View Topic

Title
1. This act shall be cited as the Grammar Amendment Simplification Act.

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 subject to the restrictions outlined below.
     2.1 Formatting is defined as precedent-defined layout of legislation, limited to numbering, section titling, and citations of other laws.
     2.2 Correction of these errors may not alter the plain meaning of the legislation.
     2.3 This power does not extend to Constitutional Law, which shall continue to only be amendable pursuant to Section VII of the Fundamental Laws.
     2.4 The Speaker of the Underhusen may only amend statutory and Underhusen procedural legislation.
     2.5 The Chairperson of the Overhusen may only amend statutory and Overhusen procedural legislation.
3. The Speaker or Chairperson must report any proposed changes to both their respective chamber and Monarch and must ensure a minimum of 48 hours passes between making the report and making any such changes.
4. Where either the Monarch or a member of the Storting should dispute the change, the Speaker or Chairperson may either explain their changes or present the amendments as proposed legislation to the appropriate chamber.
     4.1 Should there be no dispute for the minimum 48 hours, or should all disputation be withdrawn, the Speaker or Chairperson may make their amendments.
     4.2 All members of the Storting, as well as the Monarch, reserve the right to contest any changes made at any time within the session during which the legislation was considered, so long as the legislation is not an amendment to the procedural rules of another chamber.
     4.3 Should a dispute still exist after 48 hours the Speaker or Chairman must bring the amendment to a vote.

Peers (myself, @Wintermoot, @Aragonn, @Cinciri and @trader) may now vote Aye, Nay, or may Abstain from voting.

Following the issues raised by Chanku in the Underhusen vote, I will vote Nay on this act.

Nay, for the same reasons. Primarily because it empowers someone to make changes to laws with theoretically little to no oversight.

Nay

While I still support the idea overall, I think that the issues Chanku raised concerning sections 4.2 and 4.3 are valid. I would hope that those sections would be clarified and the legislation re-introduced.

Apologies for the delay replying, I thought I'd already closed this.

With three votes against, I declare this act has FAILED to pass the Overhusen.