View Topic

While I'd like to highlight that Mathy has done a great job of cleaning up the grammar of our laws, the sheer number of them he's found and the very real likelihood that we'll accidentally make more as we go along that will need the long and stupid process of amendment for what are really just capitalization or punctuation errors suggests we need an alternative process.
To that end, I propose the following legislation:

Title
1. This act shall be cited as the Grammar Amendment Simplification Act.

Legislation
2. "Typographical errors" in statutory and procedural legislation may henceforth be amended at the discretion of the Speaker of the Underhusen.
2.1. "Typographical errors" are to be defined as errors which do not alter the plain meaning of a statute or law, including but not exclusive to those of a grammatical, punctuating, capitalization, or spelling error.
2.2. This power does not extend to Constitutional Law, which shall continue to only be amendable pursuant to Section VII of the Fundamental Laws.
3. The Speaker must report any proposed changes to both the Underhusen and Monarch, and must ensure a minimum of 48 hours passes between making the report, and making any such changes.
4. Where either the Monarch or Underhusen should dispute the change, the Speaker may elect to either explain their changes, or present the amendments as proposed legislation to the Underhusen.
4.1 Should there be no dispute for the minimum 48 hours, or should all disputation be withdrawn, the Speaker may make their amendments.
4.2 Disputes that arise after the Speaker has already made their changes shall not be considered.
4.3 Disputes that arise after the 48 hour minimum period, but before the Speaker has made any changes, must still be considered until disputation is withdrawn, or if the Speaker presents legislation to the Underhusen which subsequently passes said body.

I am concerned about the potential for abuse here. You seem to have anticipated most possible abuses, but it is possible that someone notices that the Speaker sneaked something into the amendment that people did not notice in the 48 hours.

The proposal in its current state also gives the Underhusen power over Overhusen procedure, which seems like a bad idea.

Hmm.
To my mind, any potential abuses would need to be fairly substantive changes - and any substantive changes would alter the plain meaning of the laws in question. Anything more severe than adding in a missing full-stop, changing up numbering to match other legislation, or capitalizing an uncapitalized word, would very likely be immediately contested.
The only circumstance I can think of that might be unnoticed is introducing a comma, quotations marks or something of that sort into a piece of legislation that might succeed in changing its meaning - but would then be legally contestable as having changed the plain meaning of the law in question in the first place, rendering any such changes illegal and thus invalid.

Moreover, purely technically, someone could simply state 'I preemptively oppose this change until I've had a chance to review it and subsequently withdraw my opposition' upon any such change being announced, which would be within the letter, if not the spirit, of this law - which is why I continue to make our current option of passing legislation available.
Really I just proposed this legislation because I think it's kind of dumb that the only work we can consistently do is correct grammatical errors, but we nonetheless receive some level of 'credit' for passing laws when those laws are kind of dumb dotting-i crossing-t kind of laws anyway.

As to giving the Underhusen 'power' over Overhusen law - only in the very strictest sense of the word, where 'power' is having any ability to change it whatsoever, when the only changes that could possibly be made are the profoundly secretarial-in-nature changes of 'cleaning up any mistakes in language'.
And we hardly suggest secretaries have power over their bosses in any regard.

To my mind, any potential abuses would need to be fairly substantive changes - and any substantive changes would alter the plain meaning of the laws in question. Anything more severe than adding in a missing full-stop, changing up numbering to match other legislation, or capitalizing an uncapitalized word, would very likely be immediately contested.

Moreover, purely technically, someone could simply state 'I preemptively oppose this change until I've had a chance to review it and subsequently withdraw my opposition' upon any such change being announced, which would be within the letter, if not the spirit, of this law - which is why I continue to make our current option of passing legislation available.

My worry is that a Speaker could take advantage of a lull in activity where the other Skrifa and Monarch just happen to not be there within the 48 hours.

It is an edge case, but I'd certainly like to see some way of dealing with this other than then having to go back and pass another amendment to the law to bring it back to how it used to be. Largely because an amendment to revert a non-amendment seems rather silly. Perhaps allow either/both the Underhusen and Overhusen to contest changes after they are implemented by a simple majority vote, at which point the law is reverted back to how it was previously and then such a change must be introduced via an amendment?

Really I just proposed this legislation because I think it's kind of dumb that the only work we can consistently do is correct grammatical errors, but we nonetheless receive some level of 'credit' for passing laws when those laws are kind of dumb dotting-i crossing-t kind of laws anyway.

Not sure how we're getting any credit, you don't really get anything for passing laws (you do get badges if you write them, but badges are useless and valueless too). And the person who does spot the error and correct it should get credit, so I don't see that as an issue.

That said, allowing quick fixing of grammar errors is definitely a good thing, and would mean that we don't have to repeatedly go through this rather annoying process of repeatedly drafting full amendments to fix them.

As to giving the Underhusen 'power' over Overhusen law - only in the very strictest sense of the word, where 'power' is having any ability to change it whatsoever, when the only changes that could possibly be made are the profoundly secretarial-in-nature changes of 'cleaning up any mistakes in language'.
And we hardly suggest secretaries have power over their bosses in any regard.

Except that under your proposal, the Overhusen has no power to dispute any changes the Speaker makes to their Procedural Rules, meaning that if the Underhusen decides to abuse the law to modify Overhusen procedure, they have no direct recourse. (Of course, they can appeal to the Monarch, whom they arguably represent, but this still puts the OH in a weird position of not being able to control changes to their own Procedural Rules.)

There's also the issue of principle that the two houses of the Storting should be self-governing, as outlined in the Fundamental Laws:

11. Each chamber of the Storting shall have the authority to create and revise their own procedural rules.

Of course, there's nothing in there against delegating the authority to someone else, and if the OH is fine with that, I suppose that's fine, but it does blur the lines a bit.

My main issue is one that taulover has brought up, that which violates the ability for each chamber to set their own procedural rules. While, theoretically, the Overhusen could delegate it, there is the issue that these chambers have long held, for nearly five years, that procedural rules originate within the Chamber they belong in, and that the other Chamber has no review of the rules. As such this would not only overturn years of legal procedure and precedent, but also potentially and irreparably harm the ability of the Overhusen to not only regulate itself, but also of the Overhusen to perform its duties.

I further have issues with some of what this act does, it greatly empowers the Speaker, and gives them almost free reign with our laws, the potential for abuse is too rife with issues, an example being that 'presenting to the Monarch and Underhusen' is ill-defined. Do they have to present the text of their changes, or just have text stating what they plan to change. Additionally, does the presentation have to be in public, or can it be private? If it is private, how does showing the Underhusen occur? Can a majority of the UH be shown, a minority, or does the entire membership need to be shown? These are questions that need to be asked, but also need to be considered. Does the time limit only start upon these changes being presented to the UH and Monarch, or only when show to one? If it is in private, does the timer begin upon sending the announcement, or upon seeing the announcement? A bad actor will use these questions, these ambiguities, in order to abuse this proposal to change texts as they need to do so.