View Topic

All officers of the Underhusen are permitted to have a standing invitation to speak before the Underhusen

We are missing a period. The period seems to have been deleted after Section 13 of the Officers Amendment was added in after it, which is why it was not caught in the grammar check. Also unfortunately, I did not catch this error until after I closed the vote. This typo should be fixed.

Also, "are permitted to have a standing invitation" seems to be vague wording to me, especially when contrasted with the wording in Section 11(a)—namely, "The Monarch shall have a standing invitation." It is unclear whether it simply means that the Speaker is allowed to grant them standing invitations, or if the they are given standing invitations immediately upon appointment and for the duration of their term (in which case there also is ambiguity on whether they lose this invitation if they lose their officer position).

Thoughts?

@Mathyland
@Doc
@Chanku

The initial wording was meant to reflect the wording in the Monarch section, apparently I hadn't written it properly though. This is entirely my mistake.

Title
1. This act shall be cited as the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment XVII.

Amendment
2. Section 11(b) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be amended to read:

(b) All officers of the Underhusen shall have a standing invitation to speak before the Underhusen.

Thoughts?

We could also add "for the duration of their time in office" if you guys think it clarifies things, or just leave it this way.

@Mathyland
@Doc
@Chanku

Remove the shall, and it should be good (perhaps we could also amend the section for the Monarch as well to include this change)

Seems to just be a stylistic preference to me.

I think we should either keep both with "shall" for consistency, or change both (but I don't like altering the style of existing law if the meaning is already clear).

Title
1. This act shall be cited as the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment XVII.

Amendments
2. Section 11(b) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be amended to read:

(b) All officers of the Underhusen shall have a standing invitation to speak before the Underhusen.

Thoughts?

We could also add "for the duration of their time in office" if you guys think it clarifies things, or just leave it this way.

@Mathyland
@Doc
@Chanku

Shouldn’t the header be “Amendment” instead of “Amendments?” I’ve made the distinction before in my grammar correction amendments.

Because when their term is over, they are no longer an officer of the Underhusen, I don’t think adding that is a necessary clarification. Even if it’s not necessary though, there’s no harm in making the clarification. Or maybe there is harm in it, but I just don’t see it. I guess it doesn’t matter what we choose to do. If I had to pick, I’d say to just leave it because it is already clear enough.

Shouldn’t the header be “Amendment” instead of “Amendments?” I’ve made the distinction before in my grammar correction amendments.

Because when their term is over, they are no longer an officer of the Underhusen, I don’t think adding that is a necessary clarification. Even if it’s not necessary though, there’s no harm in making the clarification. Or maybe there is harm in it, but I just don’t see it. I guess it doesn’t matter what we choose to do. If I had to pick, I’d say to just leave it because it is already clear enough.

I saw a law saying "Amendments" when there was only one amendment, so I just copied that.

I'll make that change though.

And yeah, leaving it that way probably works.

Title
1. This act shall be cited as the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment XVII.

Amendments
2. Section 11(b) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be amended to read:

(b) All officers of the Underhusen shall have a standing invitation to speak before the Underhusen.

Thoughts?

We could also add "for the duration of their time in office" if you guys think it clarifies things, or just leave it this way.

@Mathyland
@Doc
@Chanku

Shouldn’t the header be “Amendment” instead of “Amendments?” I’ve made the distinction before in my grammar correction amendments.

Because when their term is over, they are no longer an officer of the Underhusen, I don’t think adding that is a necessary clarification. Even if it’s not necessary though, there’s no harm in making the clarification. Or maybe there is harm in it, but I just don’t see it. I guess it doesn’t matter what we choose to do. If I had to pick, I’d say to just leave it because it is already clear enough.

They actually remain an Officer of the Underhusen, the only Officers that don't are the Skrifa and Skrifa Pro Tempore because they are required to be members of the Underhusen, every other Officer lacks this requirement, as such they retain their position until removed or the Office itself is dissolved.

Further, the use of shall in legal documents is considered bad in certain areas, due to the multiple definitions of shall. As such, the usage of shall isn't necessary, and can be removed.

Some articles regarding the removal of the usage of shall in legal documents:
The lawyerist
ABA Journal