View Topic

I have not been on top of Underhusen proceedings as of late, so thank you, Weissreich, for the notification.

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.

Vote aye, nay, or neither (abstain).

@North @Point Breeze @Weissreich @Pengu @HannahB @Laurentus

Aye

Aye.

Nay.

Nay

Abstain

I'm tagging @Laurentus again as a reminder to vote before the bill closes.

Nay.

What's with the random "..." in 3.1, and why have a 3.1 when there is no 3.2? I don't much like 3 as a whole, if I'm being honest. I don't quite see the point of showing the evolution of the law either.

I support section 5 for its attempt to test a potential new way of doing things to gain a better idea of how to bring change in the Con-Con, but my support of that isn't strong enough to drive me to support the bill as a whole.

Ellipsis, there was an additional word there in the FL which isn't necessary for understanding the purpose of that section. It's a common tool when quoting things

So general support for Section 5, but no real support for making it a requirement to show what's being changed when amendments are made? Odd, I'd have thought it would be the other way around.

I actually liked section 5 quite a bit.

And I vote nay. With a vote of 4-2-1 against, this act has failed the Underhusen.

Since further discussion is happening at the moment, I will leave this thread open for the next 24 hours before locking it.

Yeah, that's what I said Lau - I was expecting it to be the other way around haha. I'll continue discussion of this in the appropriate thread, Barnes, so go ahead and lock

Oh right; I forgot that I'd left that thread open. I'll lock this one, then.