Frankender;10949 Wrote: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.
Frankender;10949 Wrote: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.
Frankender;10949 Wrote: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.
Frankender;10949 Wrote: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.