View Topic

We were supposed to alter the procedural rules in the last term after Govindia's citizenship revocation attempt, but it seems we didn't get around to that.

Therefore:

Title
1. This act shall be named the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment X

Amendment
2. Section 3 (a) shall be amended to read:

(a) A motion to expedite may be made, and the motion will pass with a unanimous decision from the Underhusen. In the case of a revocation, no motion to expedite may be made.

This ensures that important topics are discussed properly, since there isn't technically a law that forces Skrifa to discuss things so thoroughly in the Citizen's Platform.

However, if this sounds too unproductive, I don't really see a reason for the Speaker not to be able to expedite with support of a second, since the added clause prohibiting expedition in the case of a revocation should alleviate the main concern.

So it could also look like this:

Title
1. This act shall be named the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment X

Amendment
2. Section 3 (a) shall be amended to read:

(a) The Speaker of the Underhusen may motion to expedite, and the motion will pass if it receives a second from a fellow Skrifa. In the case of a revocation, no motion to expedite may be made.

Discuss away.

Title
1. This shall be titled the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment X

Amendments
2. Section 3, sub-section (a), shall be amended to read as follows:

Any Skrifa may motion to expedite at any time after a proposal has been introduced.  If the motion receives a second, the bill will proceed to a vote no later than 24 hours after the second. A motion to expedite can not be proposed for a bill which concerns the revocation of the Citizenship of a Non-Paragon Wintreath Citizen.

3. Sections 13 and 14 of the Procedural Rules shall be renumbered to Section 14 and 15 respectively, and a new Section 13 shall be added, which shall read:

13. The Speaker of the Assembly shall have the power to determine procedure related to any matter that is not covered by this Act at his or her discretion.

Here's my take on it.

Chanku covered my concerns on the matter of expediting.  I think when it comes to sensitive topics such as revocations, the power to expedite should be relinquished.

Was that your only concern?

Additionally:

A motion to expedite can not be proposed for a bill which concerns the revocation of the Citizenship of a Non-Paragon Wintreath Citizen.

This creates the loophole that we may expedite in the case of a Paragon's revocation.

Well yes, but in most cases a Paragon's Revocation would be a revocation of paragon status.

"In most cases?"

We need to prevent any loopholes that could arise. Therefore just outright prohibiting expedition in the case of ANY revocation would be the way to go.

I mean the only person that's even become Paragon while holding citizenship is Amalya. That's it, none of the others actually hold standard citizenship, thus can only be revoked through the Storting. Besides Paragons won't usually have their citizenship revoked, because they are Paragons.

Future-proofing never hurt anyone.

True, but the revocation of citizenship of a Paragon should never happen, because Paragon is not given out often. Hell the chance of someone getting Paragon and still holding regular citizenship are low. So I view it as needless future proofing. Again with the Citizenship of Paragons the only real need to revoke all but one Paragon's citizenship at this time, is to repeal the Paragon Act. Amalya is the only person to hold Paragon and Standard Citizenship at the same time, and I believe will be the only citizen to ever do so unless something happens in the future.

And I maintain that since we can't predict the future, keeping it simple and removing any possible loopholes would be best.

I wouldn't call it a loophole. Again it's not necessary. Paragon is the highest thing within Wintreath because you don't even need to have Wintrean Citizenship in the first place. It's an honor bestowed upon anyone that the Storting deems fit to receive it. So again, I don't think we should worry about it now. If it becomes a large enough issue, where there are more paragons with standard citizenship, then that would be fine. However it's useless future-proofing that is not-necessary.

And including the Non-Paragon part is also pretty useless and serves absolutely no purpose, indeed creating an exception to the law which someone could exploit at a later stage. Why do we have to wait for something to become a problem before fixing it? That's a recipe for disaster.

Simply saying that we may not ever expedite during a citizenship revocation achieves exactly what we want it to achieve in fewer words, and leaves nothing which could be exploited.

This is the rule of logic. The more conditions you add to something, the more it can be exploited. Keeping it simple goes a long way to avoiding headaches.

Yes, but leaving it out introduces a legal question, are repeals of Paragon Acts, for a Wintreath Citizen that only has Citizenship through their Paragon Status, revocation or are they simply repeals. Not including it introduces a VERY complicated legal question that has no one right answer.

Considering that this clause only has relevance to expedition, I can't imagine it ever being a problem if we just say that expedition will not be allowed under any circumstances when dealing with the revocation of citizenship.

If your legal question is whether a paragon counts as a citizen, then create a new topic for that, and we can clarify that with an act.

Actually it raises the question about the expidition of Paragon repeal acts. Do they count as revocation or not? Hence the inclusion of the non-paragon wording.