Whereas, under current statute both the Mençéi and Túischac'h can appoint temporary replacements, and
Whereas, under current statute this option is not yet available to the Avocat-Xheneral, and
Whereas, recent circumstances have highlighted the need for the Avocat-Xheneral to have this option as well, and
Whereas, this bill was passed by the previous Cosa, but with reference to the wrong part of El Lexhatxh
Therefore, be it enacted by the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa, that El Lexhatx Title H 2.1.5.3.1. which currently reads as:
Quote2.1.5.3.1. The Mençéi and the Túischac'h may at any time appoint and dismiss one Senator and one Membreu dal Cosă, respectively, to serve as a member of the CRL in their place.
is amended, to read as follows:
Quote2.1.5.3.1. The Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral may at any time appoint and dismiss one Senator or one Membreu dal Cosă, to serve as a member of the CRL in their place.
Thank you Madam Seneschal
As a simple re-presentation of a bill which has already passed, but didn't take effect due to a drafting error, it seems a waste of time to take this to the CRL.
Under El Lexhatx H.2.1.3, it can bypass the CRL process if 134 Cosa seats and 4 Senators express their support for doing so here.
I and my 16 Cosa seats support doing this.
And my 20.
And 20 from Open
As with the other bill, I'd like to discharge the CRL from considering this bill as well.
Add my 16 seats as well.
10 additional seats in support here as well.
And my 5 votes
And my 5 votes as well.
I was doing some unrelated research and stumbled upon stuff that is relevant to this matter. Lex.C.1.3.1. says:
QuoteThe Scribe of Abbavilla shall maintain all laws in L'Anuntzia dels Legeux, insofar as possible, with the same content that was approved by the Ziu, except that amending acts that refer to section numbers in pre-existing statutes that were changed by the Scribery shall be construed as referring to the equivalent section numbers in the amended statutes as originally enacted.
This bit confused me a lot and I couldn't quite figure out what it meant or where it applied. Maybe it could mean the Scribery could fix a bill that refers to outdated section numbers? - but then it says "changed by the Scribery", which doesn't seem to mean "scribed" on first glance.
Turns out that language originates from 45RZ25, which took away the Scribery's ability to do clerical maintenance of statutory law with this motivation:
Quote[...] certain laws on the books purport to give individual unelected officials the authority to change duly-enacted statutes, [...] limited to such edits as do not affect the "scope" or "intent" of the statutes, but such determinations are subjective and may be abused,[...]
Therefore that bit of C.1.3.1 presumably only applies to cases in which the Scribery has altered section numbers in existing legislation of its own volition - except that's not a power the Scribery has anymore, since it was taken away by that same 45RZ25; the only thing the Scribery can do at the moment is altering bills that are currently on the Clark, by the provisions of C.1.3.3-5.
(But then, why did that clause in C.1.3.1 exist at all? My theory is that since this is a November 2013 law, it was before the Database was brought back online and the Wiki-hosted Lexhatx became a centralised code; maybe being certain you had the most up to date version of a piece of statutory law, net any Scribery changes, was a legitimate issue. So it was only really effective in the incredibly tiny timespan before DB and Lexh came around a few months later.)
TLDR:
1) The original bill is unscribable because it specifically directs the Scribe to amend a section that doesn't exist (I think the "insofar as possible" clause in C.1.3.1 covers the Scribery's ass here);
2) The original bill cannot be fixed on the fly because neither the Scribery nor anyone else can amend existing legislation without passing other legislation anymore;
3) The C.1.3.1 caveat I brought up is moot and should probably be removed or fully restored (aka allowing the Scribery to interpret references to renumbered statute).
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 19, 2024, 09:29:09 PMAs a simple re-presentation of a bill which has already passed, but didn't take effect due to a drafting error, it seems a waste of time to take this to the CRL.
Under El Lexhatx H.2.1.3, it can bypass the CRL process if 134 Cosa seats and 4 Senators express their support for doing so here.
I and my 16 Cosa seats support doing this.
I add my 16 Cosa seats in support of this bill bypassing the CRL process.
Quote from: Sir Lüc on July 22, 2024, 09:07:35 AM3) The C.1.3.1 caveat I brought up is moot and should probably be removed or fully restored (aka allowing the Scribery to interpret references to renumbered statute).
I encourage you to write legislation to do so
Sure I support bypassing CRL
I support CRL bypass.
With
@Munditenens Tresplet's votes we are now over the threshold of 134 Cosa seats.
We still need
two Senators to endorse this.
Paging:
@GV @Ian Plätschisch @Iason Taiwos @mpf @Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM @mximo
I add my vote to bypass the CRL process.
GV, Senator, Fiova
I add my 5 votes to bypass the CRL process.
I'd like to add my support also to the CRL bypass.
I vote to bypass the CRL process.
Taiwos, Senator for Benito
169 Cosa seats and 4 Senators have voted to allow this bill to be Clarked without need of the CRL process, as provided by El Lexhatx H.2.1.3, and I would like the SoS
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB to confirm that this is the case.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 23, 2024, 05:27:51 PM169 Cosa seats and 4 Senators have voted to allow this bill to be Clarked without need of the CRL process, as provided by El Lexhatx H.2.1.3, and I would like the SoS @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB to confirm that this is the case.
That does appear to be the case.