View Topic

Title
1. This act is to be cited as the Authorization of the Direct Management of Culture Act

Authorization
2. The Storting hereby grants the Monarch the responsibilities, duties, and authorities to manage the Culture of Wintreath in all facets allowed by Wintrean Law. The authorities are all that is necessary and proper that conforms with existing Wintrean Law. This includes matters including, but is not limited too: Festivals and Festivities, Games and Gaming, and Competitions. It also includes the direct management, regulation, and control of any Role Playing or Role Playing matters. In gaps of law where no court decision, statutory law, or constitutional law exists, the Monarch has controlling discretion.

Opinion
3. It is the opinion of the Twenty-Ninth Storting that many of these authorities, responsibilities, and duties are Executive Powers, derived from the Executive Duties vested into the Monarchy in Article II of the Fundamental Laws. However, in the nature of ensuring that the Monarch explicitly is able to act in these matters, and to additionally enshrine these authorities within law.

Reauthorization
4. This act must be reauthorized by every Storting within the first month of that session. If it fails to pass the Storting after the first month of that session, the act is considered null. Reauthorization occurs through this act being passed through the normal mechanisms for law, and must pass unaltered in form. If an amended or altered version of this is passed, then that act automatically repeals this act. The twenty-ninth storting recognizes this as a stop-gap measure until such a time that a better law is passed.

I introduce this to the Underhusen for consideration.

Remember that the period of debate will last for forty-two hours after which motions may be made.

This is a piece of legislation from the previous Storting that I decided ought to be revived. I've labeled it as a [DRAFT] for now because there may be some things we want to change, or perhaps we no longer hold the same opinion as the 28th Storting did.

Chanku was the original author and he attached the following statement to the original legislation:

I hereby introduce this matter to the Storting, as it helps fill some potential gaps within the law of Wintreath where the Monarch technically does not have legal authority to do things like, for example, regulate Role Plays

I also made a couple of spelling and grammar corrections.

16.8.2018 - added Section 4 titled "Reauthorization" based on the suggestions of The Right Honourable Speaker Chanku.
17.8.2018 - changed "twenty-eighth" to "twenty-ninth" in Section 3

I would also point out that we are the 29th Storting, not the 28th.

I would also point out that we are the 29th Storting, not the 28th.

Indeed, although I didn't realize that at first

I don't, necessarily, support this bill anymore, for a few reasons.

First is the fact that, during discussions with some citizens and within the Riksrad, there were concerns of the power we were granting, and several people were opposed to doing it, and stated it would deter them from actually starting Roleplays and other events.

Next is the fact that I'm not sure this is entirely necessary anymore, as some other ideas have been proposed during some of those discussions that I think would do much better, and be less of an issue. I am currently working on proposals for these ideas.

With that said I would not be entirely opposed to the bill as a stopgap measure, with it needing to be renewed by the Storting every session or two, until a better proposal is introduced, but I would prefer to wait a bit longer before doing so. Although, in the end, it wouldn't be worth the time or energy to pass this at this time, in my opinion.

Perhaps we could put in a clause requireing that the 30th Storting would have to choose between renewing it or repealing it. That would give us time to work at a better, long term solution.

Perhaps we could put in a clause requireing that the 30th Storting would have to choose between renewing it or repealing it. That would give us time to work at a better, long term solution.

Yeah but wouldn't that just be pushing it down the line for someone else to deal with? I don't see the use in that.

It would be a stop gap. Give us time to create a long term solution.

I would prefer a section that would go something like this:

This act must be reauthorized by every Storting within the first month of that session. If it fails to pass the Storting after the first month of that session, the act is considered null. Reauthorization occurs through this act being passed through the normal mechanisms for law, and must pass unaltered in form. If an amended or altered version of this is passed, then that act automatically repeals this act. The twenty-ninth storting recognizes this as a stop-gap measure until such a time that a better law is passed.

I agree with almost everything expect the 2nd last line. Not allowing amendments or alterations in the future could backfire and it limits options available to future Stortings. Also, some clarification may be needed on that line.

I agree with almost everything expect the 2nd last line. Not allowing amendments or alterations in the future could backfire and it limits options available to future Stortings. Also, some clarification may be needed on that line.

Specifically, it must pass unaltered for re-authorization. 

But what is the defenition of alteration? If the next Storting puts in a section saying that the 30th Storting renews the act, is that an alteration? Or is just to the original text?

I am agreeing with North's sentiments here. I think making it so that future Stortings can only pass this if it's completely unchanged doesn't make any sense.

But what is the defenition of alteration? If the next Storting puts in a section saying that the 30th Storting renews the act, is that an alteration? Or is just to the original text?

It would be an alteration. The way the act is renewed with the following procedure:

• The original act is reintroduced into the Underhusen
• It goes to a vote
• Upon passing it goes to the Overhusen
• It gets voted on
• Upon passing the act is reauthorized
• If it fails, if the Underhusen overrides, the act is reauthorized

An amendment or alteration to the act merely means that the altered act takes effect and the original act is not reauthorized. So if they do make that alteration, then that act takes effect and the old act no longer is in effect, it would be similar, but they would be two legally separate acts.

EDIT: I should mention this does not prohibit amendments to the bill, in which case the amended version would have to be introduced instead.

I feel like that's a bit convoluted. Why force them to make a legally separate act if they want to modify it?

I feel like that's a bit convoluted. Why force them to make a legally separate act if they want to modify it?

It's only if they amend it while reauthorizing the act. If they alter the act, they are not reauthorizing the act, they are passing a different act all together.