View Topic

Title
1. This shall be titled the Procedural Rules Amendment XII

Amendments
2. Section 3(a) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be amended to read as follows:

(a) 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.  If the bill is a Revocation of Citizenship, the ability to expedite shall be relinquished.

3. Section 4(a) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be stricken null and void.

Why must we have Section 13?

Well simple, lets say something occurs in the UH that isn't defined by the procedural rules...it's in Limbo. Allowing the Speaker to decide procedure in cases where such a case might occur is basically the best solution to prevent the issue as the speaker is elected by the Storting.

I agree that there needs to be something to where the Speaker doesn't have to guess on things.

However, I'm worried about personal bias and interest taking hold of topics like it did in previous sessions...hence the reason why Section 13 was taken out of the procedural rules in the first place.

Well there are more definitions now, so it's less likely.

Until everything is completely defined with no wiggle room for assumptions, I consider it a double-edged sword.  It's necessary for certain issues that may arise, but it's still an easily corruptible passage depending on the Speaker and if they have a personal agenda/bias.

They can always be recalled. Besides it's better to have it to prevent the Underhusen from being unsure of what the fuck to do....

Actually, they can't always be recalled.

True, however worst comes to worst the guy won't get reelected.

And how does that help the people currently sitting in the Underhusen?

Agreed. That's not good enough that bad actions can be reversed. If we have the opportunity to prevent them, we should.

Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad Laurentus. Sometimes it doesn't help (although I do have an idea for a mechanism allowing the speaker to be impeached and removed from office) the people in the UH, however at the same time it has a possibility of helping the UH not stall.

Could we set up a system that allows the UH to empower the Speaker with greater authority if unusual situations aris?

Could we set up a system that allows the UH to empower the Speaker with greater authority if unusual situations aris?

Such would be my preference.

That's somewhat unnecessary bureaucracy, further what if an unusual situation occurs in the attempt to empower the speaker, then what happens, another attempt to empower him to resolve the unusual situation to empower him to resolve the initial situation?