Discretionary Powers Act (October 2020)

[Domais]

I motion to vote.

[Frankender]

I second the motion with my support of this legislation.

[Frankender]

In the past month, we have had an average of 12 citizens vote per piece of legislation. Currently, we have had 3 votes against, and 4 votes for this legislation. As it requires a super-majority, this requires the final 5 votes to be in favor of this legislation to pass.

Domais, as the founder of this bill, I believe it is your responsibility and therefore implore you to find these five more votes.


I believe these legislators who have against this legislation failed to take the full discourse offered here into consideration before casting their vote.

Domais offered proper consideration for any issues that were presented. No responses were given after he made corrections to the bill. Why would we leave the powers of changing bills in the Supreme Court's hands? Legislation is a legislative branch issue, and if we don't like the discretionary edits made, why can't we just vote them down when they come up?  Many other regions have adopted something similar. Perhaps, as I believe we are the least active sinker nation, we should be taking hints from other regions and stop shutting down others' bills for childish reasons.


While this legislation still has a chance, I would like to respectfully rebut some points made by McChimp:

If law's errors are that egregious then the Assembly as a whole should vote against passing it in the first place.

This is completely irrelevant.  Laws that are already passed cannot be voted against. This has to do with laws that have already passed.  You would rather an amendment be written up for one erroneous period or comma? That is more red tape, not less.  All this bill allows the Speaker to do is to clean up our law library.

I don't see why we should entrust this to any more limited group of people when there is no guarantee that they will know better than anyone else.

This is similar to any ministry. If you are worried about the Speaker's abuse of power, either don't approve the nomination, or file a bill of recall.

Already you have tried to adjust legal text I and others have written for no good reason whatsoever-I see you included replacing "outdated" terms, by the way. I find it extremely aggravating to think that in the future our citizens' laws will be "fixed" by somebody who may well write worse English than them and that they will then have to fight to overturn such meddling. Your efforts to impose overreaching and misguided standards on the written word-like your recent efforts to remove the perfectly good word "shall" from our lexicon-are entirely unwelcome so far as I am concerned.

This entire statement is irrelevant to the argument of this proposition by Domais.  To me, your statement here makes it appear that you have a personal grudge against Domais, as you stormed into this legislation from the start ready to resist any changes Domais has proposed.

The first assertation from this quote is simply rude:
"Already you have tried to adjust legal text I and others have written for no good reason . . ."

[Mzeusia]

I support.

[McChimp]

Legislation is a legislative branch issue, and if we don't like the discretionary edits made, why can't we just vote them down when they come up?  Many other regions have adopted something similar. Perhaps, as I believe we are the least active sinker nation, we should be taking hints from other regions and stop shutting down others' bills for childish reasons.

Not all activity is good activity. I don't see any future where the main business of this place is arguing about the grammar and vocabulary of active laws as a good one. We've had one thread of it already and I for one hated it.

This is completely irrelevant.  Laws that are already passed cannot be voted against. This has to do with laws that have already passed.  You would rather an amendment be written up for one erroneous period or comma? That is more red tape, not less.  All this bill allows the Speaker to do is to clean up our law library.

You've clearly missed my point. What I am saying is that these problems ought to be resolved before the legislation passes, not after. As you say, this proposal does not do that. Therefore in my opinion this procedure is the wrong approach. The intention may be to allow the Speaker to clean up the law library but it also potentially gives the Speaker the power to mess up either by replacing something grammatically correct with something incorrect or by changing the meaning of the law.

This is similar to any ministry. If you are worried about the Speaker's abuse of power, either don't approve the nomination, or file a bill of recall.

No ministry of government deigns to change the Assembly's laws by any means other than legislation. I have no intention whatsoever of supporting a bill that means I'll have to try and block anyone with English less than equal to my own from office or worse recall them. It's bad enough finding justices, we shouldn't expand that problem to the office of Speaker too.

This entire statement is irrelevant to the argument of this proposition by Domais.  To me, your statement here makes it appear that you have a personal grudge against Domais, as you stormed into this legislation from the start ready to resist any changes Domais has proposed.

The first assertation from this quote is simply rude:
"Already you have tried to adjust legal text I and others have written for no good reason . . ."

I don't have a personal grudge against Domais but I do resent his recent efforts to adjust other people's English, especially since the adjustments he proposed weren't justified and numerous laws he has proposed in the past have passed with grammatical errors that he chose not to correct. I think that given his activity here there is a reasonable chance that Domais will be Speaker one day and I will not support a future in which he-or anybody else-will have the authority to make such changes unilaterally.

[Domais]

I don't have a personal grudge against Domais but I do resent his recent efforts to adjust other people's English, especially since the adjustments he proposed weren't justified and numerous laws he has proposed in the past have passed with grammatical errors that he chose not to correct. I think that given his activity here there is a reasonable chance that Domais will be Speaker one day and I will not support a future in which he-or anybody else-will have the authority to make such changes unilaterally.

But if the Speaker attempts to make a change to a law and they themselves make an error then the assembly can voice their objects in their thread. Surely, the Speaker would listen to the assembly because if they don't then the assenbly can just overide their actions as well as remove them from office. I really don't see the point of amending every law that mentions "Minister" instead of "Cabinet minister" when we could just appoint someone to do that. Or amending a law to fix some numbering error that happened because no-one noticed it during an amendment.
Edit: I guess during the voting period one could withdraw the motion.

[McChimp]

I don't have a personal grudge against Domais but I do resent his recent efforts to adjust other people's English, especially since the adjustments he proposed weren't justified and numerous laws he has proposed in the past have passed with grammatical errors that he chose not to correct. I think that given his activity here there is a reasonable chance that Domais will be Speaker one day and I will not support a future in which he-or anybody else-will have the authority to make such changes unilaterally.

But if the Speaker attempts to make a change to a law and they themselves make an error then the assembly can voice their objects in their thread. Surely, the Speaker would listen to the assembly because if they don't then the assenbly can just overide their actions as well as remove them from office. I really don't see the point of amending every law that mentions "Minister" instead of "Cabinet minister" when we could just appoint someone to do that. Or amending a law to fix some numbering error that happened because no-one noticed it during an amendment.
Edit: I guess during the voting period one could withdraw the motion.

Having to continually challenge and threaten to recall the Speaker in order to leave peoples' adequate laws untampered with is not worth whatever small percieved benefit in presentability would be gained. If a change is worth making it should be pointed out before the proposal in question has passed or, if it's already too late for that, by amending it.

[Frankender]

Legislation is a legislative branch issue, and if we don't like the discretionary edits made, why can't we just vote them down when they come up?  Many other regions have adopted something similar. Perhaps, as I believe we are the least active sinker nation, we should be taking hints from other regions and stop shutting down others' bills for childish reasons.

Not all activity is good activity. I don't see any future where the main business of this place is arguing about the grammar and vocabulary of active laws as a good one. We've had one thread of it already and I for one hated it.

The main business of this place is not arguing about grammar and vocabulary of active laws. In the past month, these chambers have had 10 different discussions. 1 pertained specifically to language, the other is this bill, which is not only geared at correcting language.

Regardless, "not all activity is good activity" is not helping Lazarus become more active...

This is completely irrelevant.  Laws that are already passed cannot be voted against. This has to do with laws that have already passed.  You would rather an amendment be written up for one erroneous period or comma? That is more red tape, not less.  All this bill allows the Speaker to do is to clean up our law library.

You've clearly missed my point. What I am saying is that these problems ought to be resolved before the legislation passes, not after. As you say, this proposal does not do that. Therefore in my opinion this procedure is the wrong approach.

I agree. These problems ought to be resolved before legislation passes, not after. This proposal is not supposed to do that. What do we do if we notice a problem after? We utilize this proposal. 

The intention may be to allow the Speaker to clean up the law library but it also potentially gives the Speaker the power to mess up either by replacing something grammatically correct with something incorrect or by changing the meaning of the law.

It does not give the Speaker the power to mess up anything. If two citizens have an issue with a change, the edit is easily reversed:

(1) The Speaker must publicly promulgate any use of powers enumerated herein within 24 hours thereof.
(2) If any Citizen tables a motion to Overturn the decision of the Speaker and another Citizen seconds the relevant motion, then the relevant use of the powers enumerated herein will be rendered unenforceable pending a vote in the Assembly;

This is similar to any ministry. If you are worried about the Speaker's abuse of power, either don't approve the nomination, or file a bill of recall.

No ministry of government deigns to change the Assembly's laws by any means other than legislation. I have no intention whatsoever of supporting a bill that means I'll have to try and block anyone with English less than equal to my own from office or worse recall them. It's bad enough finding justices, we shouldn't expand that problem to the office of Speaker too.

This is two points. First, you suggest this allows the Speaker to change the Assembly's laws. This bill does not, as has been discussed.

Secondly, you suggest the Speaker must make edits, and therefore must speak impeccable English. The Speaker is not forced to use any Discretionary (which means optional) Powers. This does not change the role of a Speaker into a Grammar Nazi.

I don't have a personal grudge against Domais but I do resent his recent efforts to adjust other people's English, especially since the adjustments he proposed weren't justified and numerous laws he has proposed in the past have passed with grammatical errors that he chose not to correct. I think that given his activity here there is a reasonable chance that Domais will be Speaker one day and I will not support a future in which he-or anybody else-will have the authority to make such changes unilaterally.

With that in mind, I completely understand your concern for this legislation; however, I think you should just ensure he does not receive a nomination or is not confirmed if that is the case.

[McChimp]

The main business of this place is not arguing about grammar and vocabulary of active laws. In the past month, these chambers have had 10 different discussions. 1 pertained specifically to language, the other is this bill, which is not only geared at correcting language.

Regardless, "not all activity is good activity" is not helping Lazarus become more active...

Allowing the Speaker to change peoples' laws without consulting them will make it thus.

I agree. These problems ought to be resolved before legislation passes, not after. This proposal is not supposed to do that. What do we do if we notice a problem after? We utilize this proposal.

Or instead we use the less contentious method to amend things: amendments. Or even give these powers to the Court, the people who are supposed to have domain over active laws.

It does not give the Speaker the power to mess up anything. If two citizens have an issue with a change, the edit is easily reversed...

you suggest this allows the Speaker to change the Assembly's laws. This bill does not, as has been discussed.

I am aware that the proposal has a veto mechanism. I think it's absurd that I should have to use it to prevent the Speaker from unilaterally changing laws.

Secondly, you suggest the Speaker must make edits, and therefore must speak impeccable English. The Speaker is not forced to use any Discretionary (which means optional) Powers. This does not change the role of a Speaker into a Grammar Nazi.

I made no such suggestion but I do think it's a bad idea to give people powers you don't trust them to wield.

With that in mind, I completely understand your concern for this legislation; however, I think you should just ensure he does not receive a nomination or is not confirmed if that is the case.

I can't ensure any such thing. Only you can prevent that from happening by voting down this proposal. That said, I would be perfectly happy to see Domais in that position so long as there was no risk of him doing this.