View Topic

I motion to extend debate for 24 hours

I motion to extend the debate. The numbering hasn't been updated yet, so we can't move to vote, and it's worthwhile to keep working on rather than tabling it.

I withdrawal my motion to extend debate and hereby second the Honourable Elbbsas Kaizer's motion.

Motion passes, debate extended by 24 hours.

Opps, I meant 48 hours, not 24.

@Elbbsas @Chanku I personally believe it should be a number-letter system, solely because it makes it clearer which are subsections when citing them.

However, the number.number system is a very common system and is even used in my Student Government. Therefore, I'll be using that system.

4c. Should a dispute still exist after 48 hours the Speaker or Chairman must bring the amendment to a vote.

Added this as section 4.3.

Two things, first, I want to be absolutely sure that this is the correct version?

Second, in 4. I just want to clarify. If I am reading this correctly, it says that the Speaker may elect to explain the changes he makes or present an amendment. It somewhat implies that, in matters that are not statutory, the Speaker does not have to present an amendment even if there is significant opposition in the UH. Now, I may be mistaken so I just want to check, is that the intent of this section?

I've now changed it to reflect my proposed wording:

"...may elect to either explain their changes or present the amendments as proposed legislation to the appropriate chamber."

Legislation
2. Errors of punctuation, capitalization, and formatting in statutory and procedural legislation may henceforth be amended at the discretion of the Speaker of the Underhusen and Chairperson of the Overhusen in the contexts outlined below.
     2.1 Formatting is to be defined as precedent-defined layout of legislation, limited to numbering, section titling, and citations of other laws.

Iffy Word Use: "contexts" - The listed subpoints seem more like guidelines/methods/restrictions/limitations than contexts.
Unneeded Words: "to be" - I can't recall if this is personal style choice or not, but adding "to be" weakens the phrase.

Also, this is just something interesting, but apparently you aren't supposed to use underlines in any digital media, else confuse some poor soul that there are links where none are found. Which is annoying because underlining headings is useful. This is irrelevant here, but it's a good fact to know in general.

Otherwise, I'll leave the details to everyone else.

@North I move to vote

Do I have a second?

No, don't second, hang on.

Very well, I await with baited breath, Elbbsas.

2. Errors of punctuation, capitalization, and formatting in statutory and procedural legislation may henceforth be amended at the discretion of the Speaker of the Underhusen and Chairperson of the Overhusen in the situations outlined below.

I have the same problems with this word as I did with "contexts." The listed points this section outlines are not circumstances or situations. 2.1 is a definition, 2.2 is a guideline, as is 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.

"Errors of punctuation, capitalization, and formatting in statutory and procedural legislation may henceforth be amended at the discretion of the Speaker of the Underhusen and Chairperson of the Overhusen with the (guidelines/restrictions) outlined below" describes the list better. I recommend "guidelines," because that better fits 2.1, as that is a definition. After all, the subsections outline the guidelines and restrictions that future modifications have, and are not scenarios that people will stumble into.

(As an aside, I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, but please explain why so I know it's done on purpose. Writing rules are made to be broken but you need to know the effect of doing so first).

2. Errors of punctuation, capitalization, and formatting in statutory and procedural legislation may henceforth be amended at the discretion of the Speaker of the Underhusen and Chairperson of the Overhusen in the situations outlined below.

I have the same problems with this word as I did with "contexts." The listed points this section outlines are not circumstances or situations. 2.1 is a definition, 2.2 is a guideline, as is 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.

"Errors of punctuation, capitalization, and formatting in statutory and procedural legislation may henceforth be amended at the discretion of the Speaker of the Underhusen and Chairperson of the Overhusen with the (guidelines/restrictions) outlined below" describes the list better. I recommend "guidelines," because that better fits 2.1, as that is a definition. After all, the subsections outline the guidelines and restrictions that future modifications have, and are not scenarios that people will stumble into.

I chose the term "restrictions" as they are all meant to restrict the situations in which this power may be exercised. The wording I used was "...subject to the restrictions outlined below:..."

Let me know if that's okay I want to get this right.

Alright. I second the motion to vote.

Motion passes, this now goes to a vote.