Wintreath Regional Community
A Link to the Past - Archives => The Registry of Things Past - Historic Archive => Underhusen Archive => Topic started by: Michi on October 13, 2017, 07:52:31 PM
-
Title
1. This bill shall be cited as the Amendment to the Speaker Selection Omnibus Amendment Act
Amendment to the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath
2. Section 4 of the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath shall be amended to read accordingly:
4. At the Conclusion of each election, the Underhusen shall, under supervision of the Monarch, select a member of its own to preside over the Underhusen. Further procedure shall be declared in the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen.
Changes:
*"Upon the conclusion of the election" has been changed to "At the Conclusion of each election" to follow the style of section 8 of the Procedural Rules of Wintreath.
I feel like that comma after "election" is a bit awkward, but I'm leaving it in just in case I'm wrong and it needs to be there. Commas and I don't tend to get along well, since I rarely know when to place them in the right moment.
-
I also do notice that the second of these changes was corrected in the Omnibus Constitutional Correction Amendment and likewise in the 2nd amendment (not formally, but just changed), but the original act still has that error.
-
I also do notice that the second of these changes was corrected in the Omnibus Constitutional Correction Amendment and likewise in the 2nd amendment (not formally, but just changed), but the original act still has that error.
If that's the case, then (assuming that there were no amendments to that clause later on) perhaps the amendment to that clause is unnecessary?
-
@Pengu you edited my post :P
Ninja edit: I see that you've noticed :D
-
I also do notice that the second of these changes was corrected in the Omnibus Constitutional Correction Amendment and likewise in the 2nd amendment (not formally, but just changed), but the original act still has that error.
If that's the case, then (assuming that there were no amendments to that clause later on) perhaps the amendment to that clause is unnecessary?
Ugh, I hate when I hit "quote" but it clicks "modify" right next to it. I hope Wintermoot changes the masking soon. :P
Anyways...
Looking further into it, it was something that was fixed by Sapphiron, hence the change...though the original was never updated, the correction acts were just added onto the list of amendments. So I will withdraw that as a "change" to it.
-
If the only change is a minor style one, does it still merit the whole constitutional amendment process that this bill would have to go through?
-
If the only change is a minor style one, does it still merit the whole constitutional amendment process that this bill would have to go through?
Goodness gracious that obnoxious button is just in my way today.
At that point, not necessarily. Though it could be tacked onto the second one up for discussion, since that one has more than a singular change. :P
-
Eh, belay that. It would work, especially since there are other changes to fix...but since those laws are in other categories (this being a Constitutional law, the other being a Statutory law, etc...), it'd be a little unusual to lump it all together into one bill.
As such, at this time I'll just motion to table this bill, since in its current state it's unnecessary for the process it'd have to go through to pass.
-
Yeah, I don't like mixing Constitutional and Statutory Law.
Seconding motion to table. wait no I'm the Speaker I can't do that
-
To confirm, you've made the necessary edits to the laws archives to reflect existing amendments?
-
To confirm, you've made the necessary edits to the laws archives to reflect existing amendments?
I don't have the authority to update anything outside of our own procedural laws.
The current amendments were added, but the original form of the laws still have the same errors, so one has to click the current amendments to see the grammatical/wording/spelling changes.
But as far as our own procedural laws, yes. Whenever an amendment is passed, I keep them as up to date as possible with a link to the most recent amendments added at the end of the thread.
But if you're viewing those, always use the thread in our forum. I don't know how often the section in the Laws page is updated.
-
To confirm, you've made the necessary edits to the laws archives to reflect existing amendments?
I don't have the authority to update anything outside of our own procedural laws.
The current amendments were added, but the original form of the laws still have the same errors, so one has to click the current amendments to see the grammatical/wording/spelling changes.
But as far as our own procedural laws, yes. Whenever an amendment is passed, I keep them as up to date as possible with a link to the most recent amendments added at the end of the thread.
But if you're viewing those, always use the thread in our forum. I don't know how often the section in the Laws page is updated.
Oh. So @Wintermoot would need to update them then?
-
To confirm, you've made the necessary edits to the laws archives to reflect existing amendments?
I don't have the authority to update anything outside of our own procedural laws.
The current amendments were added, but the original form of the laws still have the same errors, so one has to click the current amendments to see the grammatical/wording/spelling changes.
But as far as our own procedural laws, yes. Whenever an amendment is passed, I keep them as up to date as possible with a link to the most recent amendments added at the end of the thread.
But if you're viewing those, always use the thread in our forum. I don't know how often the section in the Laws page is updated.
Oh. So @Wintermoot would need to update them then?
Correct, he'd be the only one I know of with the authority to do so.
-
I seem to recall Wuufu also being able to do so?
-
I seem to recall Wuufu also being able to do so?
I hadn't thought of that possibility, since he also does a lot of technical stuff. So it makes sense he might have that authority as well.
-
Was the thing that was already fixed the "supervison" issue? It seems to be fine in the main copy of laws currently.
-
Was the thing that was already fixed the "supervison" issue? It seems to be fine in the main copy of laws currently.
Yeah, when I was going through the laws yesterday, that was the particular one that stood out to me in the original law.
-
Was the thing that was already fixed the "supervison" issue? It seems to be fine in the main copy of laws currently.
Yeah, when I was going through the laws yesterday, that was the particular one that stood out to me in the original law.
The Fundamental Laws of Wintreath has that fix edited in already... Unless you're referring to the quote in the Speaker Selection Omnibus Amendment Act, in which case I argue the typo should be left in, because it's an outdated version of the law that has already been fixed by a later amendment.
-
Would my fellow Skrifa like to second the motion to table Pengu's proposal?
A reminder that motions to table require a majority vote to pass.
-
@Mathyland
@Laurentus
@North
-
I second
-
I'll third
-
Motion to table passes.
Discussion on tied votes for Speaker may continue. Or should I split that to a separate topic?
-
Split