With this act, I have only one thought, "No." The reason being is that this act not only violates the Fundamental Laws, but the rights of Wintreans, grants great power to the speaker, and goes beyond just a light-hearted act. This act is not something that we should pass.
With the act violating the Fundamental Laws, it does so by violating Article V, Section I. This section reads:
Citizens shall have the right to speak and to protest freely.
This act violates said section by creating compulsory speech, something which is the very antithesis of free speech. While the proponents of this proposal may argue that it does not, with the powers it grants to the Speaker, it forces a Skrifa to say something in order to prevent an act from being terminated. Further the type of speech also violates another right of Wintreans, one which is not found in our Fundamental Laws, but is considered to be a fundamental right none-the-less. The law forces a Skrifa to not only speak, but to also worship the potato, a deity of the 'potato religion' of which a Skrifa may not be. It then grants the Speaker the authority to enforce the requirement, at their discretion. Further the law can be interpreted to grant the Speaker more powers than even I am comfortable with.
Now, onto the powers granted. The law reads, at the time of posting,
Title:
1) This act shall be titled the "The Righteous Act".
Amendments and Additions:
2) The "The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act" shall be amended to add a section 17 which shall read as follows:
Any Skrifa who introduces a proposal to the Underhusen at any time must prior to discussion of the legislation, its contents or matters related, praise the name of the Holy Tato, TADER, else the legislation be void at the discretion of the speaker. The Holy Tato must be praised prior to the discussion but it is not required to start all statements with a praise after the initial praising at the beginning of a topic.
While some may read it, and find it benign, this can be interpreted to allow the Speaker the authority to unilaterally repeal and terminate any law that does not worship the potato in the manner demanded by the law during a debate. This comes from the following line
...else the legislation be void at the discretion of the speaker.
However legislation is markedly different from proposals. If it used the wording as found at the start of the section, which is proposal, then it would clearly mark that it only applies to a proposal which has not yet been passed. However it does not. In not making that distinction it creates a reasonable interpretation. Further this interpretation of the law does not actually conflict with any other rule or procedure, and as the Court ruled in Case 001, Chanku v. Pengu - Wintermoot - 2015.08.29, if it does not conflict with any law or procedure then it is valid under the law. As such this can be reasonably construed to mean that any proposal which did not praise the potato can become void, even after becoming law, should the speaker wish to make it so. This has far reaching consequences, allowing the Speaker to single handedly reverse and repeal any or all of our pre-existing laws as they do not contain any such worship. Indeed because there is nothing suggestion the law can not be retroactively applied, such a reasonable interpretation exists. I hope the other Skrifa here agree, that this goes beyond a joke proposal with the powers it gives to the Speaker, and the powers it does grant to the Speaker are more expansive than anyone here should be comfortable with.
I also wish to touch upon the potential future cries of, "It's just for fun!" or "It's not a serious proposal!" With that I must say, this act goes beyond something fun and silly; it goes beyond such a thing because it is not only operative, but grants large and far reaching powers to the Speaker. The law I suggested declaring the potato the holiest food was acceptable because it was not only non-operative, but had no legal requirement for any citizen to actually recognize it as such. The law for changing the speaker selection process was acceptable because, while operative, it did not actually grant any great power to anyone, instead it granted the position of Speaker, which is not that powerful of a position as it stands.
As such I can not, indeed I will not, support this proposal and I must oppose it. I hope that my fellow Skrifa join me in this, and stand with me.
Edit: I accidentally forgot to put the quote tags around something
