Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 2, 2015 15:36:38 GMT -6
How about article IX?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 4, 2015 9:32:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 12, 2015 6:16:54 GMT -6
I don't see many things we could change in IX, but may I suggest that IX:13 go? It seems... redundant at best, no?
Section 3 can, as well, be uncluttered: too much procedural things. Sections 5, 6 should be governed by simple law, as well... okay, proposal:
This is the old version:
Let us make this the new version:
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 17, 2015 13:38:35 GMT -6
I think ten wasn't stricken and renumbered because the amendment didn't indicate that should happen. A testament to the importance of good legislative practice!
3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12 can probably be relegated to statute.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 17, 2015 20:35:30 GMT -6
Here is a formatting which encompasses these ideas:
New Org.IX:
New Title H:
Bolded parts are new.
In response to Epic's statement that a new law would have to be introduced to detail the duties of the Secretary of State, such law already exists: C.1.1
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Oct 18, 2015 10:28:35 GMT -6
Don't forget the Secretary of State can also submit bills now...
You only listed the Cosa Members, Senators and the King...
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 19, 2015 12:20:02 GMT -6
That's a good point, we'll need to make that change.
I'd also suggest an additional sentence to the second part of the article, to establish a juridical principle. Perhaps, "Within the reasonable bounds imposed by time and tradition, the Secretary of State shall endeavor to allow all legislators to submit their bills for consideration." If the statutory law is later changed in a way that makes it harder to submit a bill, it could then be challenged under this clause as unreasonable. Unless the statute was justified by the needs of time or long tradition, it would be struck down.
That is, by the way, the sort of thing I think we should try to do. Not just take out OrgLaw bits and stuff them in statute; they're there for a reason, usually. If we remove important things about how a law gets passed, we need to put in a broad principal to replace it and provide the same safeguards.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Oct 19, 2015 13:39:13 GMT -6
That's a good point, we'll need to make that change. I'd also suggest an additional sentence to the second part of the article, to establish a juridical principle. Perhaps, "Within the reasonable bounds imposed by time and tradition, the Secretary of State shall endeavor to allow all legislators to submit their bills for consideration." If the statutory law is later changed in a way that makes it harder to submit a bill, it could then be challenged under this clause as unreasonable. Unless the statute was justified by the needs of time or long tradition, it would be struck down. That is, by the way, the sort of thing I think we should try to do. Not just take out OrgLaw bits and stuff them in statute; they're there for a reason, usually. If we remove important things about how a law gets passed, we need to put in a broad principal to replace it and provide the same safeguards. I really like that idea... I really, really like it. For example, back in 2002, I had a stupid, stupid idea (according to others), that certain bills could only be proposed by their appropriate minister (immigration bills by the immigration minister, budget by the finance minister, etc...). I expected the opposition to be on "That would prevent some Cosa members from proposing their bills" or "it restricts the power of non-ministers". Instead, I got: "The Organic Law doesn't allow that, and as such, we would need a referendum...." Now, I am NOT saying we need to put such limits in place, but one day, we might want to for a reason or another and as such, we could put them within the reasonable bounds...
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 19, 2015 14:14:31 GMT -6
Don't forget the Secretary of State can also submit bills now... You only listed the Cosa Members, Senators and the King... Oh that's good. Should I maybe include that also in my "People Will Enact" Act and Amendment? Can somebody direct me to the statutes, or sections of the OrgLaw, where the SoS is allowed to submit bills?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 19, 2015 16:04:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 20, 2015 9:00:08 GMT -6
Hmm, is there anything else we need to do like that, Ian? I'd like to get this bill done this term, but this is dangerous stuff... let's look through the text and try to figure out ways a corrupt official could take advantage, and if there are juridical principles in place to serve as remedy.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 20, 2015 10:44:55 GMT -6
I would suggest to stick with British orthography, as is customary in Talossa. I have seen some orthographical mistakes, which I will fix soon. I have not read through it thoroughly yet, but I will.
May I suggest that Org.IX.2. be changed to the text found in my “People Will Enact” Amendment? I have included some orthographical changes there, as well. I will be posting a suggestion as soon as I have some time on my hands!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 20, 2015 11:57:26 GMT -6
Good idea on the orthography.
I feel uncomfortable altering the text to reflect an amendment that hasn't yet been passed. Remember we try to stay out of those fights -- if your amendment got a lot of opposition, it would bring down a bill that might already be really hard to get correct and passed. Which means there's two ways we can go with it... we can wait to clark this bill until the new term, or you could wait to clark your People Will Enact bill until after the new term. Maybe let's see how much progress we make in the next few weeks, before we decide? I don't want to shut you down... would that be acceptable to you?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 20, 2015 14:48:21 GMT -6
Hmm, is there anything else we need to do like that, Ian? I'd like to get this bill done this term, but this is dangerous stuff... let's look through the text and try to figure out ways a corrupt official could take advantage, and if there are juridical principles in place to serve as remedy. I don't see anything else, though feel free to point anything out that concerns you. I would suggest to stick with British orthography, as is customary in Talossa. I have seen some orthographical mistakes, which I will fix soon. I have not read through it thoroughly yet, but I will. I am unfortunately not a master of orthography, and don't know what "British orthography" is, but please propose changes when you get the chance
I agree with AD that this is not the place for substantive changes. However, I am concerned that this committee may find itself overlapping with the new Royal Commission, in that case it will either be a race to the Clark (as the same section can't be amended twice before a plebiscite) or a mid-term plebiscite will have to be scheduled.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 20, 2015 16:09:40 GMT -6
Let's worry about the prospective new Commission if and when it gets going. I don't know what else we can do, really. We're making really good progress, amicably and carefully... I'm loathe to just abandon it and go work with a group that couldn't even take the time or courtesy to manage its own creation without discord!
|
|