View Topic

This proposal completely repeals five Acts that are not in line with the current constitution, either because they're about bodies that have been eliminated or powers that are no longer considered legislative authorities.

Title
1) This Act shall be titled the Antiquated Statute Halt (ASH) Act.

Provisions
2) The following Acts are repealed in full:
  2.1) The Judicial Offices Act
  2.2) The Code of Criminal Laws
  2.3) The Underhusen Elections Clarification Act
  2.4) The Declassification of Private Storting Discussion Procedure Act

Original Proposal

Title
1) This Act shall be titled the Antiquated Statute Halt (ASH) Act.

Provisions
2) The following Acts are repealed in full:
  2.1) The Judicial Offices Act
  2.2) The Code of Criminal Laws
  2.3) The Underhusen Elections Clarification Act
  2.4) The Persona Non Grata Act
  2.5) The Declassification of Private Storting Discussion Procedure Act

I'm considering voiding the Definition of Abstention Act as well, because outside of legislative procedural rules I'm not sure the legislature has the power to define what an abstention means. I'm thinking it's probably best done as an amendment to the Fundamental Laws, but I'd like to hear input before making a decision.

Perhaps Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act can be included as well, last amended by Procedural Rules Simplification Act.

On the Definition of Abstention Act, I concur with voiding it as well. Unless the Landsraad and the Riksraad intend to operate by different voting rules, a fundamental amendment inserting a new article on Voting Procedure with provisions adapted from the Procedural Rules Simplification Act will probably suffice

Authorised members may cast one of the following votes on proposals before their respective bodies:
      (a) Aye, indicating that the member is voting in favor of the proposal;
      (b) Nay, indicating that the member is voting against the proposal;
      (c) Abstain, indicating that the member is voting neither in favor of nor against the proposal but wishes their vote to be recorded.

Yeah if we're going to remove the Definition of Abstention Act, we should definitely remove it after adding a comparable section to the Fundamental Laws as abstentions could very much affect the outcomes of referendums.

One other possibility is to include it as Royal Decree, as presumably (given the Monarch's ultimate legislative powers) that has precedence over both Acts of Landsraad and Riksraad, and this would thus continue the law at a similar status to how it was previously. The cleanest way to do this I think would be as a modification to the existing Decree 13.

Perhaps Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act can be included as well, last amended by Procedural Rules Simplification Act.

The procedural rules of the Storting were never statutory law, they were just procedural rules for bodies that are now defunct. I don't think there is a need to repeal them when they hold no jurisdiction.

The procedural rules of the Storting were never statutory law, they were just procedural rules for bodies that are now defunct. I don't think there is a need to repeal them when they hold no jurisdiction.

It's more symbolic in the sense of archiving a more complete compilation of key acts (procedural or substantive) passed by a now abolished body

Okay, more strongly: it does not make sense to repeal procedural rules of a now-defunct body. It is not part of the legal system and it would be incredibly strange to address them through a law intended to void statutes that conflict with the current Fundamental Laws.

I'm with Tau on this one, the Procedural Rules were internal rules only and never codified into law, so they're not really required to be added in here.

Amended
I've amended the proposal to include the Declaration of Govindia as PNG, as the ability to declare someone PNG is no longer a legislative authority and his PNG has been continued in Decree 014.

Title
1) This Act shall be titled the Antiquated Statute Halt (ASH) Act.

Provisions
2) The following Acts are repealed in full:
   2.1) The Judicial Offices Act
   2.2) The Code of Criminal Laws
   2.3) The Underhusen Elections Clarification Act
   2.4) The Persona Non Grata Act
   2.5) The Declassification of Private Storting Discussion Procedure Act
   2.6) The Declaration of Govindia as Persona Non Grata

Additionally, I've drafted a constitutional amendment to resolve the issue regarding abstain votes, and will hold off on further action on the ASH Act until that's resolved.

As for the Storting procedural rules, I agree with taulover and Weissreich that their procedural rules went down with the ship. I don't feel that strongly about it though, so I would be fine if the consensus was to explicitly void them as well. I just don't feel that it's strictly necessary to do so.

Wait, do we require a new Royal Decree establishing the framework for PnG declarations? Because now there is no explanation which in a sense makes Persona Non Grata legally meaningless.

@taulover: I don't think we do at the moment. Whether it was originally a legislative or executive power, they're both tied in me at the moment and I haven't delegated PnG authority to either the Riksraad or the Landsraad.

It's something to make a note of when we eventually finalize the legislature into the Fundamental Laws though. 

My thought is more that we don't even define persona non grata at all anywhere, so would be concerned that PnG declarations arguably carry no meaning/weight.

Sounds like it might be something to get codified tbh, PnG (whilst rarely used, as it should be) is an important tool for moderation. As it's the effective online form of execution or banishment, it definitely should be made clear what it is and when it may be used.

E: I'm fairly sure PnG has always been the purview of the Monarch, and I think it's best that it remains so - or perhaps delegated between the Monarch and the trusted membership of the Cabinet? I'm torn between respecting the security having Moot's finger on the button represents and wanting to see it a little more democratic, but I'd happily err on the side of caution on this one.

Yeah, it might be easiest for Wintermoot to just amend Decree 014 to add a section that defines what a Persona Non Grata status means and what it entails.

E: I'm fairly sure PnG has always been the purview of the Monarch, and I think it's best that it remains so - or perhaps delegated between the Monarch and the trusted membership of the Cabinet? I'm torn between respecting the security having Moot's finger on the button represents and wanting to see it a little more democratic, but I'd happily err on the side of caution on this one.

PnG was shared by Monarch and Storting, with neither having any power over the other's PnG declarations, see Persona Non Grata Act. This was possible because Storting had power over citizenship. The administrative aspect of PnG was legally a non-binding request, because both the Monarchy and legislature are legally distinct from administration.

Now there is no legal definition of PnG, which isn't really good since there are several active PnG declarations.