View Topic

1. Title and Purpose
1.1. This Act shall be styled the Amendment Protocol Act.

1.2. This Act has the purpose of enabling proper record keeping in the amendment procedure, and requires that all future amendments make note of what was changed, removed or added before they can be passed.

2. Definitions
2.1. An amendment is defined as any act or process through which pre-existing law is altered, revised or otherwise edited.

3. Legal Grounding
3.1. Under Article II Subsection 10 of the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath, the Storting has the ability to "take any ... action deemed necessary and proper" in order to fulfil its constitutional duties. While the Fundamental Laws note the amendment procedure for the Constitution, and only requires a ratification for such amendments, the process by which statutory law can be amended is undefined, and as such it is impossible for one to grasp the evolution of our law over time.

4. Amending Pre-existing Legislation
4.1. It must be made clear, with reference and citation to the original legislation, which sections of an amended Act require changing and what changes are to be made. To this end, an amendment Act must clearly demonstrate the section of the existing law AS THEY CURRENTLY STAND and the proposed changes to it.

5. Alterations Petitions
5.1. In the instance of a citizen bringing a proposed amendment to the Citizen's Platform, upon achieving a minimum of five (5) sponsors from other citizens - not including the proponent themselves - the Underhusen must open a discussion thread addressing the suggestions.

5.2. A member of the Overhusen may lend their support to a petition in the Citizen's Platform or create one of their own. Overhusen members count as 2 sponsors when supporting a petition, and 1 sponsor when proposing their own amendment.

Right, this is a revamped version of the original Act I proposed way back in 2014 (here), with the references to the Fundamental Laws stripped out where they were superfluous and a more definitive process of amendment outlined to hopefully be enshrined in law.

This act is more of a record-keeping Act than anything else - the primary purpose is, as stated, allowing one to view the evolution of our laws over time rather than only being able to read the law as it currently stands (one can of course go back and find every amendment act ever, then compare it to the relevant previous one etc etc, but this makes it much easier and neater).

Thoughts?

EDIT: cut out the title requirements for amendment legislation at Chanku's request, that was a holdover from the original bill

EDIT: Updated to @Barnes' modifications, with altered numbering and spacing.

The Fundamental Laws dictate that all legislation must originate in the Underhusen.  I'm wondering whether that applies to Alterations Petitions, as you propose.  Technically, it is a reversal of the original roles of the two houses.  Instead of the UH urging the OH to consider a bill, the OH now puts the impetus for action on the UH.  Granted, any of them could do that anyway as Citizens in the Platform, but this has statutory considerations.

Otherwise, I like it.  You're quite wordy, Weiss, but that's not always a bad thing :p  I assume this would also apply if we wanted to amend the Procedural Rules, as well?

The Fundamental Laws dictate that all legislation must originate in the Underhusen.  I'm wondering whether that applies to Alterations Petitions, as you propose.  Technically, it is a reversal of the original roles of the two houses.  Instead of the UH urging the OH to consider a bill, the OH now puts the impetus for action on the UH.  Granted, any of them could do that anyway as Citizens in the Platform, but this has statutory considerations.

Yeah, that's why Sec5(c) exists, to make clear that the OH can obviously still talk to UH members and make suggestions that the UH members then introduce normally. It's just to allow the OH to truly come into its own as a checking and revisions chamber (AKA it can actually go out and look for errors in pre-existing legislation and suggest corrections rather than just bringing them to the attention of the UH). It's not granted the ability to create laws to the OH, as that's not its intended purpose, but it does allow it a more direct role in its primary duty as an upper chamber.

Otherwise, I like it.  You're quite wordy, Weiss, but that's not always a bad thing :p  I assume this would also apply if we wanted to amend the Procedural Rules, as well?

Sue me, I can't help myself when writing legislation :p I wasn't entirely sure regarding the Procedural Rules, considering that's more of an in-chamber thing rather than actually modifying statutory law, but it could work like that. I've noticed since posting this that the laws pages will note Acts that have amended the law, but not the changes made. That's the kind of stuff I want to rectify

Otherwise, cheers! Haha.

Ugh, wordniness.

Nowt wrong with a little bit of length law

Fixed up the wording issues around the OH's ability to make use of amendment petitions - this draft allows them to lend support to petitions in the Citizen's platform (where they count as 2 sponsors rather than the usual 1) and create their own petition in the same forum (where they count as 1 sponsor instead of none).

Thoughts?

If we are to go with an amendments protocol (which I personally see as unnecessary but not necessarily a dealbreaker against anything), the bill has to be a bit more bare-bones. For example, I believe a lot of the subsections can be combined or removed entirely: 3(a) and 3(b) into a single section 3; cutting out 4(a), 4(b)(i), and 4(c); combining 5(b) and 5(b)(i); and removing all of section 6.

I also feel that Overhusen members should count double in all cases, not just when cosponsoring an amendment.

I'm very much not a fan of cut down laws. Dividing through the use of subsections keeps things neat and easy to read, and there's absolutely no reason aside from preference to make acts shorter.

Hell, most of the UH acts have been little more than a paragraph long. We don't need to write them like that.

As for your point about OH members, I'm a bit confused. If an OH member lends their support to a preexisting petition, they count as 2 sponsors rather than one. If they start their own petition, they count as 1 sponsor rather than 0, but any OH member supporting that petition once it's made still counts as 2.

It's not so much as making the bill shorter for the sake of being shorter, it's that some of the subsections are either redundant, similar enough to subsections before it to be in the same subsection, or are overreaching. For example, I feel I shouldn't be required to name an amendment a certain way even when it's clear the bill represents an amendment (ignoring, for instance, the specific naming conventions used for the procedural rules).

And for the other point, it seems a little unfair that OH sponsors are essentially penalized for starting their own petitions instead of cosigning an exist petition. That may instead induce OH members to get others to write the petition for them and do their bidding.

Also, we really should keep things as short as is reasonably possible. It's much easier to keep people's attention with laws when it's a few lines long and people don't take one look at the thing and go: "oh, boy."

It's not so much as making the bill shorter for the sake of being shorter, it's that some of the subsections are either redundant, similar enough to subsections before it to be in the same subsection, or are overreaching. For example, I feel I shouldn't be required to name an amendment a certain way even when it's clear the bill represents an amendment (ignoring, for instance, the specific naming conventions used for the procedural rules).

And for the other point, it seems a little unfair that OH sponsors are essentially penalized for starting their own petitions instead of cosigning an exist petition. That may instead induce OH members to get others to write the petition for them and do their bidding.

I don't see any redundant sections, but I'll try and cut things down. As for the OH, there's no penalisation whatsoever? What do you mean? OH members count as 2 when they sponsor and 1 when they start, meaning they only need 4 more, whereas usual members count as 1 when they sponsors and none when they start, requiring 5 total sponsors. Where's the penalisation?

Also, we really should keep things as short as is reasonably possible. It's much easier to keep people's attention with laws when it's a few lines long and people don't take one look at the thing and go: "oh, boy."

I... what? I mean, really?

I don't mean to be rude but if you can't be attentive to a bill that's more than 5 lines long why the fuck are you in the legislative? There's no problem with longer acts at all, no reason they need to be short and concise, no benefit from it except perhaps leaving them open to misinterpretation. I legislate with a more 'wordy' style because I cover as many eventualities in the original law as possible to avoid future amendment.

I'm sorry for not being able to see the math properly until now.

In any case, Weiss, there's no need to become pissy at Laurentus just because he felt your bill is too lengthy. I will say, however, that wordiness is not an issue here.

I'll show you the corrections I was talking about:

1. Title and Purpose
1(a). This Act shall be styled the Amendment Protocol Act.
1(b). This Act has the purpose of enabling proper record keeping in the amendment procedure, and requires that all future amendments make note of what was changed, removed or added before they can be passed.

2. Definitions
2. An amendment is defined as any act or process through which pre-existing law is altered, revised or otherwise edited.

3. Legal Grounding
3. Under Article II Subsection 10 of the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath, the Storting has the ability to "take any ... action deemed necessary and proper" in order to fulfil its constitutional duties. While the Fundamental Laws note the amendment procedure for the Constitution, and only requires a ratification for such amendments, the process by which statutory law can be amended is undefined, and as such it is impossible for one to grasp the evolution of our law over time.

4. Amending Pre-existing Legislation
4. It must be made clear, with reference and citation to the original legislation, which sections of an amended Act require changing and what changes are to be made. To this end, an amendment Act must clearly demonstrate the section of the existing law AS THEY CURRENTLY STAND and the proposed changes to it.

5. Alterations Petitions
5(a). In the instance of a citizen bringing a proposed amendment to the Citizen's Platform, upon achieving a minimum of five (5) sponsors from other citizens - not including the proponent themselves - the Underhusen must open a discussion thread addressing the suggestions.
5(b). A member of the Overhusen may lend their support to a petition in the Citizen's Platform or create one of their own. Overhusen members count as 2 sponsors when supporting a petition, and 1 sponsor when starting their own.

I know these cuts would probably make you unhappy, but I feel they were necessary because there were sections that didn't need to be divided, and some of the law was just referencing existing law, added to the fact that I wasn't sure where section 6 was going.

You did see I said "as short as is reasonably possible?" You did? Good. So really, don't be pissy. I don't much appreciate it.

I'm sorry for not being able to see the math properly until now.

In any case, Weiss, there's no need to become pissy at Laurentus just because he felt your bill is too lengthy. I will say, however, that wordiness is not an issue here.

I'll show you the corrections I was talking about:

1. Title and Purpose
1(a). This Act shall be styled the Amendment Protocol Act.
1(b). This Act has the purpose of enabling proper record keeping in the amendment procedure, and requires that all future amendments make note of what was changed, removed or added before they can be passed.

2. Definitions
2. An amendment is defined as any act or process through which pre-existing law is altered, revised or otherwise edited.

3. Legal Grounding
3. Under Article II Subsection 10 of the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath, the Storting has the ability to "take any ... action deemed necessary and proper" in order to fulfil its constitutional duties. While the Fundamental Laws note the amendment procedure for the Constitution, and only requires a ratification for such amendments, the process by which statutory law can be amended is undefined, and as such it is impossible for one to grasp the evolution of our law over time.

4. Amending Pre-existing Legislation
4. It must be made clear, with reference and citation to the original legislation, which sections of an amended Act require changing and what changes are to be made. To this end, an amendment Act must clearly demonstrate the section of the existing law AS THEY CURRENTLY STAND and the proposed changes to it.

5. Alterations Petitions
5(a). In the instance of a citizen bringing a proposed amendment to the Citizen's Platform, upon achieving a minimum of five (5) sponsors from other citizens - not including the proponent themselves - the Underhusen must open a discussion thread addressing the suggestions.
5(b). A member of the Overhusen may lend their support to a petition in the Citizen's Platform or create one of their own. Overhusen members count as 2 sponsors when supporting a petition, and 1 sponsor when starting their own.

I know these cuts would probably make you unhappy, but I feel they were necessary because there were sections that didn't need to be divided, and some of the law was just referencing existing law, added to the fact that I wasn't sure where section 6 was going.

I like these revisions, don't worry :p

You did see I said "as short as is reasonably possible?" You did? Good. So really, don't be pissy. I don't much appreciate it.

That wasn't me being pissy Lau, never fear! Apologies, I missed "reasonably" on the first readthrough.

Right, updated the original with @Barnes' revision and tweaked it a tiny bit. Does anyone else have any major issues with it, or any suggestions? @HannahB, you said you might have some ideas about perhaps expanding this legislation further?