View Topic

The only reason I changed the subsection numbering to (a), etc., was to keep in line with the subsection numbering of other bills.

In any case, the initial 48-hour debate period has expired, so we must decide how to proceed with the bill.

The only reason I changed the subsection numbering to (a), etc., was to keep in line with the subsection numbering of other bills.

In any case, the initial 48-hour debate period has expired, so we must decide how to proceed with the bill.

I chatted to Wuu on IRC and he proposed changing it to this numbering system, which is the one I used to use when legislating here a while back. Check the CoCL and JOA for examples - I agree with Wuu that it looks a little less jarring on the eyes than parentheses.

As I'm proposing this I won't motion to vote. @Laurentus @Point Breeze @North @HannahB @Pengu.

I would prefer to use the numbering standard I'm used to, but I didn't write the bill. I won't stop you from changing the numbering system for bills you write; let's not worry about it further.

I can't motion to vote, either, so I want to hear what everyone else thinks.

Motion to extend debate by 72 hours.

I second this. I apologize for not responding earlier...I've been busy with work, and finally have tomorrow off so I can be around to actually discuss it.

Hmm, I take it I can't second the motion to vote now oh well.

And for note, I thought about the changes I was suggesting for this act and reconsidered as they'd probably be better in an act of their own. Which I am currently working on.

I guess not, Hannah
Debate's been extended by three days as of 3:16am CDT. New motions can proceed after the listed time on April 25.

Alright, so I guess my first question is this: this act won't mean the UH can only consider a citizen's legislation in the Platform once said citizen gets 5 sponsors, right? Because that would completely strip the citizenry's voice.

Following on from that, and with the assumption that the answer is "no," why is that clause actually needed?

Alright, so I guess my first question is this: this act won't mean the UH can only consider a citizen's legislation in the Platform once said citizen gets 5 sponsors, right? Because that would completely strip the citizenry's voice.

Following on from that, and with the assumption that the answer is "no," why is that clause actually needed?

It doesn't mean that, no, and UH members are perfectly allowed to support a Petition themselves if they so wish. Why is the clause needed? Because in discussion with Hannah, and I think it was PB, we mentioned the idea of introducing change in small bursts as we build up towards the eventual Storting reformation bill. Sponsors may well be a part of the eventual system of proposing legislation we use in this new set-up, so I thought it prudent to give sponsorship a trial run for something not that important so we could see how well the concept works.

Also, in preparation for the potential evolution of the Underhusen into the open lower chamber of the region, trialing interest in this kind of process (which will be used, under Gerrick's proposal, to approve new lower chamber members) allows us to start down the road of bringing the citizenry into the Storting one bit at a time, testing things as we go so that we know what needs work and what works fine

Ah, that makes sense. That's all I can think of to comment on right now.

This bill has gone for over a day without any debate; I cannot stand for it. I was going to ask whether this bill had mild constitutional implications as opposed to merely statutory, seeing as the sponsorship requirement for amendments is in play. However, when thinking about legislation introduced only in the Underhusen (and not amended by the Overhusen at all, per sections I.7-8), I failed to account for the roles of private citizens in the matter. It does bring to light a question of whether Overhusen members are even allowed to propose amendments (resting on the question as to whether the role of a Peer sponsoring an amendment bill in the Citizens' Platform is as a Peer or as a normal Citizen), and whether they are even allowed to count for double in that regard.

e: post 888! My argument is that allowing OH sponsorships to count for double emphasizes the fact that they are an OH member, implying that their (and by extension the OH's) role in amending legislation is greater, which I'm not sure is allowed.

This bill has gone for over a day without any debate; I cannot stand for it. I was going to ask whether this bill had mild constitutional implications as opposed to merely statutory, seeing as the sponsorship requirement for amendments is in play. However, when thinking about legislation introduced only in the Underhusen (and not amended by the Overhusen at all, per sections I.7-8), I failed to account for the roles of private citizens in the matter. It does bring to light a question of whether Overhusen members are even allowed to propose amendments (resting on the question as to whether the role of a Peer sponsoring an amendment bill in the Citizens' Platform is as a Peer or as a normal Citizen), and whether they are even allowed to count for double in that regard.

e: post 888! My argument is that allowing OH sponsorships to count for double emphasizes the fact that they are an OH member, implying that their (and by extension the OH's) role in amending legislation is greater, which I'm not sure is allowed.

I see no reason why OH members wouldn't be allowed to suggest amendments to previous legislation. By becoming a member of the OH they don't surrender their right to make suggestions to the region at large, or have I missed something in the FL?

The relevant section is here:

8. The Overhusen shall vote to pass or veto the legislation upon passage by the Underhusen. The Overhusen shall not amend legislation in any way.

I've added emphasis, but the FL pretty much states that the OH isn't allowed to amend legislation WHEN IT REACHES THEM after being passed by the UH. There's no mention of them not being allowed to suggest amendments outside of their voting thread, only that they cannot themselves use their veto powers to directly alter the text of an Act at vote.

As such, this bill shouldn't be unconstitutional.


Beyond that, your point about giving OH members higher sponsorship counts is, I think, valid. I included that point primarily to emphasise the fact that OH members are involved in legislation ANYWAY and so would, one assumes, have a greater understanding of our laws than the average citizen. Thus, the increased sponsorship count reflects the fact that they should know what they're about when supporting an amendment - after all, they passed the original law, but couldn't revise it at that point in time.

If people have an issue with that, we can make it so that the OH is simply included in the Alterations Petition section, but have no extra standing in terms of sponsorship.

E: tidied up my explanation a lil bit.

Right, the extension of debate has expired (@Barnes) and there's been no further comments. Under the assumption that no one has any further issues with this Act, considering the lack of discussion, I motion to vote.

The only issue that remains as far as I can tell is the OH's sponsorship powers. Do we want to cut it down to they count as one when sponsoring and one when starting, so there's less of a OH bias? That way, we note their involvement in our legislative process but don't raise their opinions up TOO much.

Either way, I continue to motion to vote unless someone responds to this point.

I second the motion to vote

Out of interest, @Point Breeze - what changed your mind on this Bill when it came to vote? You were at first in support of it, and I'm intrigued to see what's causing the nay votes so we can work on improving it.