the ztandardized zpeling or Noah Webzter act

Tjildren, of kourse.

And silly DD, it would be the ABDs. Simply kull the unused letter and life kontinues apase!
 
SillyString:
Tjildren, of kourse.

And silly DD, it would be the ABDs. Simply kull the unused letter and life kontinues apase!
Click to expand...
After al, it'z for the tjildren. It takez a vilidj, yu no!

Perhapz we zhood abolizh al uv the leterz ekcept "W". That way, it wood make tiping poztz alot kqiker. Uv korze, evry pozt wood look the zame.


XX xx xxxxx xx x xxxx. Xx xxxx xxxx, "xxxx xxx!:
Click to expand...
 
I have simplified the law somewhat, and turned it into a formal proposal:

The following law shall be added to our legal code, with numbering and precise position determined by the Speaker. This law is proposed in recognition that we in TNP are a diverse community but nonetheless require some regularity in the spelling used in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal code etc.

1. All laws passed prior to the adoption of this bill shall not be affected by the provisions of this bill.

2. All future laws, including changes / additions to the constitution, legal code, bill of rights and SC and Regional Assembly procedures shall conform to the following spelling rules:

2.1 the letter "s" shall be abolished, and shall be replaced by "z" (which shall be pronounced to rhyme with "bee"

2.2 The diphthong "ou" shall drop the "u". therefore "our" shall now be spelled "or".

2.3 All double letters shall drop one letter, Therefore the "Shall" shall be spelled "shal"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Can we go to formal debate?
 
This bill is now in formal debate for five days, after which a vote will be scheduled.
 
I have two concerns with this proposal as it stands.

First of all, while numbering is something laid out in the legal code as non-legislative, it does not fall afoul of the court ruling on the minor errors clause because it is specific and precise. If a clause is inserted after a different clause, its number is necessarily incremented by one. The Speaker applies these numbers, but does not interpret the law. There is only a single correct option for numbering.

This proposal, however, encourages the Speaker to insert the clause anywhere they want. In the NPA law, perhaps, or in the FOI Act. I believe this to be a big violation of that court ruling, and of proper legislative procedure. The Speaker's job is not to figure out where a law goes - that's our job.

Second, and less importantly, I'm not sure that the Legal Code has the jurisdiction to regulate amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights to this degree. It may very well - I'm just not sure.
 
SillyString:
I have two concerns with this proposal as it stands.

First of all, while numbering is something laid out in the legal code as non-legislative, it does not fall afoul of the court ruling on the minor errors clause because it is specific and precise. If a clause is inserted after a different clause, its number is necessarily incremented by one. The Speaker applies these numbers, but does not interpret the law. There is only a single correct option for numbering.

This proposal, however, encourages the Speaker to insert the clause anywhere they want. In the NPA law, perhaps, or in the FOI Act. I believe this to be a big violation of that court ruling, and of proper legislative procedure. The Speaker's job is not to figure out where a law goes - that's our job.

Second, and less importantly, I'm not sure that the Legal Code has the jurisdiction to regulate amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights to this degree. It may very well - I'm just not sure.
Click to expand...
On your two points.

1. I do not see the point of electing an official and then not trusting them to wipe their arse properly. My wording assumes that the Speaker is a competent adult who is not going to pull a sly one to screw us over. The culture in TNP shows a relic from the days when folks went rogue a lot - we find it hard to trust our officials, so we regulate them into being mere functionaries administering over-detailed procedures.

I want officials, not call-centre operatives reading from a script. I am happy to let the Speaker deal with the details. Aren't you?

2. This bill does not deal with the content of future legislation, simply the spelling used. that seems to be a procedural matter well within the scope of the Legal Code. If people think otherwise, they can challenge in the courts. But be prepared to bring a sleeping bag and a good book to read.
 
flemingovia:
I am happy to let the Speaker deal with the details. Aren't you?
Click to expand...
Nope. It's the author's job to figure out where a law or amendment belongs, not the Speaker's. He should not be forced to make a vague, hazy, legality-unclear judgement call just because an RA member wants to abdicate their responsibilities.
 
SillyString:
It's the author's job to figure out where a law or amendment belongs, not the Speaker's.
Click to expand...
Show me that in writing, cos I can't see it.

EDIT: Perhaps the speaker themselves could chip in? If they are happy to do the numbering, i am happy to leave the bill as it is . If they would prefer some instruction as to where it should be placed in the legal code, I will add a clause numbering it. Simples.
 
flemingovia:
SillyString:
It's the author's job to figure out where a law or amendment belongs, not the Speaker's.
Click to expand...
Show me that in writing, cos I can't see it.

EDIT: Perhaps the speaker themselves could chip in? If they are happy to do the numbering, i am happy to leave the bill as it is . If they would prefer some instruction as to where it should be placed in the legal code, I will add a clause numbering it. Simples.
Click to expand...
I'd much rather prefer you to specify what part of the legal code you're amending, yes.
 
I'm American, and this heavily offends me. HEAVILY. Shame to this bill. Full opposition.

Also: If this becomes law I will consider leaving the region, or just not follow it at all.

There's me exercising my right to free speech.
 
Lord Nwahs:
flemingovia:
SillyString:
It's the author's job to figure out where a law or amendment belongs, not the Speaker's.
Click to expand...
Show me that in writing, cos I can't see it.

EDIT: Perhaps the speaker themselves could chip in? If they are happy to do the numbering, i am happy to leave the bill as it is . If they would prefer some instruction as to where it should be placed in the legal code, I will add a clause numbering it. Simples.
Click to expand...
I'd much rather prefer you to specify what part of the legal code you're amending, yes.
Click to expand...
Fair Do's Mr Speaker.

Final (I hope) edit:

The following law shall be added to our legal code as section 6.7, with other sections renumbered accordingly. This law is proposed in recognition that we in TNP are a diverse community but nonetheless require some regularity in the spelling used in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal code etc.

6.7 Spelling Standardization

6.7.1. All laws passed prior to the adoption of this bill shall not be affected by the provisions of this bill.

6.7.2. All future laws, including changes / additions to the constitution, legal code, bill of rights and SC and Regional Assembly procedures shall conform to the following spelling rules:

6.7.2.1 the letter "s" shall be abolished, and shall be replaced by "z" (which shall be pronounced to rhyme with "bee")

6.7.2.2 The diphthong "ou" shall drop the "u". therefore "our" shall now be spelled "or".

6.7.2.3 All double letters shall drop one letter, Therefore the "Shall" shall be spelled "shal"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Syrixia:
I'm American, and this heavily offends me. HEAVILY. Shame to this bill. Full opposition.

Also: If this becomes law I will consider leaving the region, or just not follow it at all.

There's me exercising my right to free speech.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the internet. There are things on here that will offend you: you learn to live with it after a while.
 
Syrixia:
I'm American, and this heavily offends me. HEAVILY. Shame to this bill. Full opposition.

Also: If this becomes law I will consider leaving the region, or just not follow it at all.

There's me exercising my right to free speech.
Click to expand...
Yu zeem upzet. Der iz no reazon to be upzet. Diz bill iz progreziv for ze region.
 
Formal debate has ended. A vote will be scheduled immediately once the vote for the RA Warning Act is concluded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top