Hypercorrection

Alunya, author of the defeated North Pacific Navy bill, recently brought before the Regional Assembly a modest proposal to standardize some terminology. Alunya noticed that the Legal Code referred, varyingly, to a Minister for Defence, a Minister of Defence, and a Minister of Defense. Concerned about the possibility of different titles being interpreted to mean different individuals, Alunya proposed replacing all references with "Minister for Defence", as well as changing all instances of "defense" to their British counterparts.

Frustrated with the response from the Regional Assembly, Alunya withdrew the bill. It was then picked up nearly verbatim by Democratic Donkeys, who changed the chosen title to "Minister of Defence" and moved it to a vote. While his bill was still being debated, two alternate suggestions were put forth. The first, from Crushing Our Enemies, proposed holding simultaneous voting on all four possible titles in order to determine which one had the highest level of support. The second, from r3naissancer, proposed removing the term entirely and instead referring to an executive officer responsible for the military, removing the spelling disagreement from the law entirely and bringing the reference in line with the rest of the Legal Code.

DD rejected both of these suggestions, and his bill was rejected by the RA with a vote of 11-17. Meanwhile, r3nassancer introduced his proposal as a separate bill, which went to vote on May 30th and is currently PASSING/FAILING by a WIDE/NARROW margin.

This is not the first triple legislative event to occur - although they are not common, the previous one occurred barely a month prior, and also dealt with a minor corrective issue. A previous amendment to the Legal Code had left behind a minor error, with two successive clauses numbered "8". PaulWallLibertarian42 quickly proposed a bill to correct the error, which passed 17-7, and debate quickly erupted among members of the RA as to the best way to handle this kind of issue in the future.

The biggest point of contention was ensuring legality. Previously, the Court had struck down a clause of the Legal Code which read, ""If a minor error is found in this Legal Code, the Speaker will update it on the published instructions of the Court, unless a Regional Assembly member objects within five days." The Court held that this violated the Constitutional mandate that laws be passed by majority vote of the Regional Assembly, and a great deal of debate focused on ensuring that legislative proposals would not be similarly struck down.

First at vote was PWL's own suggestion, which proposed editing the Rules of the Regional Assembly to require the author of a bill as well as a member of the Speaker's Office to proofread all legislation prior to it going to vote. It also authorized the Speaker's Office to notify the delegate and the author if errors were found, and to correct them within three days unless an RA member objected. This bill failed 6-26.

Second was an omnibus bill by Grosseschnauzer, which sought to amend the Constitution to require a procedure to amend "non-substantive errors", and to amend the Legal Code to require the Speaker, the Delegate, and the Chief Justice to coordinate with one another in order to implement corrections proposed by members of the Regional Assembly that received no objection from any other member over a three day period. Because it sought to amend the Constitution, this bill required a 2/3 majority to pass, and it failed 15-18.

The third and final proposal came from Crushing Our Enemies. This proposal amended the Legal Code to declare that clause numbers shall not be considered part of the law, and required the Speaker to maintain appropriate consecutive numbering. It also struck the text of the minor error clause from the Legal Code, as the Court had not ordered its removal when it was ruled unconstitutional. This final bill passed 24-5.

Both of these situations arose out of relatively insignificant issues - minor errors that, functionally, have no effect on the interpretation of the law. On one level, such small concerns do not genuinely merit that level of response. But underlying each fork of an existing proposal is a fundamental disagreement about legislative approach and an unwillingness to reach a compromise. And counterintuitively, these small issues are ones where stubbornness is tolerable. At the end of the day, a failure to pass any bill results only in the retention of a typo.

Click to expand...

Alunya recently introduced a modest proposal to the Regional Assembly (RA). Alunya noticed that the Legal Code referred, varyingly, to a Minister for Defence, a Minister of Defence, and a Minister of Defense. Concerned about the possibility of different titles being interpreted to mean different individuals, Alunya proposed replacing all references with "Minister for Defence", as well as changing all instances of "defense" to their British counterparts.

Frustrated with the response from the RA, Alunya withdrew the bill. It was then picked up nearly verbatim by Democratic Donkeys, who changed the chosen title to "Minister of Defence". While this bill was still being debated, two further alternatives were suggested. The first, from Crushing Our Enemies, proposed holding simultaneous votes on all four possible titles to determine which one had the broadest support. The second, from r3naissanc3r, proposed replacing all titles with generic references to an executive officer responsible for the military, thus eliminating the need to commit to a spelling and simultaneously bringing the references in line with the rest of the Legal Code.

Democratic Donkeys rejected both suggestions, and his bill in turn was rejected by the RA with a vote of 11-17. Meanwhile, r3naissanc3r introduced his proposal as a separate bill, which is currently PASSING/FAILING by a WIDE/NARROW margin.

This is not the first triple legislative event to occur - although they are not common, the previous one took place barely a month ago. It also dealt with a minor corrective issue: a previous amendment had left two successive clauses of the Legal Code both numbered "8". PaulWallLibertarian42 proposed a bill to correct the error, which passed 17-7, causing debate on how to best handle similar issues in the future to erupt.

The main point of contention was ensuring legality. The regional court had previously struck down a clause of the Legal Code which provided a legislative shortcut for correcting "minor errors". The court held that this violated the constitutional mandate that laws be passed by majority vote of the RA, and the RA sought to avoid a situation where any new proposal would face a similar fate.

First at vote was PaulWallLibertarian42's own proposal, legislating a requirement that all bills be proofread by the author and the Speaker's Office before going to vote. It also authorized the Speaker's Office to notify the delegate and the author if errors were found, and to correct them within three days unless an RA member objected. This bill failed 6-26.

Second was an omnibus bill by Grosseschnauzer. It circumvented legality issues by adding a requirement to the Constitution for a procedure to amend "non-substantive errors", and then sought to establish one in the Legal Code that would involve the speaker, delegate, and chief justice coordinating to implement corrections proposed by and receiving no objections from members of the RA. The bill failed 15-18.

The third and final proposal came from Crushing Our Enemies. It amended the Legal Code to declare that clause numbers would not be considered part of the law, and required the speaker to maintain appropriate consecutive numbering. This final bill passed 24-5.

Both of these situations arose out of relatively insignificant issues - minor errors that, functionally, have no effect on the interpretation of the law. On one level, such small concerns do not genuinely merit that level of response. But underlying each fork of an existing proposal is a fundamental disagreement about legislative approach and an unwillingness to reach a compromise. And counterintuitively, these small issues are ones where stubbornness is tolerable. At the end of the day, a failure to pass any bill results only in the retention of a typo.

Click to expand...

Alunya recently introduced a modest proposal to the Regional Assembly (RA). After noticing that the Legal Code referred, varyingly, to a Minister for Defence, a Minister of Defence, and a Minister of Defense, Alunya proposed replacing all references with "Minister for Defence".

The bill resulted in an RA argument between proponents of the American and British spellings, which led a frustrated Alunya to withdraw it. It was then reintroduced nearly verbatim by Democratic Donkeys, while two further alternatives were suggested. The first, from Crushing Our Enemies, proposed holding simultaneous votes on all possible title variants. The second, from r3naissanc3r, proposed replacing all titles with generic references to an executive officer. The RA eventually rejected Democratic Donkeys' bill and passed r3naissanc3r's.

This is not the first legislative treble to occur - the previous one took place barely a month ago, and also dealt with a minor corrective issue. After it was discovered that a previous amendment had left two successive legal clauses numbered the same, a debate erupted on how to best handle similar issues in the future. The main point of contention was ensuring legality: The regional court had previously struck down a legislative shortcut for correcting "minor errors", as a violation of the constitutional mandate that laws be passed by majority vote of the RA. The RA sought to ensure any new proposal would not face a similar fate.

First came PaulWallLibertarian42's proposal, requiring that all bills be proofread by the author and speaker before going to vote. Second was a bill by Grosseschnauzer. It circumvented legality issues by adding constitutional provisions for a procedure to correct "non-substantive errors", then established one in the Legal Code. A third proposal, from Crushing Our Enemies, amended the Legal Code so that clause numbers would not be considered part of the law. The RA passed this final bill and rejected the other two.

Both situations arose out of relatively minor errors, which functionally have no effect on the interpretation of the law. On one level, such small concerns do not merit this level of response. But underlying each fork of an existing proposal is a fundamental disagreement about legislative approach and an unwillingness to reach a compromise. And counterintuitively, these small issues are ones where stubbornness is tolerable: At the end of the day, a failure to pass any bill results only in the retention of a typo.

Click to expand...