The Omnibus Legislative Corrections Act

As one of the Justices who ruled the minor error clause unconstitutional, it has been suggested that my providing a comment or two regarding this bill, and perhaps some background, would be helpful.

The decision on the Minor Error Clause was relatively straightforward, and all three Justices came to the same conclusion independently and expediently - we all, each of us with our differing legal philosophies, agreed that any change in the legal code, regardless of how minor, constituted an amendment. That is what the word amendment means - to change or to rectify.

The Constitution was also very clear vis a vis the procedure in amending existing legislation. It said, and continues to state, that "[t]he Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote."

This is, and was, clear to us. A majority vote must be held to amend legislation passed by the Regional Assembly. And the three of us were equally unequivocal about what a majority vote meant - it means having an actual vote. Simply objecting to an amendment made by the Speaker, or by a troika of designated persons, simply wouldn't cut the mustard, it has to be a vote.

I regret that some may have thought it was a blockheaded view by the Court, but in all honesty, it was what we felt, and what I continue to feel, was the right decision based on the reading of the law.

I must admit to having some concerns over the proposed legislation. Don't get me wrong, I think the issue surrounding rectifying minor errors needs to resolved, but I'm not convinced this is the legislation to do it. If passed, the Constitution would have two separate and different methods of amending law; §2.2 says amendments must be made by majority vote, but the proposed §9.3 allows for an amendment process to be regulated in the legal code. I understand this may not entirely be the intention, to have two different amendment processes, but what also concerns me further is that to decide what is and isn't a minor error is rather subjective.

I want to see a resolution, but I do fear this may lead to further court cases with further clarifications and rulings, which may in turn lead to further striking down of legislation, which would then inevitably lead us back here. I think that Grosse has the right idea, but I'm not sure that the wording is stringent and effective enough to get to the easy resolution we're all hoping for.

In that vein I have unfortunately voted no on this piece of legislation and I do take responsibility for not engaging in the deliberative and legislative process prior to this reaching vote. If it passes I will not seek to amend, though I would encourage another and I would then help in that process, but if it fails I would gladly work with Grosse, and any other Assembly member, to come to a consensus on a piece of legislation that is effective, watertight, and unambiguous in every way.
 
Unlike some - I'm not quick to call past rulings stupid. Usually, as Sanc stated, you have 3 people coming to the same conclusion looking at the same tenets that the rest of us armchair justices look at.

I didn't disagree (I think) with the spirit of the ruling so much as its application. If we had to legislate every single change, that's tedious, and what it means is that our system is unflexible when it comes to making minor corrections. I think this bill addresses that issue within the Constitution and I like the fact that the court cannot overturn or strike down the Constitutional provision of this law. That's why I prefer this to CoE's bill which has no constitutional provision.

I don't fear what Sanc fears however in terms of the court striking portions of this law. First, the constitutional part states that the RA will define the process. The Legal Code section sets up a consent situation wherein if someone in the RA does object they can. If they do object, then whatever they objected to must be treated as legislation.

And all it takes is one member to object. I don't see the downside or the tricky legal shenanigans that could result from this bill? Well, I could see someone objecting to every change just because they're trying to be snarky, but even so, that person would most likely not be the most popular flower in the garden.
 
SillyString:
flemingovia:
So .. for the bewildered out there can I reassure them that, if this bill passes (or falls) no kittens will be crushed under large concrete blocks.
Click to expand...
You must not have read the fine print. :console:

*Each use of this section of the law will be funded by crushing kittens under large concrete blocks in front of an audience for profit.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I have Read the Bill and can assure you that there is NO such fine print as you claim. The very first mention of kittens in the debate with regard to this bill is Flemingovia's post which you have quoted. And the only claim made that kittens will be crushed is yours, directly quoted above.

We are not amused.

>^,,^<
Alunya
 
Schnauzers never mention kittens although a chase and a play is another matter altogether. :)

As to whether anything needs to be done with Article II, Clause 2 of the constitution, the process provided by this proposal could be used once enacted to add an exclusionary cross-reference clause at the end of that sentence, as such a purported omission is the sort of correction that squarely falls within the language of the statutory portion of the bill.

The exception is already implied and normal rules of construction would treat it as such, but if the literalists really want to insist on adding an explicit cross-reference, that's the way it can be remedied.

As to the types of errors included in the process, proposed clause 6.2 of the definitions is pretty clear about what types of errors and omissions are to be included. I don't know how it could be any more explicit than it already is.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
As to whether anything needs to be done with Article II, Clause 2 of the constitution, the process provided by this proposal could be used once enacted to add an exclusionary cross-reference clause at the end of that sentence, as such a purported omission is the sort of correction that squarely falls within the language of the statutory portion of the bill.
Click to expand...
You can't use an unconstitutional process to make itself constitutional.
 
I've voted against this proposal, despite the fact that I supported it going to a vote in the first place. I think Sanctaria has explained himself very well. I too, wish to see a resolution to this particular matter. However, I feel that this proposal is a step in the wrong direction. The Regional Assembly has consistently been working to make the legal code simpler and easier to understand and follow. This may seem simple enough, but I believe it is overly legalese and I do not feel that it is the right solution to the issue.

No offence to Grosse and I can appreciate his effort he put into his proposal, but I cannot support it.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I've voted against this proposal, despite the fact that I supported it going to a vote in the first place. I think Sanctaria has explained himself very well. I too, wish to see a resolution to this particular matter. However, I feel that this proposal is a step in the wrong direction. The Regional Assembly has consistently been working to make the legal code simpler and easier to understand and follow. This may seem simple enough, but I believe it is overly legalese and I do not feel that it is the right solution to the issue.

No offence to Grosse and I can appreciate his effort he put into his proposal, but I cannot support it.
Click to expand...
Compared to the convoluted set of definitions added to the legal code to remove the requirement of RA membership for Security Council members, something so complicated even the Delegate tripped up over it a few days ago?

My proposal at vote is an example of simplicity and directness now missing in the governing documents. If that example isn't good enough, take a look at the hodgepodge of rules, statutes, constitutional provisions, and Speaker's guidelines that governs R.A. procedure to the extent that many members are regular tripped up over it.

So, please, don't use the weak and unjustified argument that this proposal is complicated or full of legalese. It isn't. That claim is a straw man regularly pulled out by others who only have that to use as an argument every time I propose a bill since I'm blamed for being the bogeyman when I'm not.

If this proposal fails a two-thirds majority, it'll be back in a slightly different form. There is no other logical way to fix this problem and thus, allow the R.A. to spend its time on things other than bills to correct other passed bills.
 
Convoluted definitions? If anything was convoluted was the situation we had before the Officials Amendment Act, when nobody could definitively tell who was an officer or who needed to be in the RA. The Officials Amendment provided a crystal clear and entirely straightforward resolution of both issues.

The same applies to the RA procedure. Before its rewrite, it was regularly described as one of the worst pieces of legislation in effect. The new set of RA rules is absolutely clear, while also flexible and effective, and has served us excellently in the last nine months.

The same applies more generally. During the past year, the RA has made great strides in simplifying, disambiguating, and making TNP law more effective. If you want to see convoluted, you should read the Legal Code as it stood in December 2012.

Regarding the matter at hand, there is a very simple, trivial even, solution: We should stop treating the numbers as part of the legislation. Instead, we should recognize them for what they are, a reference system that has no legal effect, and exclude them from the legislative process. COE's bill does exactly that. Your bill on the other hand introduces a whole new legislative procedure, which appears to be more complicated than the regular process of enacting legislation. All this just to accomodate a reference system. Among the two, COE's bill is the obvious choice,. COE's bill, unlike this one, is also another step in the direction the RA has taken in legislating since last year. For these reasons, the RA should vote against this bill, in either Constitutional or Legal Code amendment form, and instead opt for the simple solution COE's bill proposes.
 
coe:
It just may be possible that I and others disagree with much of what Grosse proposes because of deep-seated ideological differences, and not because of personal problems.
Click to expand...



Grosse, as an exercise in Realpolitik, if you wish to get things done at the moment I suggest two courses:

1. Don't attempt stuff as constitutional amendments, which require 2/3 support. There are a few people in TNP who could propose that the sky is blue and still get a third of people voting against the idea.

2. Next time, put forward a proposal through a third party (preferably an unknown) to keep your name off the opening post. Then let the bill gain a bit of traction before you offer support. This means a bill may be considered on its merits rather than an assumed ideology.
 
r3naissanc3r:
Convoluted definitions? If anything was convoluted was the situation we had before the Officials Amendment Act, when nobody could definitively tell who was an officer or who needed to be in the RA. The Officials Amendment provided a crystal clear and entirely straightforward resolution of both issues.

The same applies to the RA procedure. Before its rewrite, it was regularly described as one of the worst pieces of legislation in effect. The new set of RA rules is absolutely clear, while also flexible and effective, and has served us excellently in the last nine months.

The same applies more generally. During the past year, the RA has made great strides in simplifying, disambiguating, and making TNP law more effective. If you want to see convoluted, you should read the Legal Code as it stood in December 2012.

Regarding the matter at hand, there is a very simple, trivial even, solution: We should stop treating the numbers as part of the legislation. Instead, we should recognize them for what they are, a reference system that has no legal effect, and exclude them from the legislative process. COE's bill does exactly that. Your bill on the other hand introduces a whole new legislative procedure, which appears to be more complicated than the regular process of enacting legislation. All this just to accomodate a reference system. Among the two, COE's bill is the obvious choice,. COE's bill, unlike this one, is also another step in the direction the RA has taken in legislating since last year. For these reasons, the RA should vote against this bill, in either Constitutional or Legal Code amendment form, and instead opt for the simple solution COE's bill proposes.
Click to expand...
This bill is not complicated.

This bill can be summarized like so....


1. If Speaker (or anyone else) sees a an error, he/she requests a change.
2. Upon Speaker confirmation, the Speaker posts the change.
3. If anyone in the assembly thinks the change he/she proposes shouldn't be changed, they may object.
4. If they object, no change is made and legislation is then created for the change.

That's easy. CoE's solution, while it "works" from a Legal Code perspective actually says..."don't mind this part of the legal code it's really not part of the legal code". From a theoretical standpoint, that's worse than the consent scenario that Grosse has established with this bill.

In fact r3n, this proposal smells a lot like something you would propose and I find it odd that you are against this. One of the major issues I had with the ruling making the minor edits law unconstitutional was the fact that the court had the power to do so because the minor edits law was only in the Legal Code. This bill addresses one of my major concerns on that front and is pretty easy to follow.
 
punk d:
That's easy. CoE's solution, while it "works" from a Legal Code perspective actually says..."don't mind this part of the legal code it's really not part of the legal code". From a theoretical standpoint, that's worse than the consent scenario that Grosse has established with this bill.
Click to expand...
How is it worse than the (currently) unstated standard that other formatting choices are not part of the legal code? Spacing, sizing, bolding, underlining, even color choices are technically included, but they have no legal standing. Why is it bad, theoretically, to state that numbers are in the same category?

This is a genuine question - I honestly don't know where you're coming from.

Your comment on procedure isn't correct, though. The bill requires the cooperation of the heads of all three branches of government, not the Speaker alone, and it requires it throughout the entire process.
 
That's an important detail. The more government officials you involve in the process, the less efficient it will be. I'll note especially that it's the burden of the person who notices the error to inform all three heads of branches themselves - you'd have to feel pretty strongly about a numbering error to go to the trouble. It'd be easier just to fold it into the next piece of legislation on the table.
 
I'd also note, there's absolutely no provision for how to proceed if one of the three is not present - say, if they've announced a short absence. It gives them a strict three days to compile a list, and then an even stricter 72 hours exactly for an objection to occur, and then mandates that the changes be implemented immediately.

If any of the three can't participate during the specific six days required, the law will have been broken - and if they're away on a pre-announced absence, they could have broken the law without even knowing that a violation was occurring. I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever for laws like that to be on the books.
 
These are minor errors, there's not really a need for expediency. I'd argue that correcting the errors today will take longer than the process Grosse has described.

I will grant that 6.8.2 does leave a little issue but that could be fixed via adding the clause "or" or by the Delegate/Chief Justice delegating the role of compiling to the Speaker. 6.8.1 has the requirement of notification so whether someone is here or not is moot so long as they receive a notification.

This doesn't seem to me to be an obstacle the present legislation cannot overcome.
 
punk d:
These are minor errors, there's not really a need for expediency. I'd argue that correcting the errors today will take longer than the process Grosse has described.
Click to expand...
Correcting minor errors isn't urgent, correct. However, they are also so unimportant that if you create an onerously long and difficult process for them, it's not going to be worth it in the end. People will just add them into unrelated bills. Honestly, except when it comes to numbering, that's probably the *best* way to fix minor errors.
 
punk d:
These are minor errors, there's not really a need for expediency. I'd argue that correcting the errors today will take longer than the process Grosse has described.

I will grant that 6.8.2 does leave a little issue but that could be fixed via adding the clause "or" or by the Delegate/Chief Justice delegating the role of compiling to the Speaker. 6.8.1 has the requirement of notification so whether someone is here or not is moot so long as they receive a notification.

This doesn't seem to me to be an obstacle the present legislation cannot overcome.
Click to expand...
It's not exactly an issue of expediency - I agree with both you and COE that there's no urgent need for any. It's more that such a minor matter doesn't genuinely need the heads of all three branches of government to get involved at every step of the process, and if it's serious enough that it does need them, it's probably something that should honestly be put to the RA normally.

In order to change the "and" which appears in three clauses (1, 2, and 4) to an "or", we'd need to go through a standard legislative amendment process, and in the meantime, we'd be bound by the "and"... and that would be very problematic for handling any issues raised under it in the meantime, and it isn't something the proposed legislation could overcome without such an amendment.
 
and that would be very problematic for handling any issues raised under it in the meantime, and it isn't something the proposed legislation could overcome without such an amendment.
Click to expand...

as I said, I believe this is something the del and chief could delegate to the speaker quite easily and I doubt either would be opposed to it since they are still being notified.

And if "delegate" is something that is scary, let's reword it to the Speaker, Chief, & Delegate could elect to execute this process via the Speaker. So long as that is voluntary and made public, I see no legal wranglings that would ensue.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
mcmasterdonia:
I've voted against this proposal, despite the fact that I supported it going to a vote in the first place. I think Sanctaria has explained himself very well. I too, wish to see a resolution to this particular matter. However, I feel that this proposal is a step in the wrong direction. The Regional Assembly has consistently been working to make the legal code simpler and easier to understand and follow. This may seem simple enough, but I believe it is overly legalese and I do not feel that it is the right solution to the issue.

No offence to Grosse and I can appreciate his effort he put into his proposal, but I cannot support it.
Click to expand...
Compared to the convoluted set of definitions added to the legal code to remove the requirement of RA membership for Security Council members, something so complicated even the Delegate tripped up over it a few days ago?

My proposal at vote is an example of simplicity and directness now missing in the governing documents. If that example isn't good enough, take a look at the hodgepodge of rules, statutes, constitutional provisions, and Speaker's guidelines that governs R.A. procedure to the extent that many members are regular tripped up over it.

So, please, don't use the weak and unjustified argument that this proposal is complicated or full of legalese. It isn't. That claim is a straw man regularly pulled out by others who only have that to use as an argument every time I propose a bill since I'm blamed for being the bogeyman when I'm not.

If this proposal fails a two-thirds majority, it'll be back in a slightly different form. There is no other logical way to fix this problem and thus, allow the R.A. to spend its time on things other than bills to correct other passed bills.
Click to expand...
I don't recall slipping up over a Security Council member. I slipped up over the EC requirements about the two government branches, which was understandable I think as that particular section had been recently amended following a court ruling on government officials. I simply couldn't find the section where it was explicitly stated that EC's were exempt.

I don't think you're a bogeyman, and as I said, I can appreciate you taking the time to suggest this alternative. I'm not suggesting you're the bad guy on this. My point is simply that this is a highly legalese proposal and it's requirements as pointed out by SillyString are quite strict and would require coordination to get the timing exactly right.

Punk Daddy makes some good suggestions that would simplify the process as currently set out in your bill.
 
punk d:
and that would be very problematic for handling any issues raised under it in the meantime, and it isn't something the proposed legislation could overcome without such an amendment.
Click to expand...

as I said, I believe this is something the del and chief could delegate to the speaker quite easily and I doubt either would be opposed to it since they are still being notified.

And if "delegate" is something that is scary, let's reword it to the Speaker, Chief, & Delegate could elect to execute this process via the Speaker. So long as that is voluntary and made public, I see no legal wranglings that would ensue.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is accurate. There's no provision in this legislation to allow such a delegation, and the legal code as written allows only the delegation of duties within an office (from the Speaker to a Deputy Speaker, for example). There's no legal way for any of the three parties to pass the obligations of this bill on to another branch.
 
It's not "another" branch but allowing one of them to execute this. That seems perfectly reasonable.

We also had deputies prior to their legal inclusion in the Legal Code.
 
We have a Vice Delegate who can act in place of the Delegate and the Court surely has some process for someone on the Court to act in the absence of the Chief Justice.

If there isn't then that is a much bigger problem than this legislation. As to why all three, that was to assure transparency and completeness in the list of corrections, and avoid arbitrary or abusive action on the part of a single officeholder or their deputy (something that has been an issue that I have observed at times since returning from my limited medical leave of absence.)
 
Considering that all of the officials who need to approve minor errors are members of the RA, there is absolutely no need for them to preapprove the errors before they're presented to the RA - they could simply object as an RA member. It's that sort of redundant procedure that made the old legal code such a mess. Let's not make our legal code that way.

EDIT: Honestly, the best way to do it would be for RA members to present minor errors directly to the RA.

EDIT: Also, not only is there no procedure within the court to delegate Chief Justice duties, but there is also no process for the Delegate to delegate duties to the VD. The VD assumes powers of the Delegate if the Delegate is "removed or unable to serve" but cannot perform simple tasks piecemeal if the Delegate doesn't sign on for a couple days, or doesn't respond to a given request within a certain timeframe.
 
Clearly both the Delegate and the Court have rule making powers under the Constitution to fix that matter.

The problem with having any RA member present an error or omission they happen to notice is the fact that the member may have overlooked other errors or omissions that should also be on the list. The 72 hour period is designed to collect such other errors and omissions, allow the three officials to marshal the items into a list and present it.
 
Anyone could create such a list, or even enlist the help of others to create such a list. Requiring that a list be compiled, and specifying who does it is most of what makes this a bad bill.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The problem with having any RA member present an error or omission they happen to notice is the fact that the member may have overlooked other errors or omissions that should also be on the list. The 72 hour period is designed to collect such other errors and omissions, allow the three officials to marshal the items into a list and present it.
Click to expand...
Erm... why is it necessary to collect all errors at one time? Why isn't it good enough to find ones as other things come up and edit them out as they're seen, rather than forcing the heads of all three branches, all of whom have a number of other things on their plate at any given time, to pore over the entire Constibillocode for the slightest thing to tweak?

Poring over the Constibillocode and tweaking it is the RA's job, not theirs.
 
punk d:
This bill is not complicated.

This bill can be summarized like so....


1. If Speaker (or anyone else) sees a an error, he/she requests a change.
2. Upon Speaker confirmation, the Speaker posts the change.
3. If anyone in the assembly thinks the change he/she proposes shouldn't be changed, they may object.
4. If they object, no change is made and legislation is then created for the change.

That's easy. CoE's solution, while it "works" from a Legal Code perspective actually says..."don't mind this part of the legal code it's really not part of the legal code". From a theoretical standpoint, that's worse than the consent scenario that Grosse has established with this bill.

In fact r3n, this proposal smells a lot like something you would propose and I find it odd that you are against this. One of the major issues I had with the ruling making the minor edits law unconstitutional was the fact that the court had the power to do so because the minor edits law was only in the Legal Code. This bill addresses one of my major concerns on that front and is pretty easy to follow.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point. The bill is not complicated to understand; this is NS legislation, hardly any of it is technical enough to be incomprehensible.

The bill proposes a solution that is a lot more complicated compared to others, such as the one COE's bill proposes.

I am not sure what you mean by "theoretical standpoint", and why from that standpoint COE's solution is worse than Grosse's.

Finally, it is very unlikely I would make a proposal like this. I have stated several times in the past, going back to my first days in the RA in fact, that my personal preference would be that we abstained from renumbering clauses, and that I believe the RA is unreasonably fixating on the numbering system instead of ignoring it. I have also expressed my general distaste for "minor error" clauses, both in TNP and elsewhere. In fact, the minor error clause review request was made by myself, in response to COE seeking to invoke that clause for a matter relating to removal of RA members.
 
i said you'd write something like this from a syntax standpoint with reference to how "complicated" it is. Perhaps you would not have introduced legislation of similar content, but you and Grosse share more "legalese" then you may care to admit.

When I addressed the complication CoE discussed I was speaking to both its understandability and execution. I have voted for CoE's proposal because I believe it accomplishes what this bill does although I prefer this one simply because it adds a constitutional element that I feel the court will not be able to overturn in the future. And for me, that's a distinct advantage for this bill over CoE's.

Overall - I just want to stop talking about this issue. It's such a waste of time and a failure of our system that we do not have the flexibility to fix a "minor error" without (potentially) voting on three bills to address this 'minor' problem.
 
Given the final vote tally, it seems unlikely that this would pass as a legal code amendment, especially given the extra constitutional issues that form of the bill would raise.
 
Seems unlikely? I'd beg to differ.

This was 4 votes shy of passing if it had just been a Legal Code Amendment. Making a few tweaks would give this a better than puncher's chance of passing I believe.

I do think that your bill will likely pass and we can leave this issue for now...until your bill is challenged, but I hope that it is not...

....but this is TNP. :)
 
The reason I think it's unlikely is because without the constitutional amendment portion of the bill, it's much more blatantly unconstitutional. I think the number of supporters would drop, not rise.
 
Conjecture either way and I think it's just as likely to gain than lose supporters if some changes were made. Given that people who voted probably also somewhat followed this conversation with its peaks and valleys I think it's probable that this could pass with tweaks.

On both counts, it's conjecture.
 
My conjectures about legislation tend to be accurate. I know this assembly very well. Also, it just stands to reason that if you remove a reason to vote for it (the constitutional support) and don't add any reasons to vote for it in compensation, it will lose support. It's not like there's anyone out there saying "if only it was less constitutional, I would vote for it."
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
My conjectures about legislation tend to be accurate. I know this assembly very well. Also, it just stands to reason that if you remove a reason to vote for it (the constitutional support) and don't add any reasons to vote for it in compensation, it will lose support. It's not like there's anyone out there saying "if only it was less constitutional, I would vote for it."
Click to expand...
I had no doubt this would fail and your bill would pass. I'm fairly unsurprised when it comes to people's voting habits and I'm fairly certain that with some changes this could pass. The analogy you establish doesn't work because it's apples and oranges. Of the 18 who voted against the bill, there are probably some who would be willing to vote for it should it change a bit. I don't think all 18, nor for that matter all 15, are stuck in their position everything else be damned. Your assessment seems to only look at the 15 falling away and not the 18 who could also change their votes.

But in general, the winds of this Assembly no longer blow in Grosse's direction. They used to. Grosse was r3n before r3n.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
At some point the topic will rise again.
Click to expand...
confederate-battle-flag.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top