Discretionary Powers Act (October 2020)

[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.