Let's Stop Worrying About Numbers Bill

Crushing Our Enemies

Crushing Our Enemies

TNPer
-
-
Discord
COE#7110
Let's Stop Worrying About Numbers Bill:
The Preamble of the Legal Code shall be amended to read as follows:
In order to present a clearer and more comprehensible legal system, the Regional Assembly undertakes to keep the law of the North Pacific organized and clear. If a minor error is found in this Legal Code, the Speaker will update it on the published instructions of the Court, unless a Regional Assembly member objects within five days. This Code will be divided into several Chapters, which may contain Sections. Every operative sentence must be a numbered clause, Clauses must be numbered consecutively within a Chapter beginning with the number 1. Clauses may be referenced by chapter and clause number, but clause numbers will not be considered part of the law, nor will they have any legal effects. The Speaker will manage the numbering of clauses in accordance with the above requirements.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Here is the marked up version of the bill:
Let's Stop Worrying About Numbers Bill:
In order to present a clearer and more comprehensible legal system, the Regional Assembly undertakes to keep the law of the North Pacific organized and clear. If a minor error is found in this Legal Code, the Speaker will update it on the published instructions of the Court, unless a Regional Assembly member objects within five days. This Code will be divided into several Chapters, which may contain Sections. Every operative sentence must be a numbered clause, Clauses must be numbered consecutively within a Chapter beginning with the number one. Clauses may be referenced by chapter and clause number, but clause numbers will not be considered part of the law, nor will they have any legal effects. The Speaker will manage the numbering of clauses in accordance with the above requirements.
Click to expand...
Let's examine it piece by piece.

1. It removes the unconstitutional Minor Error clause. That clause was declared unconstitutional by the court ages ago, but it's removal was never ordered by the court, so it stayed on the books. It's about time we shed the Legal Code of this unconstitutional provision. Link to ruling.

2. It removes the requirement that every operative sentence be a separate clause. This was just red tape for the sake of it, and we've been ignoring that restriction all along. The Legal Code is full of clauses that have more than one sentence, and the NPA section even has sub-clauses, which would be strictly forbidden by this. So this is just bad news that needs to go.

3. Puts additional requirements on how clauses are numbered. Essentially, this formalizes the numbering system we already have: start with the number one, count up consecutively, start over when you get to a new chapter. Nothing new here.

4. Removes the numbers in the Legal Code from the domain of law, and empowers the speaker to manage the numbering. Here's the meaty part. The court ruling on the minor error clause says it's unconstitutional for the speaker to correct minor errors in the law without an act of the regional assembly. So, if we remove the numbers from the law, and turn them into an extra-legal structure of organizing the law, then it should be constitutional to allow the speaker to edit them in accordance with the new restrictions we've defined earlier in the preamble.

This accomplishes a few objections. Chief among them is that it completely removes the need to add renumbering clauses to every single bill we pass- the speaker can now do that on this own without us telling him to. Second, it prevents us from inadvertantly passing numbering errors in our legislation that we then have to write new legislation to correct. Third, it prevents us from passing bills that conflict over numbering (editing overlapping portions of the legal code, since the numbers aren't part of the code anymore. To clarify, you could still reference exact clause numbers in your bill, but if the numbers changed before your bill passed, it wouldn't screw up the implementation.

I think that considering recent problems we've had over numbering, and controversies we've had over the formatting of bills, this is necessary and worthwhile legislation. What do you think?

UPDATE: New version of the bill replaces the word "one" with the number "1" to encourage the use of Arabic numerals >_>
 
Before I weigh in on this...I'd like the court to give an informal opinion on this just so we don't do all this work and then have the court overturn it. That would be a waste.

The main thing I'm wondering is if we are able to say "clause numbers will not be considered part of the law". If the court is fine with that wording from a constitutionality standpoint, then I think this works.
 
I doubt the court would be willing to do that. Then, if the law were challenged, they would all have to recuse themselves, you know?

There is always the potential that something we pass will be overturned. Unless you personally see a constitutional issue with you, I'd encourage you not to let that affect your vote.
 
I like this bill and I can easily get behind it. If the court would be more comfortable with different wording we can try other dictation.
Instead of that wording would the following be more agreeable? "Clause numbering will have no effect on the law with the exception of organizing it." Your thoughts my fellow assembly members?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I doubt the court would be willing to do that. Then, if the law were challenged, they would all have to recuse themselves, you know?

There is always the potential that something we pass will be overturned. Unless you personally see a constitutional issue with you, I'd encourage you not to let that affect your vote.
Click to expand...
I guess I'd prefer this in the constitution somewhere to make me feel better that a future court wouldn't overturn it.

But I can support this in the hopes that it is not overturned.
 
I'd be in favor of adding a similar preamble to the constitution, and applying it to all legal documents, but given the higher majority needed to pass such a bill, and the more ambitious nature of it, I'd prefer to start with this and see if there's even enough support for it, first.
 
Cause the court said the speaker can't just change the feckers. That's kinda the point of this whole bill is to let the speaker do that.
 
You need to consider how cross-referencing of one provision by numerical designation(s) in another provision would be handled. It would be impossible to handle in a bill if the numerical designators of the cross-referenced provision are in the text of a clause.
I fully intend to introduce a constitutional amendment to address minor errors and missed coordinated changes in any adopted legislative change to the Governing Documents, and it'll be similar to a procedure that worked under the last Constitution. We should have kept it, and it would have avoided a lot of these kind of issues.
I also think we need to make the responsibility that of the Speaker, and not of the Speaker's deputies.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I also think we need to make the responsibility that of the Speaker, and not of the Speaker's deputies.
Click to expand...
Funny you mention that, I'm not sure if I even have the ability to edit legal documents.

EDIT: Checked, I don't.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Cause the court said the speaker can't just change the feckers. That's kinda the point of this whole bill is to let the speaker do that.
Click to expand...
mr Bumble in Oliver Twist:
"If the law supposes that, the law is a ass - a idiot".
Click to expand...

I did not realise that I live in the empire of the Medes and Persians where legal ruling, once given, is immutable.
 
Well, it's not. There are two ways to change it - either the court issues another ruling, or the RA passes a law. We're doing the latter.

Grosse, we have been carefully avoiding referencing other clauses by number within the text of the law precisely because the numbers change so often. This bill will not cause the numbers to read any differently than they would the way we've been doing it, except that we wouldn't have as many misnumbering errors.
 
First off, it's entirely possible that the minor error clause *is* unconstitutional, and a legislative solution is *necessary* to correct that.

Secondly, the court currently has two requests for review and a criminal trial on their plate. Legislation will fix the problem faster.

Third, this solution is *better* than the minor error clause because it allows the speaker to fix numbering without having to ask the court for permission.
 
flemingovia:
Just let the speaker change the feckers.

Why the need for legislation?
Click to expand...
Because those are the rules and the rules say the rules are the rules and therefore the rules say those are the rules and that's the rules and the rules must be obeyed because those are the rules. :P

Personally, I'd love to just allow the Speaker to change the feckers, but that might lead to a Speaker mistaking the letter "U" for "E" and that might result in Buggers being Beggers and that makes a world of difference in the end results (and which end gets the results).

But all things being equal, I think COE's proposed bill fits the bill perfectly. It is simple enough, unambiguous enough, keeps this sort of stuff from ending up in court and also keeps us all from beggering, er, excuse me, buggering off into complex legalize that sooner or later ends up in court resulting in all manner of beggery, er, excuse me, bu...... never mind.
 
I do not understand why people want to defer to the Court. The proper, efficient, and clean solution to legislative issues is fixing them through amendments, not by relying on the Court to produce one opinion or the other.

As long as we do not start cross-referencing clauses, which as COE said we have been religiously avoiding, this bill should work perfectly. I would personally prefer that we just remove numbers altogether and have them maintained by the Speaker outside a legal framework (we maintain a numbered list of Court rulings, there is no reason why we could not likewise maintain a numbered list of Legal Code clauses). But the practical effect is the same, so I am not going to insist on this point, and instead will support this bill.
 
I can't speak for others, but given that the court previously struck down a Legal Code clause (Preamble, actually) that allowed the speaker to correct minor edits, it does not seem outside the realm of plausibility to ask the present court their opinion on a matter that the court previously ruled unconstitutional.

It's about efficiency and not wasting time fine-tuning this legislation with the court throwing it out shortly thereafter. Having said that I'm fine supporting this legislation and hoping.
 
One, two, three, four,
We don't wanna count no moar!
Five, six, seven, eight,
This counting stuff we really hate!

Seriously, the Bible is still the Bible without chapter and verse, and the Constibillicode will still be the Constibillicode without the numbering.

I'm fully in support of clauses four (4) and five (5) of the Let's Stop worrying About Numbers Bill, to wit:
4. Clauses may be referenced by chapter and clause number, but clause numbers will not be considered part of the law, nor will they have any legal effects.
5. The Speaker will manage the numbering of clauses in accordance with the above requirements.

>^,,^<
Alunya
 
I do not feel that enough discussion has been made on this topic, as most of it was worrying about how the judical would feel on the proposal and not the merits of the pros and cons of the proposal itself. As such I am not comfortable moving this into formal debate at this time. Though I defer to the speaker to overrule me if he is so inclined to believe otherwise.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
I do not feel that enough discussion has been made on this topic, as most of it was worrying about how the judical would feel on the proposal and not the merits of the pros and cons of the proposal itself. As such I am not comfortable moving this into formal debate at this time. Though I defer to the speaker to overrule me if he is so inclined to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...
I think there's no provision to prevent formal debate from occurring if the member that proposes a bill wants to do so. The shortening of debate however shall not occur for the reasons PWL42 stated.

Formal debate is in order, it shall last for five days, after which a vote shall be scheduled.
 
With all due respect, this legislation's purpose is so simple and universally agreeable that there's simply nothing much to say about it. I think that's why we haven't seen very much debate, and why a full-length formal debate period isn't necessary.
 
Yay for sensible solutions to a silly little problem.

Removing red tape in TNP...I think I might faint :P
 
Alunya:
Seriously, the Bible is still the Bible without chapter and verse, and the Constibillicode will still be the Constibillicode without the numbering.
Click to expand...
AS it happens the Bible got by just fine without a numbering system for thousands of years. Chapters were only introduced by Langdon in the 13th Century, and verses some 200 years later than that.

And the bible is considerably longer than the constitution, hard as this may be to believe.

My worry about this bill, which has not been addressed, is that it gives carte blanche to the Speaker to number as they see fit.

Now, if *I* were speaker, I would consider renumbering on a weekly basis using different numbering systems (beginning, as the legislation demands, with the word "one":

Diskworld Troll
One
Two
Many
Lots.

Old English
One
tw?gen
þr?e
f?ower
f?f

Samoan
One
lua
tolu
fa
lima


Etc.

THIS WOULD BE ENTIRELY LEGAL UNDER THIS BILL. HUZZAH.
 
No, it wouldn't, because of this part:
Clauses must be numbered consecutively within a Chapter beginning with the number one.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean. I don't consider that a major problem, since the numbers have no legal effect. Even a speaker decided to get trolly, he wouldn't be able to screw us with that latitude. If anyone feels strongly about it, I can outlaw that possibility without much extra language to the bill.
 
Actually I would love to see a Troll numbering used in the Constibillocode. What comes after lots? Lots one, lots two, lots many, lots lots? :P
 
Actually, I may run for speaker just so that I can do this. And then block any bills coming to vote at all until I am recalled. TBH, I think we could stop passing legislation altogether and I do not think anyone would notice much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top