily, the Hopper serves in that capacity. But this is an example of one of those binary issues that can't really be resolved: either the Scribe can make grammatical changes or they can't. There might be some Gordian solution here or one of the sponsors might back down, but I can't think of any amendment that might suit to bring the two bills into concord.

At such times, the comity of the Ziu will ideally prevail, and votes on contradictory bills can take place over the course of two Clarks, in the order in which they're Hoppered (which usually justly has the "response" bill going second). That seems to me the easiest and best solution to these situations.

Actually, as formal leader of the Cosa, CCX, you could take the opportunity to establish such a procedure of civility as the norm, endorsing it!

Very few people seemed to care about procedural civility last time I proposed it, so I'm not sure any such endorsement would help. In any case, I don't see how a bill can preempt the passing of another bill, and not only that but preemptively repeal it. This is especially so when you consider that for a bill to pass one needs more votes for it than against, so it's unlikely that the bill preemptively repealing the first would pass.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jul 25, 2013 9:12:42 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

In any case, I don't see how a bill can preempt the passing of another bill, and not only that but preemptively repeal it. This is especially so when you consider that for a bill to pass one needs more votes for it than against, so it's unlikely that the bill preemptively repealing the first would pass.

I agree (obviously).

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jul 25, 2013 9:09:45 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

Just for a procedural question - could the Mençei also establish that procedure?

The Mençei's endorsement of that procedure certainly wouldn't hurt! It would actually be nice if the Mençei and Túischac'h could agree that they would work out how to handle such things when they came up, lending serious meaning to their roles in the Ziu and allowing for a flexible and courteous way to handle other such issues as they come up. Virtually all parliaments in the world have parliamentarians and leaders who meet and agree on such things when tradition doesn't cover a matter.

Jul 25, 2013 9:12:42 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

Very few people seemed to care about procedural civility last time I proposed it, so I'm not sure any such endorsement would help. In any case, I don't see how a bill can preempt the passing of another bill, and not only that but preemptively repeal it. This is especially so when you consider that for a bill to pass one needs more votes for it than against, so it's unlikely that the bill preemptively repealing the first would pass.

If you and the the Mençei agreed that contradictory bills would be handled in successive Clarks in the order in which they're Hoppered, then I'd wager that the respect both of you are accorded (which is quite significant) would ensure that this common-sense procedure is accepted. Bills that are split along partisan lines probably wouldn't need this procedure - and in the case where they both do pass anyway and contradict, then the next Clark could have a vote to decide between them (or a compromise bill, if the sponsors prefer). Even in this last case, it would still only take the duration of two Clarks.

That's what I'd do, anyway!

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jul 25, 2013 9:22:49 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

in the case where they both do pass anyway and contradict, then the next Clark could have a vote to decide between them (or a compromise bill, if the sponsors prefer). Even in this last case, it would still only take the duration of two Clarks.

That's what I'd do, anyway!

That's actually a pretty good idea.

I still hope that the Circumvent the Scribe authors will either back down, or react to my bill.

Here is how I see it:

Circumvent the Scribe was written to remove a right (and a responsability) from the hands of the SoS and the Scribe, for the sake of respecting the decisions of the Ziu, in short, to preserve laws.

My alternative reaches the objectives of the authors of the bill, without removing the objectives of the original bills.

I am willing to make further amendments to my bill if it is not enough.

But, I remember that back in 2002-2004, I must have made over 50 corrections to bills that were imported into the database, such as typing errors, paragraph formatting issues, moving the Proposed By to a different place to respect the new standards, etc...

None of these changes affected the TEXT of the laws. For example, a WHEERAS was changed to a WHEREAS, or w Whereas to a WHEREAS or a missing AND at the end of the WHEREAS line was added.

Manual Dashes were sometimes replaced by a better looking bullet list.