|
|
Post by kri on Jul 16, 2004 9:53:05 GMT -6
Azul,
The germ of this possible proposed bill comes from the brain of Dan Lorentz, but our esteemed Marc Moisan took the liberty of translating Dan's vague concepts into legal language. Here is the proposal; what do y'all think?
Ben
*********
RZ1 - The Legal Reconstruction Act
WHEREAS the database previously used to record Talossan laws have disapeared
because of the actions of vindictive former citizens; and
WHEREAS it is imperative that Talossans can have access to the laws of the
Kingdom and some of those my be lost forever.
The Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa hereby ENACTS that:
1. All Acts (other than amendments to the 1997 Organic Law), Prime Dictates
and other laws of the Kingdom in effect prior to the passage of this Act are
hereby repealed.
2. The Citizenship Roll as published by the office of the Secretary of State
on 1 July 2004 shall be construed as containing the names of all Talossan
citizens as of that date, those citizens cannot be denied their rights on
the ground that their Citizenship Act was repealed by this Act.
|
|
|
|
Post by kri on Jul 16, 2004 9:55:42 GMT -6
Where I would change it is in Clause #1, which would repeal ALL legislation. We have a book-form digest of all of Talossa's laws back when the Clark was published on paper, which covers the period from 1979 to (approximately) spring, 1997. So I would change Clause #1 to say that all legislation dating from the end of the published-on-paper era would be repealed. I will do some work in the one box of the Archives that I have, to nail down the date we made the transition to an online Clark.
What do you think?
Ben
|
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jul 16, 2004 15:22:23 GMT -6
Where I would change it is in Clause #1, which would repeal ALL legislation. We have a book-form digest of all of Talossa's laws back when the Clark was published on paper, which covers the period from 1979 to (approximately) spring, 1997. If we actually have text I don't see why not, but I am also wondering whether this is really needed. I mean some of those Acts might have been made useless because of the 1997 OrgLaw, been revoked or repealed by later legislation. The question is really how many of those are still of importance today, a small number may just need to be resubmitted. I don't know any pre-1997 law as they were never posted online. Did we ever need one of them? the only instance that I remember where a pre-1997 law was being look at is the House Law of 11 February 1989 when Ben was thinking of leaving Talossa. I would be quite in favour of keeping all laws of the land intact if someone has copies (hard or soft) of those Bills. Otherwise, I am afraid the easiest and simpliest solution is the one that Dan brought up. Any pre-1997 law that are still of importance can be either resubmitted or included in the current Bill such as this: RZ1 - The Legal Reconstruction Act
WHEREAS the database previously used to record Talossan laws have disapeared because of the actions of vindictive former citizens; and
WHEREAS it is imperative that Talossans can have access to the laws of the Kingdom and some of those might be lost forever.
The Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa hereby ENACTS that:
1. All Acts (other than amendments to the 1997 Organic Law and the House Law of 11 February 1989), Prime Dictates and other laws of the Kingdom in effect prior to the passage of this Act are hereby repealed.
2. The Citizenship Roll as published by the office of the Secretary of State on 1 July 2004 shall be construed as containing the names of all Talossan citizens as of that date, those citizens cannot be denied their rights on the ground that their Citizenship Act was repealed by this Act. This of course is only my opinion and as I state earlier, I have no knowledge of any pre-1997 laws. So I would change Clause #1 to say that all legislation dating from the end of the published-on-paper era would be repealed. I will do some work in the one box of the Archives that I have, to nail down the date we made the transition to an online Clark. What do you think? Well if resubmitting is either not practicable nor desirable because of the numbers or other reasons I would simply word Article 1 as follow: 1. All Acts (other than amendments to the 1997 Organic Law), Prime Dictates and other laws of the Kingdom in effect after (date) but prior to the passage of this Act are hereby repealed.Marc Moisan, C.D. Acting Secretary of State |
|
|
|
Post by kri on Jul 16, 2004 20:27:19 GMT -6
I see your point... I'll go to the Anuntzia (the collection of pre-1998, pre-internet law) and see just what the status of stuff is. I guess my main concern is that the blanket 'repeal everything' law strikes me as too radical; the point of the legislation should be to reaffirm our roots while dispensing with the hijacked and suppressed stuff (IMHO).
Ben
|
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jul 17, 2004 8:51:25 GMT -6
I found out a way, we may not need to repeal ANY legislation at all.
Marc Moisan, C.D.
Acting Secretary of State
|
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Jul 18, 2004 15:35:17 GMT -6
Personally I would not support an act that would repeal legislation that we have a record of, i.e. legislation from the pre-internet days.
|
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jul 18, 2004 20:14:00 GMT -6
This subject is moot now, as I have a backup of the Clarks from 1998 on (from talossa.net). I will clean it up a bit and publish everything online in a usable format for everyone to see, all I need is a little time.
Marc Moisan, C.D.
Acting Secretary of State
|
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Jul 18, 2004 20:42:44 GMT -6
Excellent! Would you like me to send you the file that I have as well, it has some from 1997 as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Jul 18, 2004 20:44:04 GMT -6
A question mark was left out of my above post, so here it is:
?
I know...this is a rather lame way to increase the number of my posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jul 18, 2004 20:50:17 GMT -6
Excellent! Would you like me to send you the file that I have as well, it has some from 1997 as well. As I just emailed you, certainly. We'll get this Kingdom back on track in no time.  I know...this is a rather lame way to increase the number of my posts. What's this some kind of competition...  BTW, you know you can edit your post on this forum... Marc Moisan, C.D. Acting Secretary of State |
|
|
|
Post by kri on Jul 20, 2004 10:35:22 GMT -6
Azul!
Thank you, Marc, for saving our legislative heritage from the Great Theft. I hope to have considerable free time over the next two weeks, so if there's anything I can do to help you, just ask!
Ben
|
|
Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Jul 21, 2004 13:14:57 GMT -6
BTW, you know you can edit your post on this forum... Yeah, but where's the fun in that? ;D |
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Jul 24, 2004 23:52:15 GMT -6
Creating a comprehensive, well-organized, authoritative and accessible compilation of current law--that's the goal.
If this can be done with a reasonable amount of work and in a reasonable timeframe, then--in principle--I don't care if we repeal all or no non-organic legislation passed since whenever.
From my perspective, however, having a good statute book is top priority. Keeping a readily understandable and consultable book of what our laws are strikes me as an essential tool for any community that wants to govern itself without the the unproductive frictions that occur when the rules are unclear or unknown.
My own instinct is to cut the Gordian Knot. Let's wipe the slate clean--it will be easier that way. I don't view this as a crime against our heritage...rather, I see it as a golden opportunity to quicky create a powerful new institution for ourselves.
What do you all think? I'm persuadable.
|
|
|
|
Post by kri on Jul 25, 2004 10:44:35 GMT -6
Azul,
Assuming we can get a proper database of all the laws (Marc Moisan has apparently got all the online stuff, and I am still waiting on Michael Pope to send me all the offline stuff), then the creation of a statute book shouldn't be all that difficult--I could do it in a weekend.
At least I could come up with a list of what bills are still law and what bills aren't.
But like you, I'm persuadable too--your solution is obviously easier, but it would leave obvious holes (like citizenship law, which is all statute and not part of the Organic Law).
Ben
|
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jul 29, 2004 16:05:54 GMT -6
I am convinced that I have all or nearly all bills that were on talossa.net, I will verify with the list that Mark has. Chances are that with both our lists there isn't any law missing. Marc Moisan, C.D. Acting Secretary of State |
|
