Proposed bills for the next legislative session

[Eðo Grischun]

Presiding Officer,

I request that the following proposed bills be brought before the Estats Xhenerais in the next available legislative session so we may vote on whether to establish them into provincial Byelaw or not.


Warm regards,

Éovart Grischun,
Premier.

[Eðo Grischun]

The Byelaw and Decree numbering conventions resolution

WHEREAS the States General is empowered to pass provincial legislation known as Byelaws; and

WHEREAS the Premier is empowered to pass decrees into provincial law; and

WHEREAS these Byelaws and Decrees are required to be recorded into the Provincial Digest of Laws; and

WHEREAS for good record keeping sakes we should adopt a numbering convention for legislation passed; so


THEREFORE be it resolved by the States General of The United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg that the following numbering convention shall be adopted for all future legislation:

A) BYELAWS shall be numbered BYE-xxxx-yyy; where xxxx is the current year per the Gregorian calander and yyy is number of the byelaw's bill. The number of the bill shall begin with 001 for the first byelaw passed in that year and each subsequent byelaw passed shall increase this number by 1. The number of the bill shall reset to 001 with each new year. Bills that do not pass into Byelaw are not numbered so to maintain continuity in numbering in the digest.

B) UNITED PROVINCE DECREES shall be numbered UPD-xxxx-yyy; where xxxx is the current year per the Gregorian calander and yyy is number of the decree. The number of the decree shall begin with 001 for the first decree given and each subsequent decree given shall increase this number by 1. The number of the decree shall reset to 001 with each new year.

FURTHERMORE any Byelaw or Decree that is later vetoed or rescinded shall retain it's original number so to maintain continuity in numbering and shall remain listed in the Digest of Laws for prosperity sake.


Author: Éovart Grischun

[Eðo Grischun]

The Article IV Constitutional Amendment

WHEREAS Article IV of the provincial constitution deals with the passing of provincial legislation, and

WHEREAS Article IV dictated a very specific way of dealing with legislative sessions with a schedule mirroring the National Ziu, and

WHEREAS the Estats Xhenerais should have more control over it's own affairs rather than be tied to the schedule of an external body, and

WHEREAS at the same time some cleaning up of the rest of the Article makes sense, so


THEREFORE be it resolved by The Estats Xhenerais that Article IV (Passing Legislation) of the constitution of The United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg is stricken in full and replaced as follows:


Article IV: Passing Legislation

SECTION 1
Each Grand Session of the Estats Xhenerais shall be made of legislative sessions. There shall be no less than 4 and no more than 6 legislative sessions during each Grand Session. The Presiding Officer, using methods and means at his discretion, is responsible for convening and conducting such sessions. The Estats Xhenerais is considered to be in recess any time a legislative session is not occurring.

SECTION 2
Any provincial legislation in effect is known as a United Provinces Byelaw. United Provinces Byelaws are passed by a simple majority of the Estats Xhenerais and can only be repealed by 2/3 majority of the Estats Xhenerais.

SECTION 3
The Premier may issue a 'United Provinces Decree' (UPD). A UPD takes full force of United Provinces Byelaw. A UPD may be repealed by a 2/3 majority of the Estats Xhenerais. A UPD can never be used to amend the provincial constitution.

SECTION 4
Decrees and Bills that have passed into Byelaw must be signed by the Cunstaval before taking effect. However, The Cunstaval may veto a Byelaw, but must do so within 30 days of it's passage. After 30 days a Byelaw is deemed to have been signed by the Cunstaval (silent assent).



Author: Éovart Grischun

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Question:
Is it wise that bills are deemed signed after 15 days, but still may be vetoed 45 days after their tacit approval?

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jun 1, 2014 5:16:46 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Question:
Is it wise that bills are deemed signed after 15 days, but still may be vetoed 45 days after their tacit approval?

Can you point out where they can be vetoed after being signed? I'm not readily finding that law.

It was my understanding that it was covered here:

Article X: Passing Legislation

Section 6.

" If the King neither signs nor vetoes a Bill before the last day of the month in which it was passed by the Ziu, he shall be deemed to have signed it. "

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 1, 2014 9:33:49 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

Can you point out where they can be vetoed after being signed? I'm not readily finding that law.

It was my understanding that it was covered here:

Article X: Passing Legislation

Section 6.

" If the King neither signs nor vetoes a Bill before the last day of the month in which it was passed by the Ziu, he shall be deemed to have signed it. "

He's not talking about the OrgLaw, he's talking about the provincial constitutional amendment under discussion in this thread:

May 30, 2014 15:45:37 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

SECTION 4
Bills that have passed into Byelaw must be signed by the Cunstaval before taking effect. Bills are deemed as signed (silent assent) after 15 days from passage. The Cunstaval may Veto any Byelaw, but must do so within 60 days of passage.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Location, location, location.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Doh!


Mea Culpa.

[Eðo Grischun]

My thinking is somewhat like this.

1) Reason for the specified 15 days period before silent assent takes place: 15 days is roughly the same period of time before silent assent takes place on a national level. However, the Ziu operates on a very strict, calendar based timetable and so 'end of the month' is suitable wording. Here in Vuode, if this amendment passes, such a timetable won't be adhered to as the Presiding Officer will have the power to set scheduling as he sees fit. The current scheduling, indeed, follows lunar cycles. This means the start and end dates of legislative sessions wont fall on a rigid and particular date (unlike the Ziu, which is always the 21st of the month).

My reasoning for including a time limit on a veto: Without a specified time limit, theoretically the Crown could nullify any byelaw at any time. By limiting the period to two months we stop a future "evil Cunstaval" from repealing 4 year old byelaws by abusing power of veto and leave that particular power in the hands of the legislature. By limiting the period to 2 months we include a check and balance sort of thing on the side of the Estats Xhenerais.

My reasoning for that limit being a liberal 60 days: 2 months does not seem unreasonable. 2 months seems like an intelligent amount of time for a Cunstaval to seek advice on anything he is unsure about or to hear arguments and opinions from the King himself. Also, Cunstavals are known for being among our less active citizens, so 2 months gives a reasonable amount of time for them to show up, notice they have tacitly approved a byelaw that they would otherwise veto and allow ample enough time for them to act. By limiting the period to 2 months we include a check and balance sort of thing on the side of the Crown.


The 45 days thing you mention is just a mathematical accident. I don't see it's relevance really.

I don't see anything particularly unwise with the amendment, but feel free to explain if I have missed the point of your fairly vague question. I look forward to hearing the comments of my Vuodean colleague in the States General Chamber later in the month.


Vuode thanks you for your visit.

Please come again.

Thank you for driving safely.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I am sorry for the vague question, but I did not want to barge in. However, I did, because I felt it to be important to raise that question, so I chose to keep the concern-raising as short as possible.

Allow me to elaborate with an example:

Say the Estats Xhenerais passes a byelaw that makes it legal for Vuodeans to marry their cars. After the 15th day, the constable still has not said "Nay" thereto, and so the byelaw is tacitly approved. Now, there is still 45 days left until the constable may withdraw his tacit approval, thus vetoing the byelaw.

However, between Day 16 and Day 60, the byelaw can be implemented, since it is seen as approved, and two people marry their cars.
Now, the Constable comes at Day 60 and says "Screw you! I veto!"

Do you understand what I am getting at? It is a legislative, and executive, nightmare waiting to happen!
My proposal to you: do not add an extended "extra-veto time"!
Either, 15 (or 20, or 30) days after the laws passage, the constable vetoes; or he never vetoes that law.

I thank the people of Vuode for having me here! It is a very peaceful province to be in.

[Eðo Grischun]

"peaceful province to be in" LOL, that's a nice way of saying 'highly inactive'

I thank you for your comments and even though you are not a citizen of Vuode I highly appreciate them.

I see what you are getting at now. But, for the sake of interesting discussion, tell me how much of a difference do you see in your example and this example below:


Say the Estats Xhenerais passes a byelaw that makes it legal for Vuodeans to marry their cars. After the 15th day, the constable still has not said "Nay" thereto, and so the byelaw is tacitly approved. 3 months later the Estats Xhenerais decides to abolish the byelaw anyway and overturn it by 2/3rd vote.

However, between Day 16 and Day 90 odds, the byelaw can be implemented, since it is seen as approved, and two people marry their cars. Now, the Estats Xhenerais comes at Day 90 odds and says "Screw you! We're cancelling the law!"


Still, after your initial comments and after a little bit of research into Royal Assent and Veto laws from elsewhere in the world, I am inclined to agree that the both the language and content of this particular part of the amendment would be better re-written. I'm looking forward to hearing Sir T's views on this when he comes around next. But, humour me anyway... Is there really a difference between a future Estats Xhenerais abolishing a law and the Cunstaval vetoing a law some time down the line?


Lets argue this: For some time we have had a law in the Kingdom that requires citizens to do some form of action during a General Election at least once every 3 election cycles. The action required is either vote for a party or declare yourself as present. If a citizen fails to do this they are stricken from the citizen lists. Colloquially, as you know, this is known as the '3 strikes law'. Many people have been struck from the rolls as a result of this over the years.

Now, Suppose a majority government at some point in the future decide to abolish the 3 strikes rule. Indeed, suppose a Prime Minister decrees as much! All other arguments aside as to whether this is a good idea or not, and whether the overturning is in turn overturned...what about all those people who were stricken who would now not be stricken?

Surely, some form of 'grandfather rights' takes effect in such a case. Something like this:

Say the Estats Xhenerais passes a byelaw that makes it legal for Vuodeans to marry their cars. After the 15th day, the constable still has not said "Nay" thereto, and so the byelaw is tacitly approved. Now, there is still 45 days left until the constable may withdraw his tacit approval, thus vetoing the byelaw.

However, between Day 16 and Day 60, the byelaw can be implemented, since it is seen as approved, and two people marry their cars.
Now, the Constable comes at Day 60 and says "Screw you! I veto!"

However, at the time the marriages took place they were legal and are thus protected. The marriages can't be nullified nor be seen as illegitimate or illegal because they took place during a time when the law permitting such marriages was in effect. It is only on day 61 (ie: after the veto of the law) that no further car marrying could take place.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

The difference is this:

While the Estats Xhenerais may pass a byelaw, and let's assume it's actually assented to by the constable, it is a valid law. Everything that has been enacted and implemented after the assent is valid, and if it is repealed afterwards - well, that's a problem for those who have not acted timely.

However, the constable retroactively withdrawing consent means that the law has not been passed in the first place, which means that the acts taken, when the byelaw was implemented, which was actually not legal at all (since the approval has been withdrawn, and the byelaw thus basically never took effect), may even be an act of crime. (Assume that the byelaw passed was not a marriage law, but depenalised the use of the word "rutabaga": using it was, before the passage of that particular byelaw, a crime in Vuode, but 15 days after the law's passage, or actually the law's repeal law, it is not, etc. pp.)

So, yes. There is indeed a difference between a law, that is passed and later repealed, and a law that is not yet really passed, but not yet really vetoed, implemented and then annulled, making the law utterly inexistent.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Jun 2, 2014 18:28:13 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

"peaceful province to be in" LOL, that's a nice way of saying 'highly inactive'

Ever been to Maritiimi-Maxhestic, or Atatürk? They are very inactive, too; so don't be so hard on this!

[Eðo Grischun]

Jun 2, 2014 19:03:18 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

The difference is this:

While the Estats Xhenerais may pass a byelaw, and let's assume it's actually assented to by the constable, it is a valid law. Everything that has been enacted and implemented after the assent is valid, and if it is repealed afterwards - well, that's a problem for those who have not acted timely.

However, the constable retroactively withdrawing consent means that the law has not been passed in the first place, which means that the acts taken, when the byelaw was implemented, which was actually not legal at all (since the approval has been withdrawn, and the byelaw thus basically never took effect), may even be an act of crime.

So, yes. There is indeed a difference between a law, that is passed and later repealed, and a law that is not yet really passed, but not yet really vetoed, implemented and then annulled, making the law utterly inexistent.

Thank you.

I do believe I have only just moments ago fully realized and learned the difference between a royal veto and a legislative repeal.

I will amend my amendment before this goes to the States General for voting.

Vuode thanks you, S:r da Lhiun.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

And I thank Vuode for cordially hearing out my concerns. Thank you, S:r Grischun!