[Proposal] Assembly Procedure Act

[Cormac]

This proposal ought to contain a section preventing malicious abuse of voter fatigue. Given the nuances of whether a lightly edited proposal is in fact meaningfully different or not, I suggest judgement regarding this ought to be left to the discretion of the court. I'd like to suggest you add a section similar to:

"laws resulting from a proposal insubstantially different from another made less than one month before shall be struck down by the Court of Lazarus in accordance with the constitution."

Which allows the court to strike down any laws that pass in this manner by two thirds vote if petitioned, as permitted by Article V section 4 of the constitution:

"The Court has the power, upon being petitioned by a citizen, to strike down any general law, treaty, or policy. in whole or in part, and restrain any government action, by two-thirds vote, if such violates this Mandate or any constitutional law."

I'll just copy and paste what I said on Discord:

[10:30 AM] Cormac: Tbh I simply hadn't considered the possibility that someone would continually submit rejected legislation, though yes, I could see that happening now that you mention it (and that I haven't already seen it happen somewhere is fairly remarkable).
[10:31 AM] Cormac: That said, I'm not sure how to address it, because letting someone interpret "insubstantially different" is going to piss people off if (when really) the court interprets it too broadly and strikes down a law that is in most people's view substantially different.
[10:32 AM] Cormac: If a Delegate has a specific problem with a bill, vetoes it, the author corrects the problem, but the problem and its correction doesn't make the bill substantially different... I trust you see where I'm going here.

I'm not disagreeing that this might be a potential problem, but this seems like a very flawed way to fix it. I don't have any other ideas though, so at this point I'm wondering if we should just not do anything and simply continue voting down legislation if someone continually submits it until they finally stop, or if we should go with your suggestion despite the flaws of leaving "insubstantially different" to judicial interpretation. I'm honestly not sure what the best course of action is, so I hope to hear from others.