|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Aug 17, 2015 7:27:16 GMT -6
Bills often have more than one sponsor, isn't it enough that any one of those sponsors can take the bill up? Isn't that enough of a net?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 18, 2015 18:40:55 GMT -6
I used Epic's language, but removed the "explicitly or tacitly" part altogether. It is better suited for el Lexhatx anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 19, 2015 4:35:56 GMT -6
Section 1An amendment to the Organic Law shall be made after -A vote of two-thirds in the Cosa with approval of the Senäts, and -Approval of the majority of voters participating in a referendum on the question of the amendment no later than during the next scheduled general election following the approval of the Ziu. Can we... I don't know... can we not have dashes? Just make it whole sentences: “ An amendment to the Organic Law shall be made after a vote of two-thirds in the Cosa, with approval of the Senäts. Upon the passing of this vote, the amendment shall be put to vote to the Citizenry in a plebiscite, where it needs to be approved by a majority of the voters, no later than during the next scheduled General Election.” Something like this?!
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 19, 2015 4:40:16 GMT -6
Also, can we convert the numbers into words, i.e.: 2/3 → two-thirds, 3/4 → three-quarters, please? If you must, you can put the numbers after the words in brackets, thus: two-thirds (⅔), or thus: three-quarters (¾).
(I would recommend using the specific characters for the fractions, but that is merely personal preference.)
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 19, 2015 15:33:28 GMT -6
Section 1An amendment to the Organic Law shall be made after -A vote of two-thirds in the Cosa with approval of the Senäts, and -Approval of the majority of voters participating in a referendum on the question of the amendment no later than during the next scheduled general election following the approval of the Ziu. Can we... I don't know... can we not have dashes? Just make it whole sentences: “ An amendment to the Organic Law shall be made after a vote of two-thirds in the Cosa, with approval of the Senäts. Upon the passing of this vote, the amendment shall be put to vote to the Citizenry in a plebiscite, where it needs to be approved by a majority of the voters, no later than during the next scheduled General Election.” Something like this?! Also, can we convert the numbers into words, i.e.: 2/3 → two-thirds, 3/4 → three-quarters, please? If you must, you can put the numbers after the words in brackets, thus: two-thirds (⅔), or thus: three-quarters (¾). (I would recommend using the specific characters for the fractions, but that is merely personal preference.) Changed!
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 19, 2015 15:59:59 GMT -6
I never knew that “three-fourths” was a thing in English! I love it, it's so Germanic.
I humbly request permission to be added as a co-sponsor, please. (Senator to Maritiimi-Maxhestic)
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 19, 2015 16:19:55 GMT -6
I am absolutely not in support with anything that requires a three-quarters-hypermajority. I humbly request permission to be added as a co-sponsor, please. I knew a compromise could be reached! Well, at least between two members of the same party...
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 19, 2015 16:36:18 GMT -6
I am absolutely not in support with anything that requires a three-quarters-hypermajority. I knew a compromise could be reached! Well, at least between two members of the same party... Well, that was before I realised that the three-quarters-hypermajority was lowered to an ordinary two-thirds in the next Cosa over! Just so people don't think I cannot make up my mind: I would have opposed this bill, if there was no way to get an amendment through except for that aforementioned hypermajority. But since it is not so, I see no reason why not to support this. Thank you for your helpful, most civilised, and kind contribution to our Kingdom, Ian!
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 19, 2015 16:49:25 GMT -6
Just so people don't think I cannot make up my mind: I would have opposed this bill, if there was no way to get an amendment through except for that aforementioned hypermajority. I see nothing wrong in changing your mind. If you are convinced by a good argument, better to adopt it than to stubbornly cling to your original stance for the sole purpose of appearing firm. My pleasure. Now it just has to pass!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 19, 2015 17:01:15 GMT -6
I should compromise, too. This might not be quite my ideal, but I can support it. Add me as cosponsor, too, if you will.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Aug 19, 2015 17:49:40 GMT -6
There are two things that bother me a bit, which I addressed in the proposed language I posted a few days ago but didn't specifically discuss at the time.
First, I think if the King objects to an amendment and the Cosa and Senäts send it to referendum over his objection, it's only fair that the reasons for the King's objection be provided to the people as well. The people will make the final decision, but they should get to hear both sides before deciding.
Second, most amendments only require a simple majority in the Senäts, but some require a 2/3 majority. This amendment just references "approval of the Senäts", which I would take to mean whatever kind of approval is normally required for the type of amendment in question. But while the threshold for Cosa approval goes up from 2/3 to 3/4 for the "fast track" option, the margin for Senäts approval is unchanged.
I certainly wouldn't advocate a 3/4 approval threshold in the Senäts. But I do think one reasonable basis for the King to withhold assent to a proposed OrgLaw amendment, entirely aside from the "wave election" concern discussed before, is if he thinks it's flying "under the radar" and no one is really thinking it through and paying attention to the consequences it could have. On two occasions in the past two year, a proposed OrgLaw amendment received only THREE per/contra votes in the Senäts (while the other five senators abstained or failed to vote). One of those was 3-0 and the other failed, but it's entirely plausible that an amendment to the Organic Law could pass the Senäts on a 2-1 vote--even one that requires a 2/3 majority. Is anyone else concerned about the prospect of an OrgLaw amendment passing with the support of only two senators? (In theory a 1-0 vote in the Senäts would suffice, but it's hard to imagine that actually happening.) Could we require an absolute majority of senators, at least under the "fast track" option? Or does anyone have any other suggestions?
EDIT: Okay, here's a third. The King has until "the 23rd of the month preceding the last Clark of the Cosa term" to object to an amendment and send it back to the Cosa and Senäts. But while a referendum on an amendment proposed by the Ziu can be held no later than the next general election, it may be held earlier. In theory the referendum could happen before the King objects. I would suggest requiring royal assent to the amendment before it goes to referendum. That way you know whether the King will assent or object before the referendum is held. And if the King objects and the amendment is passed by the Ziu using one of the other methods provided for in the amendment, the King may not withhold assent.
Also, for good measure, I would suggest providing for proclamation of the amendment by the King as under current law. Just say "shall" instead of "may".
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 19, 2015 18:25:02 GMT -6
All three of those changes are good and solid legal fixes to tricky aspects, that don't seem to change the meaning or any effects of the proposed amendment. Good tightening-up of the language.
I would also add that I would prefer "he or she" to "s/he."
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Aug 19, 2015 18:36:16 GMT -6
I would also add that I would prefer "he or she" to "s/he." Personally I'd prefer "King" and "he" to match every other reference in the OrgLaw--it's a big stylistic clash with the remainder of the document--but I guess it's not a huge deal.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 19, 2015 18:55:48 GMT -6
I will change it to King and he, consistency is important. Also, what do you mean by absolute majority of the Senate? At least 5 per votes?
I will institute the changes tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 19, 2015 18:56:03 GMT -6
Hm... maybe consistency is better. That gets me thinking about amending every instance, although I suppose I should just accept that masculine pronouns serve for gender neutral in English (although I am doing my part, by permitting "they" as a gender-neutral singular in addition to gender-neutral plural in my classes.)
|
|