View Topic

Title
1. This act is to be cited as the Fundamental Laws Amendment XII

Amendments
2. Article VII of the Fundamental Laws is re-titled as "Amendments"
3. Article VII, Section 2 of the Fundamental Laws is amended to read as follows:

The Storting shall have the authority to propose amendments to these Fundamental Laws by a two-thirds supermajority vote of both the Underhusen and Overhusen.

4. Article VII, Section 3 of the Fundamental Laws is amended to read as follows:

Any amendment to these Fundamental Laws passed by the Storting is considered ratified if approved by both the Monarch and by a two-thirds supermajority in favor of the Citizens of Wintreath voting at referendum.

Missing period in #2

@Wuufu
@Wintermoot
@Aragonn
@Cinciri
@trader

for y'all's convenience.

Unless I'm missing something, this just looks like a change in styling to me, given that the Fundamental Laws is the constitution of Wintreath.

A change in styling isn't important, this update doesn't change the way the law functions enough (or at all) to justify the amendment, at least based on my understanding of the law.

These are the fundamental laws we're dealing with, as Mootles said, and I don't think that a minor cosmetic update justifies a change. Possibly attaching this to an Omnibus bill fixing minor issues in other areas of the legislature would be more appropriate.

 This bill is moderately important, in my opinion and is a bit more than just cosmetic. You see, the Fundamental Laws themselves never refer to themselves as a constitution, and the ONLY section where "constitution" is used is in Article VII, additionally, it uses the term "the Constitution", which implies that there is a separate document that is the constitution. Throughout the rest of the document the use of "these Fundamental Laws" is used (except for in Article II, Section 6 which uses the term "this document"). This means that there is a legal argument that there is another, perhaps unwritten, constitution within Wintreath that is above the Fundamental Laws as the Fundamental Laws refers to a constitution, but does not state that the "constitution" it refers to is in fact itself. The exception in Article II, Section 6 is passable because it makes it clear it refers to the Fundamental Laws itself, although it should still be amended to read "these Fundamental Laws" as opposed to "this document". The rest of the changes are mostly cosmetic though.

So, I do hope that you do understand that there is a bit of a legal question with the current wording, which due to its different nature, could lead to potential concerns over what "the Constitution" is, even though the Fundamental Laws is our constitution (and we commonly refer to it as such.)

Seems like this is a widespread issue then...

I guess there are 2 possible solutions:

1) Pass a bill defining our constitution as being the Fundamental Laws

2) an Omnibus bill correcting these mistakes

Seems like this is a widespread issue then...

I guess there are 2 possible solutions:

1) Pass a bill defining our constitution as being the Fundamental Laws

2) an Omnibus bill correcting these mistakes

I feel like the former option makes more sense, as this was the only real issue I saw in Chanku's post.

I would not be very open to doing the former option, as the term Constitution only appears in that Section of the Fundamental Laws, no where else in our laws is that name mentioned, as such it could be viewed as an attempt to amend the Fundamental Laws without actually amending it.

Also I would like to point out that it is not like we have had an amendment that is basically just a styling amendment, an example of this is the The Royal Titles and Styles Act which is basically just amending the Preamble of the Fundamental Laws with it amending or changing nothing else.

Reiterating my concern on lack of periods in #1 and #2.

If the current bill at vote passes the Storting, I will probably be voting Nay in the referendum for this reason.