The Omnibus Legislative Corrections Act

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
I hereby propose the following amendment to the Constitution with a coordinating amendment to the Legal Code to implement the Constitutional amendment.

It is based on the procedure that was in place under the prior Constitution and Legal Code, and in effect provides an expedited unanimous consent method for the Regional Assembly to concur on the corrections to be promptly made, and for normal legislative consideration of those items to which an objection is made.

The proposed Act is as follows:

The Omnibus Legislative Corrections Act
Part I. Constitutional Amendment
Article 9 of the Constitution is hereby amended to add:
3. Whenever legislation is enacted by the Regional Assembly, and due to possible oversight, that legislation contains minor non-substantive errors or fails to include co-ordinated changes in the legal documents governing The North Pacific, a process shall be initiated to correct such errors or omissions in the original legislation. The Regional Assembly must adopt a provision in the Legal Code defining that process.
Click to expand...

Part II. Amendment to the Legal Code
Chapter 6 of the Legal Code is hereby amended to add:
Section 6.8. Legislative Corrections Process
1. Any member of the Regional Assembly may notify the Speaker, the Delegate and the Chief Justice of the need for making any omitted change(s) or correction(s) in the governing documents of The North Pacific to reflect the intent of enacted legislation, which was not included in such legislation prior to adoption.
2. Within three days after notification of an oversight or error, the Speaker, the Delegate and the Chief Justice shall compile or confirm a list of such items related to a specific enactment that are identified as errors in, or co-ordinated changes that were not included in, the text of the enactment.
3. The Speaker shall immediately present that list to the Regional Assembly. A Regional Assembly member may make an objection within 72 hours thereafter as to any specific item on the list.
4. After the 72 hour period, the Speaker, the Delegate and the Chief Justice shall immediately authorize and implement the changes on the correction list of items for which no objection is given, to be made to the official text of the legal documents governing The North Pacific.
5. Any item on the correction list to which an specific objection is made shall thereafter be treated as legislation to make such change under normal legislative procedures.
6. As used in this Section:
6.1. “Legal documents governing The North Pacific” refers to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Legal Code, or any rules adopted by any entity as provided under the Constitution or Legal Code, including but not limited to the Delegate, the Regional Assembly, the Court of the North Pacific, and the Security Council.
6.2. A “co-ordinated change” or “correction” that may be included on the list of items include grammatical errors, spelling errors, typographical errors, cross-references, or omitted changes that should have been included in the enacted legislation.
Click to expand...

Part III. Approval and Adoption
1. This law shall not take effect unless Part I and Part II of this Act shall be adopted.
2. The law shall take immediate effect upon approval of Part I and Part II of this Act.
Click to expand...
 
Grosseschnauzer:
a procedure shall be included in the Legal Code tocorrect any errors
Click to expand...
A spacing error there.. Your proposal is well written, but I'm wondering if it might be simpler to establish a provision that circumvents any numbering/grammatical/typographical errors. Perhaps: Prior to any law/amendment/repeal being enacted, 'some representative' will check for errors in grammar/syntax/spelling/enumeration.
 
I am not sure that omissions, in particular, would be immediately obvious in a short time frame. This procedure is intended to be used at any time subsequent to passage and even after a bill has taken effect.

As to the missing space, that probably comes from the copy space of the draft from the word processor to the forum posting screen.Easy enough to fix.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I am not sure that omissions, in particular, would be immediately obvious in a short time frame. This procedure is intended to be used at any time subsequent to passage and even after a bill has taken effect.
Click to expand...
I can understand preparing for any contingency. Just aiming for brevity if possible.

As to the missing space, that probably comes from the copy space of the draft from the word processor to the forum posting screen.Easy enough to fix.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
This seems rather complicated. I'd probably prefer keeping part one, and re-instituting the minor error clause. I could even just drop the repeal of the minor error clause from my bill, and pass this one as a clean constitutional amendment.
 
The minor error clause only addresses the Legal Code. This proposal deals with any such problems in all three governing documents. Since we do have omnibus bills from time to time that amend both the constitution and the legal code, and a couple others historically that amended all three (the change from NSUN to WA and the change from "impeachment" to "recall,") I think it is safer to address it all and be done with it going forward.
 
How about everyone stop stealing my thunder and let me propose numbering stuff correctly :P

Or you know, we could all have an understanding to make sure things get wtitten correctly. If there is a grammatical mistake post it in the RA so all RA members can see it "hey that is numbered wrong Speaker." *speaker checks* "so it is. Lemme just fix that real quick." "K."

Instead of making complicated long winded legislation.

What is next? A proposal that I have to ask the delegate for a potty break everytime I gotta go?

Not knocking the effort. Appreciate the thought. But cant we do something more simple?

As Trusted RA members, occassionally (I know that is asking a lot) actually read throughly the bills and the legal code and police ourselves if we see a grammatical error just say so and have someone go in and fix the stupid thing?

Am I going to have to go all Rand Paul here:
rand-paul-filibuster-ap.jpg


And Propose a READ THE BILLS act.

Edit: see I saw a misspelling and went in and corrected it, didnt have to propose legislation to change it before I actually changed it.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
How about everyone stop stealing my thunder and let me propose numbering stuff correctly :P

Or you know, we could all have an understanding to make sure things get wtitten correctly. If there is a grammatical mistake post it in the RA so all RA members can see it "hey that is numbered wrong Speaker." *speaker checks* "so it is. Lemme just fix that real quick." "K."

Instead of making complicated long winded legislation.

What is next? A proposal that I have to ask the delegate for a potty break everytime I gotta go?

Not knocking the effort. Appreciate the thought. But cant we do something more simple?

As Trusted RA members, occassionally (I know that is asking a lot) actually read throughly the bills and the legal code and police ourselves if we see a grammatical error just say so and have someone go in and fix the stupid thing?

Am I going to have to go all Rand Paul here:
rand-paul-filibuster-ap.jpg


And Propose a READ THE BILLS act.

Edit: see I saw a misspelling and went in and corrected it, didnt have to propose legislation to change it before I actually changed it.
Click to expand...
Dammit, you beat me to the punch on that one. :worship:


There might be a simple solution to this issue but sometimes minor grammatical changes can cause major issues in the interpretation of a law. A simple numbering issue is so inconsequential that all that is needed is a simple bill to re-number any given law to comply with standard format (which, as my colleague which I quoted indicates should have been done before the bill goes to a vote.
 
The reason for the unanimous consent/objection procedure is precisely to address the possibility that an item of the list might cause a change in meaning not intended by the original legislation.

Just annexing the minor correction clause of the current legal code into the constitution won't fix that problem, and it doesn't permit any review of the "minor corrections" before they are made.
 
As the sponsor, I motion to vote, assuming the Speaker has no objection to the necessarily omnibus nature of the bill.
If the Speaker does object, then I give notice that I would revise the bill to include all the substantive provisions as a constitutional amendment.
 
At the behest of the bills sponsor with a motion to second by an RA member in good standing, I move this proposal shall be in FORMAL DEBATE which shall last no more then FIVE (5) DAYS after which the Speaker shall schedule a vote accordingly.


*I'm new at this. Hopefully I am doing it right and not stepping on toes or stealing thunder ;)
 
Part II. Amendment to the Legal Code
Chapter 6 of the Legal Code is hereby amended to add:
Quote:

Section 6.8. Legislative Corrections Process
1. Any member of the Regional Assembly may notify the Spesker, Delegate and the Chief Justice of the need for making any omitted change(s) or correction(s) in the governing documents of The North Pacific to reflect the intent of enacted legislation, which was not included in such legislation prior to adoption.
Click to expand...

By the way, what is a spesker ? ;)
 
I'm new here, but this amendment doesn't seem entirely necessary. Instead of waiting for errors to be noticed, a committee of three people could be appointed to read through the various pieces of legislation before it is presented to the public, looking for typos, discrepancies, et cetera. Once it is presented to the public, one can safely assume that it is a grammatically and compositionally sound piece of legislation. Any small errors (typos) can be changed without fuss as needed, so long as they do not compromise the original meaning of the legislation. But, like I said, I'm new. Just a suggestion.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Typo that can be fixed. (Take a look at a keyboard, and see what two letters are next to each other.)
Click to expand...
I know. That was my way of telling you there was a typo. With some humor. I aplogize if it came off wrong.

But. Uh yeah. Proof we can fix typos and numbering without need for legislation, prior to things going to a vote, by simply reading and telling someone there is an error in their proposals :)
 
Temberin:
I'm new here, but this amendment doesn't seem entirely necessary. Instead of waiting for errors to be noticed, a committee of three people could be appointed to read through the various pieces of legislation before it is presented to the public, looking for typos, discrepancies, et cetera. Once it is presented to the public, one can safely assume that it is a grammatically and compositionally sound piece of legislation. Any small errors (typos) can be changed without fuss as needed, so long as they do not compromise the original meaning of the legislation. But, like I said, I'm new. Just a suggestion.
Click to expand...
Apparently according to how the coonstitooyshon is written. The Court says changes have to be voted on or something.
 
Temberin:
I'm new here, but this amendment doesn't seem entirely necessary. Instead of waiting for errors to be noticed, a committee of three people could be appointed to read through the various pieces of legislation before it is presented to the public, looking for typos, discrepancies, et cetera. Once it is presented to the public, one can safely assume that it is a grammatically and compositionally sound piece of legislation. Any small errors (typos) can be changed without fuss as needed, so long as they do not compromise the original meaning of the legislation. But, like I said, I'm new. Just a suggestion.
Click to expand...
My almost 10 years of experience in TNP has shown that typos and inadverent omissions to changes needed in other provisions will occur in the legislative process no matter how many eyes may look at a bill before a vote begins.

Exhortations to read the bills no matter how strongly made won't prevent mistakes and omissions from happening.

This is a procedure designed to address such errors and omissions, and allow the R.A. to knock out a potential correction that may make a change from the intention of the adopted legislation so it can be discussed.

This proposal is based on a law that was adopted and used under the prior Constitution and Legal Code. Since the provision in the preamble to the current Legal Code was held unconstitutional, this proposal adds a basis for a uniform corrections process that will address any similar situations in the future whether it occurs in the Legal Code, the Constitution, and very rarely, the Bill of Rights.

I don't anticipate this being needed for every bill that passes the R.A., but it creates a procedure that allows most such instances to be fixed by what I am calling a unanmious consent process which will be faster and more specific than requiring bills to go through the usual legislative process, and sets aside debatable corrections for full legislative consideration.

Its a fair and open process and protects everyone's interest with a chack and balances approach to the problem. So I don't agree that it is unnecessary, rather it is very necessary to fix the problem and bring to an end the endless cycle of full bills to fix each and every mistake.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Edit: see I saw a misspelling and went in and corrected it, didnt have to propose legislation to change it before I actually changed it.
Click to expand...
You missed some stuff. :P

If we are to vote for legislation on this matter I suggest we call it the PaulWall act of 2014 in commemoration of his remarkable grammar and spelling. Plus it was his idea first! :D
 
I don't see how adding a provision in the Constitution mandating some procedure for correcting errors would make this particular suggested procedure constitutional given the existing court ruling, which says that lack of objection is insufficient to establish majority approval.

To provide an analogy, it would be entirely possible for people to be legally restricted from running for office unless they had been members of the RA for thirty days, and for the Constitution to require the RA to establish a procedure in the Legal Code to allow exceptions to that rule. However, if that procedure allowed exceptions only for people whose TNP nations were in the WA and endorsing the Delegate, it would be unconstitutional - the Bill of Rights protects each nation's right to join or not join the WA, and endorse or not endorse any other nation, as inviolable.

Simply declaring that there must be some procedure does not inherently render any proposed procedure permissible (particularly when there is a procedure for correcting errors under current law - passing amendments).
 
Bill of rights...pffft we dont need no bill of rights. Lets be like the common core curriculum and ask the students in TNP schools which two amendments we should remove.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Bill of rights...pffft we dont need no bill of rights. Lets be like the common core curriculum and ask the students in TNP schools which two amendments we should remove.
Click to expand...
But I can't imagine calling the Constibillocode the... Consticode. Eww.
 
SillyString:
I don't see how adding a provision in the Constitution mandating some procedure for correcting errors would make this particular suggested procedure constitutional given the existing court ruling, which says that lack of objection is insufficient to establish majority approval.

To provide an analogy, it would be entirely possible for people to be legally restricted from running for office unless they had been members of the RA for thirty days, and for the Constitution to require the RA to establish a procedure in the Legal Code to allow exceptions to that rule. However, if that procedure allowed exceptions only for people whose TNP nations were in the WA and endorsing the Delegate, it would be unconstitutional - the Bill of Rights protects each nation's right to join or not join the WA, and endorse or not endorse any other nation, as inviolable.

Simply declaring that there must be some procedure does not inherently render any proposed procedure permissible (particularly when there is a procedure for correcting errors under current law - passing amendments).
Click to expand...

The problem with the provision in the preamble in the legal code as it was codified could not supercede the Constitution. This legislation cures that issue, and overrules the Court's decision by changing the Constitution and adopting an explicit unanimous consent process.

If any change is objected to, it has to go through the normal legislative process. The other difference is that this process applies to all governing documents, and not just the legal code, so it is a uniform process that will apply in all instances where there is a legislative error or omission. And in order to come under this process, the errors and omissions have to be non-substantive.

The bottom line is that this process is in its essence a special legislative procedure that allows the R.A.,to give input by objecting to any specific item a member believes is not a properly included error or omission, and the end result is that it is a special amending process that is faster and more limited than normal legislative processes.

We had an essentially similar procedure under the last constitution and legal code and it was never held unconstitutional. The other point is that the role of the Speaker, the Chief Justice and the Delegate are essentially administrative and ministerial in nature, the actual decision is being made by the Regional Assembly by way of the previously mentioned unanimous consent method, and that is the actual decision being made about the corrections and iomissions.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
At the behest of the bills sponsor with a motion to second by an RA member in good standing, I move this proposal shall be in FORMAL DEBATE which shall last no more then FIVE (5) DAYS after which the Speaker shall schedule a vote accordingly.


*I'm new at this. Hopefully I am doing it right and not stepping on toes or stealing thunder ;)
Click to expand...
Mr. Speaker, more than 5 days have now elapsed and that marks the end of formal debate. I request that this bill be scheduled for a vote per the standing procedures of the R.A.
 
Formal Debate has concluded. The Speaker had indicated the Vote will be scheduled and handled by him. As such the schedule of the vote will be announced at the discretion of the Speaker.
 
As this proposal and another of similar intent would be voted upon simultaneously if this proposal's vote were to begin in two days, the vote on this proposal is scheduled to begin in eight days (28.04.2014).
 
The bottom line is that this process is in its essence a special legislative procedure that allows the R.A.,to give input by objecting to any specific item a member believes is not a properly included error or omission, and the end result is that it is a special amending process that is faster and more limited than normal legislative processes.
Click to expand...
That is exactly the procedure that the previous Court's ruling struck down - allowing for objections is not sufficient to meet the standards of "majority vote", and the wording of the Constitutional section of this proposal does not actually do anything to override a majority vote being needed in order to pass an amendment.

It may allow for an expedited majority vote in some fashion, but not the procedure you have proposed.

We had an essentially similar procedure under the last constitution and legal code and it was never held unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you're saying this with a straight face. For one thing, something which was constitutional under one constitution cannot be assumed to be constitutional under an entirely different one. For another thing, something which was not challenged in court under one constitution cannot be assumed to pass the court's opinion of constitutional muster if it had been challenged, nor can it be assumed to pass a future court's opinion of constitutional muster if it ever is.

Given my reservations, and the lack of basically any debate or discussion on this proposal before it was pushed out of the drafting stage, I object to the Speaker's decision to schedule a vote.
 
SillyString:
The bottom line is that this process is in its essence a special legislative procedure that allows the R.A.,to give input by objecting to any specific item a member believes is not a properly included error or omission, and the end result is that it is a special amending process that is faster and more limited than normal legislative processes.
Click to expand...
That is exactly the procedure that the previous Court's ruling struck down - allowing for objections is not sufficient to meet the standards of "majority vote", and the wording of the Constitutional section of this proposal does not actually do anything to override a majority vote being needed in order to pass an amendment.

It may allow for an expedited majority vote in some fashion, but not the procedure you have proposed.

We had an essentially similar procedure under the last constitution and legal code and it was never held unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you're saying this with a straight face. For one thing, something which was constitutional under one constitution cannot be assumed to be constitutional under an entirely different one. For another thing, something which was not challenged in court under one constitution cannot be assumed to pass the court's opinion of constitutional muster if it had been challenged, nor can it be assumed to pass a future court's opinion of constitutional muster if it ever is.

Given my reservations, and the lack of basically any debate or discussion on this proposal before it was pushed out of the drafting stage, I object to the Speaker's decision to schedule a vote.
Click to expand...
SillyString, IMHO, you would object to anything I proposed, on any topic, So I'm not surprised.

Nor am I surprised by the Speaker's delay to have this go to a vote since it seems to me that such a delay was imposed in order to facilitate a plan to block this proposal from coming to a vote.

I distrust both the Associate Justice and the Speaker on this matter, since it sounds to me the IRC cabal is desperate to avoid a real solution to the problem, and they resent that I crafted a solution that will work. I'm curious to see what else you'll do to block this legislation.

And the process I propose is different from the minor error clause that has been in the current Legal Code. The current provision had no checks, no balances and did not provide any means to address changes that weren't minor. Second, and more importantly, it amends the Constitution in order to authorize the special procedure, which in and of itself would override the Court's decision front and center. The amendment would make the Court's decision irrelevant.

And I also have object to the Speaker's rationale to delay the vote on this proposal because there is absolutely no overlap to the proposal currently at vote in the RA to add a Regional Assembly procedure, and my proposal; which amends the Constitution and adds a coordinated change to the Legal Code, both could co-exist without any contradiction. IThe Speaker's rationale such as it wasn't is simply a false premise on which to claim a need to delay the vote.

And Silly String, I totally disagree with your assessment of my proposal. Your argument is silly beyond belief.
 
And the process I propose is different from the minor error clause that has been in the current Legal Code. The current provision had no checks, no balances and did not provide any means to address changes that weren't minor.
Click to expand...
That wasn't what the court ruled unconstitutional. It explicitly states that allowing for objections is not an acceptable substitute for a majority vote.

Second, and more importantly, it amends the Constitution in order to authorize the special procedure, which in and of itself would override the Court's decision front and center. The amendment would make the Court's decision irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, and no it wouldn't. As I stated originally, amending the Constitution to allow some procedure does not allow absolutely any procedure under the sun, particularly since there is already a perfectly constitutional and legal procedure for amending legislation that needs amending.

I have never said that it is impossible to write a constitutional amendment that would explicitly authorize this procedure, or in fact any procedure that sidesteps a majority vote, but this particular amendment in no way attempts to do that.

I distrust both the Associate Justice and the Speaker on this matter, since it sounds to me the IRC cabal is desperate to avoid a real solution to the problem, and they resent that I crafted a solution that will work. I'm curious to see what else you'll do to block this legislation.
Click to expand...

Antoine_Dodson1.jpg


IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!1!1[note]I refer you to my campaign thread in which the evils of the IRC cabal are explicitly discussed and acknowledged. Any insinuation that this is in some way a secret conspiracy to take over TNP in order to sacrifice its delicious members to the slimiest of elder gods are entirely slanderous and offend my delicate sensibilities, and I insiste you retract them immediately.[/note]shift+eleventy!!1!
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I distrust both the Associate Justice and the Speaker on this matter, since it sounds to me the IRC cabal is desperate to avoid a real solution to the problem, and they resent that I crafted a solution that will work.
Click to expand...
What I resent is the conspiracy theory that an ill-defined group of people that apparently includes a number of high-ranking TNP officials and regional patriots is so damn interested in undermining progress in this region, as if we all have nothing better to do than see things fail for fun.

Yes, some players in this region tend to agree with one another on things, and work together to achieve their ideals for the region. Yes, sometimes groups of players disagree on the best candidate for public office, or which legislative solution will best fix a problem. Yes, IRC provides a platform that allows those who choose to use it to communicate more easily with one another and perhaps even work together more effectively than those who do not choose to use it. However, IRC users in this region do not all agree with one another, and do not always work together.

References to a mysterious and omnipotent cabal of players who use IRC is a great fear tactic, but it has no basis in fact. I'm tired of vague accusations of misconduct waved in the general direction of our IRC channel, to explain why any particular bill is failing or succeeding. There is no illuminati. There is a public list of people in this region, and it is not very long. If you think someone is trying to destroy this region, fucking call them out by name. If you feel like the forces of the universe are conspiring to kill your bill, maybe there's no conspiracy. Maybe your bill just sucks giant monkey balls.

In fact, it does. SillyString is right - the constitutional provision you've added is insufficient to permit the changes to the legal code you're trying to make. But even if it were sufficient, the process you're suggesting is needlessly complicated, adds responsibilities to too many government officials (meaning if any one of them goes AWOL you're out of luck with edits) and simply adds far too much text to the law for a purpose that ought to be quick, clean, and simple by its very nature.

I second the objection to the Speaker's decision to send this to vote. If you think that makes me part of a shady group of mystery people then you're out of your goddamn mind.
 
SillyString:
I object to the Speaker's decision to schedule a vote.
Click to expand...

Crushing Our Enemies:
I second the objection to the Speaker's decision to send this to vote. If you think that makes me part of a shady group of mystery people then you're out of your goddamn mind.
Click to expand...

The objection is noted.


Grosseschnauzer:
And I also have object to the Speaker's rationale to delay the vote on this proposal because there is absolutely no overlap to the proposal currently at vote in the RA to add a Regional Assembly procedure, and my proposal; which amends the Constitution and adds a coordinated change to the Legal Code, both could co-exist without any contradiction. IThe Speaker's rationale such as it wasn't is simply a false premise on which to claim a need to delay the vote.
Click to expand...

I am afraid I shall have to ask for a minor clarification, am I to take this along with the other two objections and withdraw the scheduled vote, or is this simply to be taken as suggesting I am a constituent part of a terrible and shadowy conspiracy to bar the bill, as the rest of the statement seems to imply?

I would note that, if the bill's sponsor and other members are dissatisfied with the scheduling of the vote, they are welcome to make use of the 1/10ths provision in the RA Rules and, if the bill's sponsor truly believes that my scheduling of the vote was part of some plot against him, that he has a recall provision he may wish to make use of.
 
Lack of debate,SillyString. Come on??

Just because you dislike this bill doesn't mean it is something that the entirety of the RA should not vote.

I don't have time for conspiracy theories. But i do see you and CoE objecting to a vote on this piece of legislation where I have not seen such objections recently on other bills. Let's take CoE's bill which has a paltry 25 posts in it where this one has 36. Heck CoE is looking to shorten debate in that bill and was D-Nied.

Yet here he's looking to extend debate. Dubious? Heck yeah. The reason people think there are conspiracies out there is due to inconsistencies with some in applying certain levels of disdain.

In any event, formal debate concluded AND the Speaker pushed this vote back. There has been sufficient time for debate. More than sufficient. I don't believe there is an undue delay here and even if there is...even if there is, y'all, it just gives even more time for debate.

Today is 4/23. The vote, according to the Speaker, is schedule for 4/28. If someone would like to continue to debate this issue, they've got another 5 days. Hopefully whomever objects to this bill moving to vote will consistently apply that attitude in other votes.

If not, continue to be prepared to face conspiracy theories.
 
punk d:
Just because you dislike this bill doesn't mean it is something that the entirety of the RA should not vote.
Click to expand...
Precisely. The perceived lack of debate could have many reasons: The bill is fine, no one really cares, the forums have been quiet lately, the passage of the bill may cause more problems, some can't understand wtf Grosse is proposing, or some people just want to be an onion in the ointment. I support the bill in principle, but I'd like to see it streamlined a bit. Not belittling the time and effort Grosse put into the bill, but it veers into *legalese* a bit too much for me. Don't want to dumb it down too much either, but hopefully there's some middle ground to be agreed upon.

Here's an idea: Perhaps (in the course of debate) some, or all, of us could parse legislation for errors. Oh wait.. then this bill wouldn't be necessary. :headbang: .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top