[CRL] The Edited Whole Hopper Act

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Also the laws states the CRL can recommend approval, not that it actually can or needs to approve anything.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

My interpretation of how the CRL has worked in practice, as well as my intentions in setting up the CRL in the first place, align with @Glüc da Dhi S.H. 's observations. CRL approval has never been necessary, only CRL commentary, i.e. at least 2 out of 3 members give their opinion, which the bill proposer may take in or ignore. To give a veto power to the CRL would have been undemocratic.

This is why I'm going to vote against this bill - it's not only pointless but misunderstands the existing situation.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It is very clear from the law that the CRL can vote to approve, vote to reject, or delay the bill for 30 days.  It can also make recommendations.  The delaying function is very likely inorganic (Org.VII.7 precludes any statute from delaying a bill in this way).  However, that's never mattered, so that provision has never been challenged.  People have been told in the past that they couldn't Clark something without a CRL vote, and that may or may not be inorganic if it ended up mattering.

I would strongly support getting rid of the CRL, overall, and replacing it with a system of multiple readings.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I would strongly support getting rid of the CRL, overall, and replacing it with a system of multiple readings.

I would support this as well. And I think, from what I can tell, Miestra supports it as well. I am in the odd situation that I will be voting against my own bill as well because I thought the way that the CRL review has been implemented by the previous SoS matched the intent and language of the law. I was wrong and I assume the new SoS will be interpreting the CRL review process (as outlined here by Gluc and Miestra) as something that does not prevent Clarking.

[King Txec]

I would strongly support getting rid of the CRL, overall, and replacing it with a system of multiple readings.

I would support this as well. And I think, from what I can tell, Miestra supports it as well. I am in the odd situation that I will be voting against my own bill as well because I thought the way that the CRL review has been implemented by the previous SoS matched the intent and language of the law. I was wrong and I assume the new SoS will be interpreting the CRL review process (as outlined here by Gluc and Miestra) as something that does not prevent Clarking.

I would be interested to see how multiple readings could be implemented.

-Txec R