As a citizen of The North Pacific, I petition the Regional assembly to take up for consideration the following constitutional amendment:
Constitutional Amendment:
To strike:
TNP Const. §3 ¶4:
The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote.
The Delegate may sign or veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote. The proposal shall have the full effect of law upon the Delegate's signature, the lapse of one week without the Delegate's veto, or the Regional Assembly's override of the Delegate's veto, whichever shall occur first.
I believe this would resolve an issue of when, exactly a proposal would become law. It would also add some teeth to the Delegate's signature of a proposal; as it currently stands, the Delegate could veto within a week any proposal he may have already signed.
I leave it to the duly elected representatives of the Regional Assembly to introduce this, with whatever modifications they see fit. It may be that they shall wish to consider whether this shall apply also to their vote of approval concerning treaties; I do not know whether those would be considered proposals or not.
Thanks for introducing a proposal Alunya! I just thought I would point out that the Regional Assembly is not an elected body and any one with a nation in the North Pacific can apply to join it. I'd encourage you to do so
Not much needed, but nice. I, like Flemingovia, prefer not to make our Constitution longer... But this is just a couple of lines, I could support this. Or at least will support it moving to a vote.
There has been some ambiguity about when exactly a bill becomes law, and it has mattered in the past. I can't remember exactly what it was, something to do with the AG, and when exactly a bill become law mattered as to whether he could do something, I think...can't remember what it was.
Anyway, I support some kind of constitutional clarification on that point, and I agree with the general substance of this bill. If it gets any traction, I would go through and suggest some stylistic improvements, and streamline the wording a bit.
The proposal also introduces an ambiguity as to the effect of the failure of the Delegate to sign or veto a law.
A better way to simplify this might be:
A proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend, or repeal a law shall take effect within seven days after it is presented to the Delegate, unless the Delegate vetoes the proposal. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote; which override shall have immediate effect.
Says it in fewer words and eliminates the ambiguity about inaction.
The other option is to just enact a law or adopt an RA procedure specifying that a proposal to enact, amend or repeal mist contain a provision as to its effective date and time unless it is vetoed by the Delegate. That would also address the inaction possibility,
As to why I brought this matter to the Regional Assembly's attention, I encountered a discussion of this very problem of when a proposal "becomes' law in some asides on a Request for Review - Citizenship Oaths. (See posts 16 and 23 through 32 inclusive.) I do not know if that is the same thread to which Crushing Our Enemies makes reference. And while leaks on boats are far more important than leaks in Constitutions, I was surprised this one hadn't been addressed given the discussion it generated.
Now let me address the latest post by Grosseschnauzer.
At present TNP Const. §3 ¶4 implicitly does exactly the same thing as Grosseschnauzer's rephrasing with one noticeable exception -- as it presently stands the one week clock starts ticking for the Delegate the moment the proposal is passed by the Regional Assembly. Grosseschnauzer's restatement would have someone (unspecified, but presumably the Speaker, on behalf of the Regional Assembly) present the proposal to the Delegate. The original clause (4) in Article III does not require an act (presentation) between the two actors (the Regional Assembly and the Delegate) to initiate the clock. On that basis I think it would be better to let the original clause stand than to adopt Grosseschnauzer's adaptation.
That said, there is nothing wrong with letting a proposal become law upon the expiration of the one week period without the Delegate's veto, or upon the override of the Delegate's veto by the Regional Assembly.
What I have proposed permits a mechanism by which the Delegate may give assent to a proposal, affirming it immediately as law (or having the full effect of law -- more later on this). As I read the law, as it presently stands, the signature of the Delegate upon a proposal (an assent) has no bearing on when a proposal will become law. Either seven days must pass without a veto, or the Regional Assembly must override the veto, whichever (implicitly) comes first.
A careful reading of my proposal covers the case that Grosseschnauzer mentions, where a Delegate neither signs nor vetoes a proposal. The only ambiguity I left, and I did consider it, was the instance where the Delegate concurrently vetoes and signs a proposal. This special case is a line item veto whereby the Delegate strikes part of the proposal and signs the rest into law. It may be dispensed with by adding the phrase ", in its entirety," immediately after the phrase "The Delegate may sign or veto" in my proposed Constitutional amendment. Or one could take the matter to court if the delegate should attempt a line item veto. I considered the line item veto possibility so remote that I opted to leave out the three words that would dispense with it.
In addressing Grosseschnauzer's concerns let us first address a few matters. First, the word may indicates the actions the Delegate may take are at his or her discretion; he or she may sign the proposal, or not sign the proposal, or veto the proposal or not veto the proposal. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive actions (or inactions). But like the original clause (4), the Delegate must perform (or non-perform) these actions within one week of a proposal's passage by the Regional Assembly. So let us agree that after one week whatever actions a Delegate may wish to take concerning a proposal are a moot point. (With regard to overriding a delegate's veto the Regional Assembly is not constrained by a time deadline.)
Therefore, with regards to a proposal, within one week the Delegate may:
Sign the proposal
Veto the proposal
Take no action
Both Sign and Veto the proposal
The third sentence of my proposed amendment specifies the three ways (signature; expiration of actionable period; veto override) a proposal may take the full effect of law. It also specifies that whichever state is met first shall be sufficient.
Now let us consider the cases wherein the Delegate acts (or not) within the allotted week on a passed proposal. For clarity we shall reproduce the proposed amendment and follow with the cases.
TNP Const. §3 ¶4:
The Delegate may sign or veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote. The proposal shall have the full effect of law upon the Delegate's signature, the lapse of one week without the Delegate's veto, or the Regional Assembly's override of the Delegate's veto, whichever shall occur first.
Very simple -- it immediately takes the full effect of law.
The Regional Assembly may then override the Veto; if they do, and the proposal has not attained the full effect of law in the meantime, the proposal shall immediately take the full effect of law upon the override.
In taking no action, the Delegate has not vetoed the proposal. After one week, the lapse of one week without the Delegate's veto condition is the first of the three possible conditions met and the proposal takes the full effect of law.
This reduces to Case I above. Upon signing the proposal, the proposal now has the full effect of law. It has now become a law (or its equivalent in effect) and is no longer a proposal eligible for a veto from the Delegate. If a delegate is unsure about signing, then his or her best course of action is to do nothing; once signed, the veto option is off the table.
The veto does permit the Regional Assembly to attempt on override. It then becomes a matter of which party meets the necessary conditions first. The Regional Assembly might override the Delegate's veto before he or she signs; the proposal takes the full effect of law immediately upon the override. Or the Delegate might sign (again, within that crucial week) before the Regional Assembly can override; the proposal takes full effect of law immediately upon the signature (and the override attempt is moot).
This is the ambiguous scenario wherein the Delegate vetoes some portion of the proposal while signing the remainder into the full effect of law. Presumably the portion vetoed may be subject to an override while the portion signed immediately becomes law. The vetoed portion could also degenerate to Case IV(b) in that the vetoed portion could later be signed into law within that week. But any delegate that does this is likely to be batting at a hornet's nest. The simple addition of ", in its entirety," after "The Delegate may sign or veto" will take care of this if it is of concern.
Why use awkward phrase "the full effect of law"?
I use the phrase "the full effect of law" instead of the less verbose "become law" -- I considered that the repeal of an existing law, or its amendment by striking a portion thereof, are not, in and of themselves, actually laws. They do, however, have the full effect of law. I'll admit that there might be some litigant that would argue that a proposal which has the full effect of law is not a law. They would be correct, but not in a manner to their liking. All laws have the full effect of law, but not everything which has the full effect of law is a law, and that is the difference. Hence I used the full five words (22 characters) instead of two words (10 characters).
And while I can create a wall of text, I've tried to be very succinct with the proposed amendment. By all means, if the proposed amendment can be streamlined and the style can be improved without changing the substance, please do so.
As to why I brought this matter to the Regional Assembly's attention, I encountered a discussion of this very problem of when a proposal "becomes' law in some asides on a Request for Review - Citizenship Oaths. (See posts 16 and 23 through 32 inclusive.) I do not know if that is the same thread to which Crushing Our Enemies makes reference. And while leaks on boats are far more important than leaks in Constitutions, I was surprised this one hadn't been addressed given the discussion it generated.
Now let me address the latest post by Grosseschnauzer.
At present TNP Const. §3 ¶4 implicitly does exactly the same thing as Grosseschnauzer's rephrasing with one noticeable exception -- as it presently stands the one week clock starts ticking for the Delegate the moment the proposal is passed by the Regional Assembly. Grosseschnauzer's restatement would have someone (unspecified, but presumably the Speaker, on behalf of the Regional Assembly) present the proposal to the Delegate. The original clause (4) in Article III does not require an act (presentation) between the two actors (the Regional Assembly and the Delegate) to initiate the clock. On that basis I think it would be better to let the original clause stand than to adopt Grosseschnauzer's adaptation.
That said, there is nothing wrong with letting a proposal become law upon the expiration of the one week period without the Delegate's veto, or upon the override of the Delegate's veto by the Regional Assembly.
What I have proposed permits a mechanism by which the Delegate may give assent to a proposal, affirming it immediately as law (or having the full effect of law -- more later on this). As I read the law, as it presently stands, the signature of the Delegate upon a proposal (an assent) has no bearing on when a proposal will become law. Either seven days must pass without a veto, or the Regional Assembly must override the veto, whichever (implicitly) comes first.
A careful reading of my proposal covers the case that Grosseschnauzer mentions, where a Delegate neither signs nor vetoes a proposal. The only ambiguity I left, and I did consider it, was the instance where the Delegate concurrently vetoes and signs a proposal. This special case is a line item veto whereby the Delegate strikes part of the proposal and signs the rest into law. It may be dispensed with by adding the phrase ", in its entirety," immediately after the phrase "The Delegate may sign or veto" in my proposed Constitutional amendment. Or one could take the matter to court if the delegate should attempt a line item veto. I considered the line item veto possibility so remote that I opted to leave out the three words that would dispense with it.
In addressing Grosseschnauzer's concerns let us first address a few matters. First, the word may indicates the actions the Delegate may take are at his or her discretion; he or she may sign the proposal, or not sign the proposal, or veto the proposal or not veto the proposal. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive actions (or inactions). But like the original clause (4), the Delegate must perform (or non-perform) these actions within one week of a proposal's passage by the Regional Assembly. So let us agree that after one week whatever actions a Delegate may wish to take concerning a proposal are a moot point. (With regard to overriding a delegate's veto the Regional Assembly is not constrained by a time deadline.)
Therefore, with regards to a proposal, within one week the Delegate may:
Sign the proposal
Veto the proposal
Take no action
Both Sign and Veto the proposal
The third sentence of my proposed amendment specifies the three ways (signature; expiration of actionable period; veto override) a proposal may take the full effect of law. It also specifies that whichever state is met first shall be sufficient.
Now let us consider the cases wherein the Delegate acts (or not) within the allotted week on a passed proposal. For clarity we shall reproduce the proposed amendment and follow with the cases.
TNP Const. §3 ¶4:
The Delegate may sign or veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote. The proposal shall have the full effect of law upon the Delegate's signature, the lapse of one week without the Delegate's veto, or the Regional Assembly's override of the Delegate's veto, whichever shall occur first.
Very simple -- it immediately takes the full effect of law.
The Regional Assembly may then override the Veto; if they do, and the proposal has not attained the full effect of law in the meantime, the proposal shall immediately take the full effect of law upon the override.
In taking no action, the Delegate has not vetoed the proposal. After one week, the lapse of one week without the Delegate's veto condition is the first of the three possible conditions met and the proposal takes the full effect of law.
This reduces to Case I above. Upon signing the proposal, the proposal now has the full effect of law. It has now become a law (or its equivalent in effect) and is no longer a proposal eligible for a veto from the Delegate. If a delegate is unsure about signing, then his or her best course of action is to do nothing; once signed, the veto option is off the table.
The veto does permit the Regional Assembly to attempt on override. It then becomes a matter of which party meets the necessary conditions first. The Regional Assembly might override the Delegate's veto before he or she signs; the proposal takes the full effect of law immediately upon the override. Or the Delegate might sign (again, within that crucial week) before the Regional Assembly can override; the proposal takes full effect of law immediately upon the signature (and the override attempt is moot).
This is the ambiguous scenario wherein the Delegate vetoes some portion of the proposal while signing the remainder into the full effect of law. Presumably the portion vetoed may be subject to an override while the portion signed immediately becomes law. The vetoed portion could also degenerate to Case IV(b) in that the vetoed portion could later be signed into law within that week. But any delegate that does this is likely to be batting at a hornet's nest. The simple addition of ", in its entirety," after "The Delegate may sign or veto" will take care of this if it is of concern.
Why use awkward phrase "the full effect of law"?
I use the phrase "the full effect of law" instead of the less verbose "become law" -- I considered that the repeal of an existing law, or its amendment by striking a portion thereof, are not, in and of themselves, actually laws. They do, however, have the full effect of law. I'll admit that there might be some litigant that would argue that a proposal which has the full effect of law is not a law. They would be correct, but not in a manner to their liking. All laws have the full effect of law, but not everything which has the full effect of law is a law, and that is the difference. Hence I used the full five words (22 characters) instead of two words (10 characters).
And while I can create a wall of text, I've tried to be very succinct with the proposed amendment. By all means, if the proposed amendment can be streamlined and the style can be improved without changing the substance, please do so.
People need to think through the impact of the changes in language, and which way they want the process to work.
I also think we could consider an R.A. procedure to add an effective date clause to each bill before it comes to a vote, and that would also eliminate the need for so much additional language in the Constitution.
And there are different views on "correct" grammar. That's one reason why there are many different published guides on rules of grammar in the English language, and some of those are national differences. (The irrational omission of "a," "an," and "the" being among them)
And there are different views on "correct" grammar. That's one reason why there are many different published guides on rules of grammar in the English language, and some of those are national differences. (The irrational omission of "a," "an," and "the" being among them)
That there are permissible structural differences does not make your structure permissible.[note]This is not 'Nam. This is grammar. There are rules.[/note]
To elaborate:
A proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend, or repeal a law shall take effect within seven days after it is presented to the Delegate, unless the Delegate vetoes the proposal. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote; which override shall have immediate effect.
"Within seven days" introduces an ambiguity, as it allows for the possibility of it taking effect in any number of days less than or equal to seven. This is certainly no better than what we have now, as it does exactly the same thing but codifies the uncertainty. Moreover, "after it is presented to the Delegate" adds an additional uncertainty, as it is unclear whether the clause demands seven full days following presentation (which could occur any amount of time after a bill is passed) or whether it allocates seven days for a decision, during which a presentation must occur.
The red part is simply incorrect. "Which" is a relative article (when it's not an interrogative one); it cannot be used following a semi-colon to introduce an independent clause. It could by corrected by replacing the problematic area with ", which shall have...", or with ". This override shall have...", or alternative phrasings as desired. As written, however, it is flat wrong.
I could name at least a half dozen versions as to grammar in the U.S. (And that doesn;t include the so-called transformational approach to American English grammar.)
I could name at least a half dozen versions as to grammar in the U.S. (And that doesn;t include the so-called transformational approach to American English grammar.)
Standard English is Standard English regardless of whether it is American or British. vocabulary and syntax are the same but phonology varies as do certain spellings. There are however variations in how collective nouns (formal and notional) are handled in which instance, the British Orthography is more efficient.
Hence, the difference between have the jury reached a verdict (treating the jury as a group of individuals - notional) vs. has the jury reached a verdict (treating the jury as a single indivisible unit - formal).
Also, formal nouns are differently treated - Led Zepplin are a famous band vs. Led Zepplin is a famous band.
Hence, The United States agree to declare war (which is grammatically correct but not used in US Orthography) vs. the commonly, yet grammatically incorrect The United States agrees to declare war. Similarly, in the US one says "John is in the hospital" as opposed to "John is in hospital" as used everywhere else in the English speaking world. John lives on Bleaker Street vs. John lives in Bleaker Street.
As an American, I can safely say that English hasn't been spoken here in the States for at least 237 years.
Yankee: "We were here, and you were not. Now you are here and we are not."
Redneck: "We was here, you wasn't. Now you is and we ain't."
