READ THE BILLS ACT OF 2014

PaulWallLibertarian42

PaulWallLibertarian42

TNPer
Proposal to Amend the Rules of The Regional Assembly:
A NON-LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL to add An Amendment to "Rules of the Regional Assembly" adding a "Section 4." Titled "Read The Bills Procedure" shall read as follows

READ THE BILLS PROCEDURE


1. When ever a proposal is made the bill sponsor before the conclusion of formal debate shall;

a. Proof read their proposal and look for any grammatical or spelling mistakes and fix them.

b. Cross reference their proposal with current laws to ensure there is not a error with clause numbering, if the proposal does have clauses numbered improperly then update the language to correct said mistake.

2. At the conclusion of formal debates prior to a vote being scheduled the Speaker or a Deputy shall review the language in the bill to ensure there is not a clause numbering error.

If an error is found the Speaker or Deputy shall inform the bill sponsor by PM and also post on the discussion thread that an error has been found.

Example: "Upon review of this proposal we find the language will cause two clauses with the same numbering I.E. two clauses numbered 8 to be present. You have 24 hours to correct this error before this proposal can go to vote."

Give the bill sponsor 24 hours to correct the mistake before a vote is then scheduled though depending on circumstances a extension may be given at the discretion of the Speakers office.

3. If a mistake is found after a bill has passed vote when the legal documents are being updated the speaker shall:

Notify the delegate in charge who signed off on the bill, notify the bill sponsor via PM, and notify the RA via the original debate thread. The Speaker shall correct any clause numbering errors within three (3) days of the mistake being found unless there is an objection by a member of the RA.

Furthermore, the READ THE BILLS ACT ENCOURAGES all RA MEMBERS that at any time during the discussion and debate process of a bill if they perceive an error in grammar or clause numbering to bring it to the attention of the bill sponsor and to the Speaker or a Deputy.
Click to expand...



SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! FILLABUSTER AHEAD! SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT!
rand-paul-filibuster-ap.jpg


My fellow TNPers, over the last several days myself and several of my colleagues have proposed seperate legislation on making sure errors in numeration and potential grammatical mistakes get taken care of in an effective efficient manner without need to propose legislative amendments every time to correct the error in grammar or an oversight in mis-numbering clauses.

The error stems from this passed legislation concerning the flag day holiday addition: Flag Day Bill vote

Which due to the oversight of the bill proposer R3n, The Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Myself, Crushing Our Enemies, Lekeem,Great Brights Mum, Grosseshcnauzer, Malvad,Falapatorius,Treize, Ator, Lord Byron, Schweiz, Abaca,McMasterdonia,Elegarth, Flemingovia,Gracious Maximus,Lennart,Aneurin,Fenichi,Kiwi, Romanoffia, according to the voting thread apparently r3n again, Malash,Sanctaria,Isimud,Alunya,Gladio,Lord Ravenclaw, Blue Wolf II,Hileville, and Somerset who voted Aye and let the bill pass with the outcome of two clauses numbered 8 inserted into Chapter 7.2 of the legal code concerning holidays.

When I pointed this grevious oversite to the Speaker of the RA I was informed he could not change it because he was shackled in red tape and it would undermine the legislative function of the RA.

So I did what any responsible RA member would do, I proposed a Amendment to 7.2 to renumber the clauses correctly. Here

There was then backlash and a valiant charge by Flemingovia to perserve the beloved double 8 Here which eventually led us to hold a vote on the porridge question.

Grosse and COE have made proposals about something or another concerning how fixes should be conducted in the future.

In the middle of his filibuster Romanoffia quiety walks down the Rows of Assembly members and places an apple and a thermos full of iced tea on my lecturn.

Thank you Mr. Chief Justice, now as I was saying.

What we need is a simple RA procedure to be adopted, not fancy omnibus bills or forget the numbers act. A simple procedure in which the main bill proposer and sponsor before calling for a vote needs to re read thier proposal for proofreading and to catch any grammatical errors and cross reference it with the constibillicode to make sure they have the clauses to be renumbered correctly. The proposer according to current RA procedures can edit thier proposal the whole time it is in formal debate, so the proposer could be looking at it then to make sure everything is in proper order. But we are all human and we all make mistakes. Prior to the speaker calling formal debate, they should be able to look over the proposal and cross reference it with the codes to make sure everything is numbered properly and state any errors in the debate thread and let the proposer make any nessicary adjustment prior to the bill actually going to vote. This can be accomplished in the three day window between end of formal debate and the vote being scheduled while it is still waiting to be put on the floor. Any RA member any time during debate if they see a numbering error or such should bring it to the attention of the speaker and the bill proposer via PM or posting it in the debate thread.

takes a sip of tea to quinch his parched throat.

Now I will continue to speak until I am no longer able to speak...

As I was saying, if all that fails and the RA is asleep at the wheel. Once vote is commenced and finalized and the Speaker or whoever updates the legaleze of TNP notices an error in numbering such as two clause 8's appearing he or she should notify the bills sponsor the delegate who authorized the bill and also comment on the debate thread of a potential error and the intent to correct said error within 3 days unless an objection is made by a member of the RA. In case where a clause is numbered the same twice, cant we just give the Speaker a little frickin' leeway to renumber the clauses in the correct and applicable linear way?

I do not know if it within the realm of the RA to adopt thier own procedures, and I think the Speaker is doing a great job and do not want to step on thier toes if RA procedure changes are wholly in the Speakers ball park.

If I have to write another legalcode proposal or constitutional amendment on this I will. But can we withdraw forget about numbers acts and omnibus correction legislation and simply have a simple "READ THE BILLS standing RA Procedures Act of 2014" added into the STANDING RA PROCEDURES? to help cut back on the potential errors in the passed or proposed drafts.
 
A "Read the Bills Act" assumes mistakes will never be made and that bill proposer is a legal scholar. But, we will make mistakes and not all proposers are or should be legal scholars.

I do believe that something we can implement is require the Speaker to "read the bills" prior to motioning this to vote and validating that there are no errors.

As for me, I'm voting for both the omnibus and the other bill simply because this issue has taken up way too much time and I'm hopeful that between those two bills it should solve the problem.
 
Mr. D - My READ THE BILLS act, while nothing in writing yet, I do not feel would presume no one would make mistakes. In fact, it almost states that certainly people make mistakes, it not only asks that prior to vote on a proposal the Speaker cross references with the constibillcode to check to make sure there wouldnt be issues arising with numbering ect. It also asks the bill proposer also double checks thier work before the end of formal debate and cross references thier proposal to ensure there is compatibility with clause numbering and encourages them to proofread for grammatical errors. It also authorizes RA members to SEE SOMETHING SAY SOMETHING tm. To look over the bill and cross reference with constibillicode and if they see any numbering error or potential grammatical mistake to bring it to the attention of the Speaker and the bill sponsor/proposer.

Finally it would authorize and mandate the speaker report any potential numbering error, when updating the legal documents in the event all other checks fail and a bill passes vote with a mistake and the speaker realizes it when renumbering clauses and realizes two are numbered the same.

Quote:
As I was saying, if all that fails and the RA is asleep at the wheel. Once vote is commenced and finalized and the Speaker or whoever updates the legaleze of TNP notices an error in numbering such as two clause 8's appearing he or she should notify the bills sponsor the delegate who authorized the bill and also comment on the debate thread of a potential error and the intent to correct said error within 3 days unless an objection is made by a member of the RA. In case where a clause is numbered the same twice, cant we just give the Speaker a little frickin' leeway to renumber the clauses in the correct and applicable linear way?
Click to expand...

So no it wouldn't assume everyone is a scholar and a gentleman, that is why there would be several layers of accountability put in place. That of the proposer, the general body of the RA, and the Speaker or Deputy Speaker(s) to look over the language, cross reference with current law and make sure there wont be a numbering/clerical error and to hopefully fix one before it has a chance to be enacted.
 
Maybe you could write down a draft proposal first? It's hard to debate over a Rand Paul-esque filibuster block.
 
I'm afraid that I have not been able to focus on a word of this thread, there has simply been too much bunched together for me to read on the TV screen (my laptop screen has stopped working) that from a distance makes it even more difficult.

Could the OP please post a concise statement about what he wants to see done with his proposed bill?
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
I'm afraid that I have not been able to focus on a word of this thread, there has simply been too much bunched together for me to read on the TV screen (my laptop screen has stopped working) that from a distance makes it even more difficult.

Could the OP please post a concise statement about what he wants to see done with his proposed bill?
Click to expand...

See the OP as the Proposal is displayed prominately now and all fillabusters spoilered
 
I do not know if it within the realm of the RA to adopt thier own procedures, and I think the Speaker is doing a great job and do not want to step on thier toes if RA procedure changes are wholly in the Speakers ball park.

If I have to write another legalcode proposal or constitutional amendment on this I will. But can we withdraw forget about numbers acts and omnibus correction legislation and simply have a simple "READ THE BILLS standing RA Procedures Act of 2014" added into the STANDING RA PROCEDURES? to help cut back on the potential errors in the passed or proposed drafts.
Click to expand...
It is within the power of the RA to adopt its own procedure, however that would be as an amendment to the Rules of the Regional Assembly, rather than to the Standing Orders.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
I do not know if it within the realm of the RA to adopt thier own procedures, and I think the Speaker is doing a great job and do not want to step on thier toes if RA procedure changes are wholly in the Speakers ball park.

If I have to write another legalcode proposal or constitutional amendment on this I will. But can we withdraw forget about numbers acts and omnibus correction legislation and simply have a simple "READ THE BILLS standing RA Procedures Act of 2014" added into the STANDING RA PROCEDURES? to help cut back on the potential errors in the passed or proposed drafts.
Click to expand...
It is within the power of the RA to adopt its own procedure, however that would be as an amendment to the Rules of the Regional Assembly, rather than to the Standing Orders.
Click to expand...
Then I'd like to do that then with this.
 
I would like to make an official recommendation and plea that the RA adopt my proposals and not those of my colleagues. In the short term please get behind the amendment to Ch7.2 of the legal code to fix the misnumbered clauses. Which should be leaving formal debate in a few days. Amend Ch. 7.2 to correct a mistake proposal

And for the long term, I feel a non-legislative change to the RA as stated herein is better then a Legal code or Constitutional legislative amendment. As such I recommend adopting my proposals and Vote Nay if the proposals of my colleagues come up for a vote. Thank you.

Vote your district, Vote your conscience, Don't surprise me.....

house-of-cards-kevin-spacey.jpg
And the most important one of those is...DON'T SURPRISE ME!
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
I'm afraid that I have not been able to focus on a word of this thread, there has simply been too much bunched together for me to read on the TV screen (my laptop screen has stopped working) that from a distance makes it even more difficult.

Could the OP please post a concise statement about what he wants to see done with his proposed bill?
Click to expand...
This is just funny within a "Read the Bills Act of 2014" thread.
 
I would like to move this onward to formal debate, as I have not observed any real objections to this procedural change. I have only seen discontent with my use of the fillabuster move against COE's and Grosse's legislative proposals and an attempt to champion my procedural RA rules change. Which I think would be non-legislative as opposed to legislative as RA rules are ineffect administrative procedures.
 
We could simply just amend the procedures of the assembly rather than add this entire new bill... In addition why only grammatical and numerical errors? Why omit spelling? Also this should be common sense and does not require legislation to enforce this. I do not support this bill.
 
Jamison Rex:
We could simply just amend the procedures of the assembly rather than add this entire new bill... In addition why only grammatical and numerical errors? Why omit spelling? Also this should be common sense and does not require legislation to enforce this. I do not support this bill.
Click to expand...
Mr. Rex, it is NOT A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL in fact it is as you suggested an amendment to the internal Rules of the RA.

And I see spelling falling under "grammatical" but I could certainly add spelling in for clarification purposes.

The difference between this and COEs or Grosses proposal is mine is to amend RA rules. Not amend the constitution and legal code like their proposals seek to do.
 
The proposal is now in formal debate, which shall conclude in five days. I should add, for clarity, that this is a non-legislative proposal (as it doesn't necessarily amend any document as it is written, though it would still be such if it specifically amended the RA Rules), but that it shall be governed by the legislative procedure for the purposes of debate.

I would like to request an amendment to the proposal to specify that it is an amendment to the Rules of the Regional Assembly, presumably as an added Section 4 to those Rules.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
I'm afraid that I have not been able to focus on a word of this thread, there has simply been too much bunched together for me to read on the TV screen (my laptop screen has stopped working) that from a distance makes it even more difficult.

Could the OP please post a concise statement about what he wants to see done with his proposed bill?
Click to expand...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Too funny!
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
The proposal is now in formal debate, which shall conclude in five days. I should add, for clarity, that this is a non-legislative proposal (as it doesn't necessarily amend any document as it is written, though it would still be such if it specifically amended the RA Rules), but that it shall be governed by the legislative procedure for the purposes of debate.

I would like to request an amendment to the proposal to specify that it is an amendment to the Rules of the Regional Assembly, presumably as an added Section 4 to those Rules.
Click to expand...
Thank you Mr. Speaker, I have made changes to the Proposal in the opening post that I hope will be satisfactory to your required requests.

I also spoilered the fillabustering language so that the proposal is prominately displayed as to not create further confusion about what exactly I am proposing.

If the Speaker should require me to do anything futher please let me know.
 
In a real setting, secretaries overview a bill to proofread it. However, we have nothing like that here. But my opinion is that instead of this complicated process, we simply just create a group of designited players to help proofread bills (like an editors society)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top