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 Jul 20, 2013 21:25:52 GMT -6
WHEREAS the legislative power of the Kingdom of Talossa is vested in the Ziu by the Organic Law, and
WHEREAS certain laws on the books purport to give individual unelected officials the authority to change duly-enacted statutes, and
WHEREAS this authority is supposed to be limited to such edits as do not affect the "scope" or "intent" of the statutes, but such determinations are subjective and may be abused,
THEREFORE the Ziu hereby:
1. Repeals 31RZ5, The Making Sense Bill, and 31RZ16, The Really Make Sense Act.
2. Amends 35RZ24, The Royal Household Cleaning Act, to delete the words "perform any clerical improvements to the same" from the description of the Scribery of Abbavilla in section 1 of that Act.
3. Directs the Scribe of Abbavilla to maintain all laws in L'Anuntzia dels Legeux, insofar as possible, with the same content that was approved by the Ziu, except that amending acts that refer to section numbers in pre-existing statutes that were changed by the Scribery shall be construed as referring to the equivalent section numbers in the amended statutes as originally enacted.
Noi urent q'estadra sa,
C. M. Siervicül (MC, RUMP)
Vitxalmour Conductour (MC, NPW, Scribe of Abbavilla)
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 23, 2013 17:04:34 GMT -6
I don't know, I kind of like the ability the scribe has to make cosmetic changes and correct obvious typos. It has never been abused and never even remotely come into play in enforcement, as far as I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 23, 2013 17:41:41 GMT -6
Hey, as author of 31RZ16 I object to my bill being repealed this simply.
The problems 31RZ5 and 31RZ16 were meant to solve are REAL.
A lot of bills, mine included, contain a lot of grammar and punctuation problems. Without those bills, it becomes impossible to correct them so that our repository of laws looks good for future citizens.
These bills cannot be corrected in any way without a vote from the Ziu. Do you want the Ziu to be filled with ammendments meant only to correct grammar?
If it can reassure you, I can add a function to show the corrections, so that the cort may be seized with the original bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 23, 2013 18:19:24 GMT -6
Well, I do have to say that he has a point: such problems should be corrected in the Hopper. My concern is more for aesthetic things, such as being able to indent and having a consistent format to the statutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 23, 2013 18:23:35 GMT -6
Well, I do have to say that he has a point: such problems should be corrected in the Hopper. My concern is more for aesthetic things, such as being able to indent and having a consistent format to the statutes. Ok, and then, what about past bills? You can't correct a bill from cosa #39 via the Hopper. The idea, is that those bills also allow retroactive changes: to correct mistakes from past bills that were not noticed until now. |
|
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 Jul 24, 2013 3:39:06 GMT -6
Well, I do have to say that he has a point: such problems should be corrected in the Hopper. My concern is more for aesthetic things, such as being able to indent and having a consistent format to the statutes. That's what I was thinking. If any non-political official is to be exercising a proofreading power, it should probably be the SoS, when he clarks the bill before it's voted on by the Ziu. Indenting, double-spacing, changing typeface or font size -- those things are truly cosmetic and do not affect the substance of the bill. Changing section numbers, however, is a substantive change. I give thought to how I organize the bills I write, and if the Ziu approves them that way that's how they should stay until the Ziu decides otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 24, 2013 4:08:13 GMT -6
Well, I do have to say that he has a point: such problems should be corrected in the Hopper. My concern is more for aesthetic things, such as being able to indent and having a consistent format to the statutes. That's what I was thinking. If any non-political official is to be exercising a proofreading power, it should probably be the SoS, when he clarks the bill before it's voted on by the Ziu. Indenting, double-spacing, changing typeface or font size -- those things are truly cosmetic and do not affect the substance of the bill. Changing section numbers, however, is a substantive change. I give thought to how I organize the bills I write, and if the Ziu approves them that way that's how they should stay until the Ziu decides otherwise. If the bill already has section numbers, I fail to see why it would need to be renumbered. But what if you number your sections as follow: 1 2 2 3 4 5 Not realizing you had two sections 2? The SoS could fix that easily, and modify the text which refers to section 4 to instead refer to section 5. The current laws do not FORCE the SoS to make changes. It only enables them when there are obvious mistakes, like a WHEREAS spelled WHERAS and not noticed before. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 24, 2013 5:36:59 GMT -6
Perhaps you could add to the "except" clause in the third section, then, adding that the scribe may also make those aesthetic changes they deem necessary, to the extent that the substance of the bill is not altered?
|
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 24, 2013 6:35:35 GMT -6
Perhaps you could add to the "except" clause in the third section, then, adding that the scribe may also make those aesthetic changes they deem necessary, to the extent that the substance of the bill is not altered? But then, why repeal the other 2 laws? Instead, perhaps we could amend them to make it that the original needs to be preserved. We already have all of the laws we need for those changes. No need to throw the baby with the bath water. |
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on Jul 24, 2013 9:19:58 GMT -6
For my part, I would be OK with this editing power if it were checked by some form of elected official, or a small group of officials. (I'd propose the Mençei, a suitably upper-echelon legislator. Perhaps someone from 'the government', the Seneschal or the Distain. Maybe a representative from the courts.)
If I or a future, more competent, Scribe detect a grammatical or spelling error, we run it by this committee before we make any changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 24, 2013 9:22:37 GMT -6
For my part, I would be OK with this editing power if it were checked by some form of elected official, or a small group of officials. (I'd propose the Mençei, a suitably upper-echelon legislator. Perhaps someone from 'the government', the Seneschal or the Distain. Maybe a representative from the courts.) Why not simply store the original version, and the edited version, with the ability to compare both. The cort would use the original for judgement, and anyone could appeal the changes?? I will draft a bill myself about that later today. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 24, 2013 9:28:33 GMT -6
Perhaps you could add to the "except" clause in the third section, then, adding that the scribe may also make those aesthetic changes they deem necessary, to the extent that the substance of the bill is not altered? But then, why repeal the other 2 laws? Instead, perhaps we could amend them to make it that the original needs to be preserved. We already have all of the laws we need for those changes. No need to throw the baby with the bath water. The repealing part is one thing I'm pretty down for, since it tightens up the law and makes it more centralized and clear. Ideally, we'll soon start to get all these things that are being collected into a few main bills (MIB2, Royal Household Cleaning, Cabinet Refinishing, etc.) into a single code of law. This will make that task easier. For my part, I would be OK with this editing power if it were checked by some form of elected official, or a small group of officials. (I'd propose the Mençei, a suitably upper-echelon legislator. Perhaps someone from 'the government', the Seneschal or the Distain. Maybe a representative from the courts.) If I or a future, more competent, Scribe detect a grammatical or spelling error, we run it by this committee before we make any changes. It's a good idea to have oversight, but maybe overkill to require actual approval each time. Perhaps simply give all magistrates and justices the ability to direct any changes be reverted, at their discretion. |
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 24, 2013 11:16:33 GMT -6
The repealing part is one thing I'm pretty down for, since it tightens up the law and makes it more centralized and clear. Ideally, we'll soon start to get all these things that are being collected into a few main bills (MIB2, Royal Household Cleaning, Cabinet Refinishing, etc.) into a single code of law. This will make that task easier. I am completely opposed to this and will lobby tooth and nails to repeals past bills with the only aim to "centralize" the law with one exception noted below. I will contact Cosa Member and Senators to have them vote contra. I will call the King to veto any such bills which pass, and will break from my party if my party support such procedures. Why? Because of the LEGAL side of Talossa. When you repeal a law to replace it with a new law which just re-organizes it, you end up causing a new legal era to start. Let's say that wearing a baseball cap with the tags still attached is illegal since 2002. A new bill in 2003 makes it illegal to not remove your tags from your clothes. In 2013, we repeal both to make a joint one. The problem is that now, this law is only valid from the date of adoption, and the repel of the previous laws make it a grey area on people which were wearing such caps before 2013 but only prosecuted post 2013. Which law applies? It also strips away part of our history, and disconnects the current statutes from the people who worked hard to have their laws passed. Instead, and this is the exception, we could decide to organize laws into statutes. For example: "Laws 32RZ98 (Baseball cap law) and Laws 34RZ103 (Clothes tag laws) now form article 26 and 27 of the uniform criminal code. Now, both laws are STILL in place, but they are included in a uniform criminal code. The laws can now be referred to as either Article 26 / 27 or 32RZ98 and 34RZ103. For the courts, it doesn't reset the time of application, and it doesn't retroactively change anything. For example, take a look at my law, the Really Make Sense Act. I didn't repeal Tata's law. I amended it. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 24, 2013 12:00:34 GMT -6
Let's say that wearing a baseball cap with the tags still attached is illegal since 2002. A new bill in 2003 makes it illegal to not remove your tags from your clothes. In 2013, we repeal both to make a joint one. The problem is that now, this law is only valid from the date of adoption, and the repel of the previous laws make it a grey area on people which were wearing such caps before 2013 but only prosecuted post 2013. Which law applies? You can't be prosecuted under a bill that has been repealed, but in such a case provision would be made in the new bill to sunset out the repealed bills over 36 months (at which point the statute of limitations would kick in). A future comprehensive legal code would include a provision stating that listed repealed statutes would cease legal effect 36 months after its passage, for example. In the case of this bill, it's not a problem, of course. It also strips away part of our history, and disconnects the current statutes from the people who worked hard to have their laws passed. The history will remain, and of course I expect that scribal notes and histories will reflect the origin of some of our more important legal principles. But I don't think we should retain laws just to reflect the vanity of the legislators. A statute's existence or non-existence should derive almost exclusively from its benefit to the public, within the bounds of the Organic Law. Instead, and this is the exception, we could decide to organize laws into statutes. For example: "Laws 32RZ98 (Baseball cap law) and Laws 34RZ103 (Clothes tag laws) now form article 26 and 27 of the uniform criminal code. Now, both laws are STILL in place, but they are included in a uniform criminal code. The laws can now be referred to as either Article 26 / 27 or 32RZ98 and 34RZ103. That's exactly to what I was referring to be "single code of law," and what I hope will be our eventual policy - although I doubt we would keep referring to a "32RZ98" at that point, and will probably repeal the statutes and incorporate their language into a new code. |
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063 
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jul 24, 2013 12:29:53 GMT -6
The repealing part is one thing I'm pretty down for, since it tightens up the law and makes it more centralized and clear. Ideally, we'll soon start to get all these things that are being collected into a few main bills (MIB2, Royal Household Cleaning, Cabinet Refinishing, etc.) into a single code of law. This will make that task easier. I am completely opposed to this and will lobby tooth and nails to repeals past bills with the only aim to "centralize" the law with one exception noted below. I will contact Cosa Member and Senators to have them vote contra. I will call the King to veto any such bills which pass, and will break from my party if my party support such procedures. Let's be clear here. It looks more like vanity than good policy to make such statements. Past bills get repealed sometimes when a new political theory or idealogy comes into play. The aim of this bill is not to "centralize" statutes, though that is not really a bad idea as we have a lot of statutes that are either redundant or piece-meal. Instead of making wholesale threats, try working with the bill's author to improve it. |
|
