[Formal Debate] SCAA Minor Typo Fix Act

Cloud

Cloud

Forever in the Speaker's Office
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Marlducro
What it says on the tin. It was pointed out to me that the language that the Regional Assembly voted on for the recent Security Council Adjustment Act contained a typo, and now said typo is in the Legal Code. The Speaker doesn’t have the power to fix a minor typo and it was ruled unconstitutional in 2013, so here I present a fix:

Section 5.1 of the Legal Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 5.1: Requirements and Admission
4. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply to join the Council, as long as their nation satisfies any influence and endorsement requirements for membership. Any applicant who does not meet the appropriate requirements, or who ceases to meet them, is automatically rejected.
5. Security Councilors must meet the same influence and endorsement requirements as applicants to the Council, and may be suspended or removed if they fail to do so.
6. The influence requirement is a Soft Power Disbursement Rating within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 65% of the WA Delegate's endorsements multiplied by 360. The endorsement requirement is greater than or equal to 65% of the WA Delegate's endorsement count.
7. By a two-thirds majority vote, the Security Council may exempt nations who have expended their influence in service to the region from any influence requirements to join the Council or to remain a member. Exemptions granted in such a manner remain valid until the exempted nation regains the required influence level.
Click to expand...

Section 5.1: Requirements and Admission
4. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply to join the Council, as long as their nation satisfies any influence and endorsement requirements for membership. Any applicant who does not meet the appropriate requirements, or who ceases to meet them, is automatically rejected.
5. Security Councilors must meet the same influence and endorsement requirements as applicants to the Council, and may be suspended or removed if they fail to do so.
6. The influence requirement is a Soft Power Disbursement Rating within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 65% of the WA Delegate's endorsements multiplied by 360. The endorsement requirement is greater than or equal to 65% of the WA Delegate's WA Delegate's endorsement count.
7. By a two-thirds majority vote, the Security Council may exempt nations who have expended their influence in service to the region from any influence requirements to join the Council or to remain a member. Exemptions granted in such a manner remain valid until the exempted nation regains the required influence level.
 
GFY, Mall. The Speaker, as the proposer of the bill, should immediately motion this to vote, shorten formal debate, and shorten the voting period. It's what I would have done.

Granted, none of this would have happened if the Speaker's Office would have taken the actual content of the bill and not the markup. Don't do that in the future.

Also, if a bill doesn't have an enacting clause, it shouldn't become law. My original bill would have qualified as a legal bill. The markup alone would have not. But, I'm not willing to waste time on an R4R to make that case law. Just f****** fix it when we vote for you to do so.
 
Last edited:
I move this to a vote and request a shortened formal debate period of 48 hours.

And as Speaker, I recognise the motion and grant the request. This will now be in formal debate for 48 hours, with a vote scheduled to begin immediately after.
Sil Dorsett:
Granted, none of this would have happened if the Speaker's Office would have taken the actual content of the bill and not the markup. Don't do that in the future.
Click to expand...
Never happening again. That I guarantee.
 
Mall:
I pre-emptively object to any vote being scheduled on this. People get what they voted for.
Click to expand...
They did get what they voted for. And if they vote for this new bill, they will get what that entails too. Feel free to vote against this one if you like the duplicate language so much.
 
Sil Dorsett:
GFY, Mall. The Speaker, as the proposer of the bill, should immediately motion this to vote, shorten formal debate, and shorten the voting period. It's what I would have done.

Granted, none of this would have happened if the Speaker's Office would have taken the actual content of the bill and not the markup. Don't do that in the future.

Also, if a bill doesn't have an enacting clause, it shouldn't become law. My original bill would have qualified as a legal bill. The markup alone would have not. But, I'm not willing to waste time on an R4R to make that case law. Just f****** fix it when we vote for you to do so.
Click to expand...
I don't think expressing my legislative preferences over a silly typo warrants me being told to go fuck myself. But to each their own.

Pallaith:
They did get what they voted for. And if they vote for this new bill, they will get what that entails too. Feel free to vote against this one if you like the duplicate language so much.
Click to expand...
I not only will vote against, I also objected to the scheduling of the vote which the Speaker hasn't acknowledged. I object, again.
 
Mall:
I don't think expressing my legislative preferences over a silly typo warrants me being told to go fuck myself. But to each their own.
Click to expand...
You're right, and I apologize. I thought I was doing that in a joking manner, but obviously that is impossible to convey over text.
 
Sil Dorsett:
You're right, and I apologize. I thought I was doing that in a joking manner, but obviously that is impossible to convey over text.
Click to expand...
All good - in the context of the lambasting of the Speaker's handling of the vote I thought you were also mad at me :hug:

Great Bights Mum:
Gosh, I'm just embarrassed that I didn't catch it. I usually do a re-read prior to voting. I don't know why I didn't this time.
Click to expand...
Old age.
 
Mall:
I not only will vote against, I also objected to the scheduling of the vote which the Speaker hasn't acknowledged. I object, again.
Click to expand...
This is noted - two further objections are required before the proposal goes to vote to cancel it, per the Regional Assembly Rules.
 
Mall:
Thank you Lord Deputy Speaker.

I ask that two other brave patriots of TNP voice their objection.
Click to expand...
If you do manage to get two others to join you, I'll have to resort to an R4R to get the law implemented as I intended. Shall we have a little fun with this?
(Khan, in a menacing tone: "Shall we begin?")
 
Sil Dorsett:
If you do manage to get two others to join you, I'll have to resort to an R4R to get the law implemented as I intended. Shall we have a little fun with this?
(Khan, in a menacing tone: "Shall we begin?")
Click to expand...
There is also a measure in the Regional Assembly Rules to override an objection:
4. If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote, including the citizen that introduced the proposal to the Regional Assembly, motion that a vote should be held on a proposal before the Regional Assembly, then the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law.
Click to expand...
Quorum is currently 15, so 5, including Cloud, would be needed to force a vote to start - if an objection succeeds (and only if an objection succeeds, a person can't motion to override prior to an objection happening).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top