The Fundamental Laws Supremacy Amendment ActThis session saw the reintroduction of
the Fundamental Laws Supremacy Amendment Act, which had been introduced during the Twenty-Eighth session by current Speaker of the Underhusen
Chanku L. Kaizer. It was reintroduced to the floor of the Underhusen on August 11th by Speaker
Chanku. The act seeks to explicitly establish the Fundamental Laws, our constitution, as above any other law or document, to fix a potential loophole in the current system. The current system would allow the Storting to legally alter the Fundamental Laws with statutory law, as the Storting has the power to pass laws in all matters, with the supremacy of the Fundamental Laws is only a legal norm and custom.
The amendment itself explicitly declares that a law that conflicts with the Fundamental Laws is invalid. This also extends to decrees and rulings to protect the Fundamental Laws. While this situation would ultimately be fruitless, it would be legally possible to do it which is concerning enough none-the-less. Additionally, it makes it harder for a bad actor or a group of bad actors, to harm Wintreath.
Upon being reintroduced, the bill provoked some discussion and reactions, with some clarifications being made, and it was quickly moved to a vote. Upon voting on the act, it was almost unanimously passed the Underhusen, with Evanlicious not voting. The act passed the Overhusen with a majority of three, the other two peers (
Aragonn and
Cinciri) abstaining. As such this amendment will now be moved to a vote by the Citizenry during the next election, where it is to be seen if it will be passed or rejected, although there is currently no opposition to this amendment.
The Persona-Non-Grata Amendment ActThe Persona Non Grata Amendment Act was proposed to the floor of the Underhusen on August 20th by Skrifa
Syraj. Its original stated purpose was to give overriding rights to the Monarch and the Storting regarding each other’s PNG declarations, citing a potential misuse of the current system by a “bad Storting” that would necessitate an appeal by the Monarch. Immediately fellow Skrifa were skeptical, but Skrifa
Katie attempted to bring a compromise by making such an appellate process more difficult.
The topic was also highly debated in its thread in the Citizen’s Platform. Thane of Dispatches
taulover expressed, in response to Skrifa Katie’s rebuttal of the Speaker’s arguments, the concern that since the Storting and the Monarchy are separated to the point that they cannot interfere with each other, increasing more checks may increase the amount of interference. “The Overhusen represents the Monarch”, as taulover says.
In the end, the act passed the Underhusen with only Speaker Chanku voting against. Skrifa
North originally abstained but switched his vote to “aye”, citing Evanlicious’ inactivity and intent to expedite the passage of the bill. The bill failed the Overhusen with a unanimous “nay” vote. An oft-quoted source for their opposition to the bill was Speaker Chanku’s initial arguments regarding the bill’s pitfalls.
The Speaker Election Amendment ActThe Speaker Election Amendment Act was presented to the floor of the Underhusen on August 20th by Skrifa
North. It was intended (at least from what can be ascertained) to address the issue of tiebreaking in Underhusen Speaker elections by introducing 3 tie-breaking ballots and allowing the Monarch a tie-break vote in the event of the failure of the extra ballots.
Quite quickly, many questions arose from fellow Skrifa. Skrifa
Katie was concerned that the wording of the bill implied that there were already multiple ballots, and Speaker
Chanku cited a clause of the Fundamental Laws that states the Underhusen must elect a member of their own.
The intense debate lasted for more than 48 hours before Skrifa
North motioned to table the resolution. The motion passed with the seconds of Katie and Syraj. It is unknown at what future date the Underhusen may return to this legislation and what solutions they may come up with.
