View Topic

Technically no Laruentus. It's only required for amendments to the Fundamental Laws, it was technically not an amendment, ergo it did not need to be passed by the citizenry.

FURTHER the act is an extension of it's powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 10) and also uses a portion of the power granted to it under Article I, Section 15 and Section 16.  The law could be considered the issuing of both an advisory opinion and an interpretation of the Fundamental and Statutory Laws in addition to using the powers granted to it under the Necessary and Proper Clause, which would apply it to all classes of law (Article I, Section 15 and Section 16 respectively).

Ah, so we would not need to ratify a similar Act regarding abstention. Good to know. Thank you.

This is why I wish the Right of Amendment Act had passed in the Overhusen - whilst far from perfect, it made clear that alterations to pre-existing non-FL law could be passed without having to go through the citizen ratification process, as well as explaining how Amendments should be written. Oh well :p

The definition act is NOT an amendment act. It merely exists in order to give a definition to a term that was in dispute in all legal documents, from statutory, to the Fundamental Laws and everything in between. Therefore the Right of Amendment Act (RoAA) wouldn't apply here anyway, due to the fact that all of that stuff is found within the Necessary and Proper clause in Article 1, Section 10.

Chanku, you'd argue for everything to come under the "Necessary and Proper" clause if you could. Besides, the RoAA didn't pass in the Overhusen, so it doesn't matter anyway :p

True, however technically most of the UH's power is granted there. Further I originally voted against that act IIRC, due to it being unnecessary under the Necessary and Proper clause.

True, however technically most of the UH's power is granted there. Further I originally voted against that act IIRC, due to it being unnecessary under the Necessary and Proper clause.

Yeah, you and some of the other Overhusen members of the day missed the point of the Act IIRC - not to create a definitive Amendment protocol for non-FL laws but to provide an exhaustive amendment PROCESS (AKA: quoting the parts of the Act as it stood prior to amendment with the amended text below).

And? We don't need a comprehensive possess for that. Most of our laws were created following am example and a de facto process. You could have made it de facto process by following it and doing it. Either way i still would have voted against it because I abhor de jure standards and prefer de facto standards.

And? We don't need a comprehensive possess for that. Most of our laws were created following am example and a de facto process. You could have made it de facto process by following it and doing it. Either way i still would have voted against it because I abhor de jure standards and prefer de facto standards.

Right, sorry, tried to make sense of this and failed. My point, if you didn't quite get it, was that the RoAA was primarily designed to ensure that when amending laws, the Amendment Bill clearly made note of how the law looked before, and what would change after. It's a filing system improvement, basically, and I don't understand how any of that relates to what your reasons to voting it down were.


Either way, getting off track here. Let's leave it at that.

Not true Weiss, from the preamble of the law itself:

In order to speed up the legislative process, it is important that the Storting be able to pass amendments to already existing Acts (excluding the Fundamental Laws) without having to go through the exhaustive Amendment process.

and it also was designed to purposefully go around established procedure (of which it really didn't in the end) and also created more bureaucracy in our system giving the OH more power beyond it's approval or disapproval of statutory laws and the creation of it's own procedure. Also current amendments already follow the required procedure, the adding of the pre-modification text was only a suggestion....

Not true Weiss, from the preamble of the law itself:

In order to speed up the legislative process, it is important that the Storting be able to pass amendments to already existing Acts (excluding the Fundamental Laws) without having to go through the exhaustive Amendment process.

and it also was designed to purposefully go around established procedure (of which it really didn't in the end) and also created more bureaucracy in our system giving the OH more power beyond it's approval or disapproval of statutory laws and the creation of it's own procedure. Also current amendments already follow the required procedure, the adding of the pre-modification text was only a suggestion....

You will recall I wrote it, so I am more than aware of what the primary intention of the Bill was.  :p

It was also two years ago...

2 years means little, considering I wrote it and still have all of my legal notes from my time in the legislative saved :p

Perhaps a new thread should be created for this dispute?

Well you didn't make that clear Weiss

and nah, it's fine Laurentus.