[Discussion] Definitions Act

[Amerion]

In the process of legislating, it becomes necessary to stipulate what certain terms mean, and while they can largely be contained in the act in which they are used, it may become the case that they are used in multiple instances across a wide spectrum of acts.

Therefore, rather than repeat them, and/or face an eventuality whereby we would seek to redefine a particular term and in so doing, require multiple amendments to all acts which contain said-term, would it be more logical to write a Definitions Act and have all relevant terminology contained in this document? Quite literally, a legal dictionary.

[Constie]

I don't think there is a need for this. If one wants definitions, put it into the act that the definition is being used in.

[Roavin]

^ what Constie said.

Besides, what a definition is may be context sensitive. For example, the Mandate may refer to a participating nation in region as a "member", while an act regulating, say, the CLS, may refer to a "member" meaning a member of the CLS. It behooves us to just write good laws.

[Amerion]

*Nods*

I'll table this proposal and proceed accordingly.

[Cormac]

Archived at the request of the author.