![]() |
Assembly Procedures Amendment - Printable Version +- Forums (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum) +-- Forum: Second Floor (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=112) +--- Forum: Board Meeting Room (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=19) +---- Forum: Past Proposals & Discussions (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=50) +---- Thread: Assembly Procedures Amendment (/showthread.php?tid=1042) |
Assembly Procedures Amendment - Debussy - 11-04-2019 [Spoiler] Quote:Assembly Procedures Act of November 2019[/spoiler] EDIT: McChimp posted some threads with fixes for the major stuff in this one. RE: Assembly Procedures Amendment - McChimp - 11-04-2019 The author has drawn an erroneous implication that it is somehow the speaker's duty to format legislation as the law stands now. This is simply not the case. The law does explicitly mean that only properly formatted legislation will be brought to vote by the speaker. This is enforceable in a way that saying that proposals must meet the formatting requirements is not, since it means that the Speaker (a single point of authority) cannot bring legislation that does not meet the requirements to vote whereas as amended the enforcement is the burden of the person making the proposal, who is obviously not going to be objective about it. I will be voting nay and I encourage others to do so too. RE: Assembly Procedures Amendment - Debussy - 11-04-2019 Quote:The author has drawn an erroneous implication that it is somehow the speaker's duty to format legislation as the law stands now. Not true, I said that you can simply make that implication from how the law is written and I said it needs to change. It is the difference in interpretation that is the problem and McChimp is dismissing my concerns in favor of his own interpretation of the law when we could simply agree to clear it up for everyone. He was quick to dismiss this, and I would not follow his advice on this matter. Clear language can help us all understand and carry out the law to the best of our abilities. Quote:(1) Unless otherwise noted, legislation brought to vote in the Assembly will be formatted as follows: This is the law as it stands. The language "brought to vote" needs to be replaced with proposed so that people better understand the formatting guidelines. And even then, the procedures fail to outline that the citizen making the proposal has to post it in proper format. Subsection 7 of section 4 outlines that a speaker has a right to not bring something to vote that it not properly formatted but simply implies that that responsibility is on the citizen making the proposal. McChimp and I both want people to format their proposals, I just want that instruction outlined clearly in the procedures for everyone so McChimp, or anyone, does not need to find the time to explain it. RE: Assembly Procedures Amendment - McChimp - 11-04-2019 I can only repeat that the amendment you are proposing makes it impossible to enforce proper formatting and that the law does not imply what you say it does: "legislation brought to vote in the Assembly will be formatted as follows:" simply does not mean that the Speaker must format proposals on behalf of those who proposed them. It doesn't even reference the Speaker. Our laws are written explicitly and should be read as such. RE: Assembly Procedures Amendment - Debussy - 11-04-2019 The word "propose" does not take away the Speakers capability to enforce formatting rules. If anything, it extends them to the proposal period. If its already being done properly during that period, than the format requirements outlined "at vote" should already have been met. That clause references the Speaker's authority as the only office that can put things to vote. For example, in the event someone posted something not of proper format, as it is written now, the speaker could properly format that suggestion and place it to vote if it has the motions, which is not a bad thing. No where does it say the Speaker must do anything as subsection 7 of section 4 gives the Speaker the right to ignore anything not formatted properly without givening citizens noticed that that responsibility is on them. It needs to be cleared up. RE: Assembly Procedures Amendment - Wymondham - 11-04-2019 I agree with McChimp and will also be voting Nay RE: Assembly Procedures Amendment - Zapatian Workers State - 11-05-2019 Although I understand both sides, I ultimately think this is a trivial matter of semantics. Ultimately, I must agree more with Teazle/McChimp though, as the law can regulate whether a legislative act is brought to a vote based on its format, but it cannot regulate whether the assemblyman drafting the legislation formats it correctly when he first proposes that. It would be effectively unenforceable for the reason McChimp states, which is simply that the amendment seems to imply that the assemblyman bears the responsibility for determining whether format is correct so the legislation can go to a vote, whereas the original wording only concerns the Speaker's obligation to recognize correctly formatted legislation so it may be voted upon. RE: Assembly Procedures Amendment - Aflana - 11-05-2019 Debussy;7373 Wrote:(3) Following enactment of a proposal, the Assembly Speaker will append the month and year of enactment to the proposal's title.You took out the clause about the Preamble and it not exceeding 50 words, however in Section 4 in the example format you left the Preamble there with the sentence stating that it should not exceed 50 words. Debussy;7373 Wrote:It seems a bit confusing to remain on the example but not in a clause. Is there a reason for that? If not, this should probably be cleared up.Quote:Example Title |