10-15-2020, 01:43 PM
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:
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.
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.
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 . . ."
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:
McChimp;10863 Wrote: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.
McChimp;10863 Wrote: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.
McChimp;10863 Wrote: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 . . ."