[CLARKED] The Edited Whole Hopper Act

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Bringing back to the Hopper for review as it has been changed to accommodate comments by Ian and Tgerxh and to allow additional review and comments.
Whereas, the intent of the CRL to provide a forum for the improvement of bills was honorable, and

Whereas, this can be achieved with a longer stay in the Hopper and without that extra body.

Therefore, be in enacted, that the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa enacts the following changes in El Lexhatx:

H.2.1.5 through H.2.1.6.2 are repealed in their entirety:

2.1.5. For each Cosă term is created a Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu (in english Legislative Advisory Committee), hereinafter "the CRL", which shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper once they have moved to committee; and may recommend acceptance or rejection , or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
2.1.5.1. The main, but not exclusive, purpose of the CRL, with the assistance of the Scribery, shall be to evaluate bills from the technical point of view of the quality of the legislation, the correctness of the language, the internal consistency of the document and consistency with existing legislation.
2.1.5.2. The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
2.1.5.3. The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
2.1.5.3.1. 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.[716]
2.1.5.4. The CRL may create further committees to which their functions may be delegated, as concerns any bill or category of bills. Such a committee must have at least 3 members, including at least 1 Membreu dal Cosă and 1 Senator.
2.1.6. After the CRL has given its recommendation, or if it gives no recommendation within 30 days of the bill having passed to committee, the bill has passed the Hopper and the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.
2.1.6.1. The same bill can not be submitted to the Clark more than once in the same Cosa, unless the original bill was vetoed, the original bill had been retired or voted down by its main sponsor during the voting period, or the bill has been substantially amended, as judged by the Secretary of State.
2.1.6.2. Bills must be submitted to the Secretary of State more than 24 hours before the publication of the Clark. Bills received less than 24 hours before publication of the Clark shall be published in the next Clark or postponed for one Clark, at the Secretary of State's discretion.

The current H.2.1.3 and H.2.1.4 are deleted and replaced with the following:

2.1.3 A bill is said to have passed the Hopper and the sponsor of said bill may ask for it be clarked after satisfying both of the following conditions: It has spent at least 20 days in the Hopper, and at least two of the following officers (Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral) have expressed that they have no objections after reviewing the bill from the technical point of view of the quality of the legislation, the correctness of the language, the internal consistency of the document and consistency with existing legislation; or it has spent at least 30 days in the Hopper without a recommendation from the above-mentioned officers responsible for review. For the purpose of the review described above, 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 reviewer of the Hopper bills in their place.
2.1.4 The same bill can not be submitted to the Clark more than once in the same Cosa, unless the original bill was vetoed, the original bill had been retired or voted down by its main sponsor during the voting period, or the bill has been substantially amended, as judged by the Secretary of State.
2.1.5 Bills must be submitted to the Secretary of State more than 24 hours before the publication of the Clark. Bills received less than 24 hours before publication of the Clark shall be published in the next Clark or postponed for one Clark, at the Secretary of State's discretion.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Hello
@Sir Lüc
@Glüc da Dhi S.H.
@Sir Ian Plätschisch

Would one of you please move this back to the CRL for new review?

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Graschias Luc

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

The structure of the three new provisions is still confusing. For one thing, 2.1.4 says that 2.1.3 provides an exception to "passing the Hopper" even though 2.1.3 is entirely about "passing the Hopper", so it doesn't provide an exception. Also, unless I'm missing something, 2.1.4.1 doesn't say anything that 2.1.3 doesn't say already.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The structure of the three new provisions is still confusing. For one thing, 2.1.4 says that 2.1.3 provides an exception to "passing the Hopper" even though 2.1.3 is entirely about "passing the Hopper", so it doesn't provide an exception. Also, unless I'm missing something, 2.1.4.1 doesn't say anything that 2.1.3 doesn't say already.

Thanks. I've edited and consolidated. Does this address the confusion?

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Ohh, I see what happened. The existing version of 2.1.3 does have another exception in it, which is getting removed by the new 2.1.3. This explains the reference to the phantom exception. Are you intending to remove it

I would also remove the quotation marks around "passed the Hopper" in 2.1.3, since the same phrase appears without them in 2.1.2

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Ohh, I see what happened. The existing version of 2.1.3 does have another exception in it, which is getting removed by the new 2.1.3. This explains the reference to the phantom exception. Are you intending to remove it

I would also remove the quotation marks around "passed the Hopper" in 2.1.3, since the same phrase appears without them in 2.1.2

Correct, the only exception intended is for the bill to be considered passed in the Hopper should there be no review by at least two of the three reviewers. Quotation marks have been removed.

After another review of the items being repealed I re-added the lines concerning resubmitting the same bill and needing to be submitted to the SoS within 24 hrs of the clark too.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Approved.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

No objection.

[King Txec]

I'm struggling to see the reason for this bill. It still requires approval from those who would have been on the CRL.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

There's still one big chance, which is that in the current situation a bill would also pass the CRL if the members of the CRL have objections. The way I read this proposal is that if the body formerly called CRL has provided objections the bill cannot pass the hopper, basically giving veto power to a body of three people. I don't think that is a good idea.

Otherwise I mostly still have the same thoughts as last time, which I haven't really gotten around to expanding on.

No further recommendations with regards to the quality of the legislation.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

There's still one big chance, which is that in the current situation a bill would also pass the CRL if the members of the CRL have objections. The way I read this proposal is that if the body formerly called CRL has provided objections the bill cannot pass the hopper, basically giving veto power to a body of three people. I don't think that is a good idea.

Otherwise I mostly still have the same thoughts as last time, which I haven't really gotten around to expanding on.

No further recommendations with regards to the quality of the legislation.

My understanding of the current process is that the CRL already can block legislation as it needs to be approved by two of the three CRL members to be clarked. Is this not correct? I think this is how things were administered under Txec when he was SoS.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

There's still one big chance, which is that in the current situation a bill would also pass the CRL if the members of the CRL have objections. The way I read this proposal is that if the body formerly called CRL has provided objections the bill cannot pass the hopper, basically giving veto power to a body of three people. I don't think that is a good idea.

Otherwise I mostly still have the same thoughts as last time, which I haven't really gotten around to expanding on.

No further recommendations with regards to the quality of the legislation.

My understanding of the current process is that the CRL already can block legislation as it needs to be approved by two of the three CRL members to be clarked. Is this not correct? I think this is how things were administered under Txec when he was SoS.

Well that's not what the law says

2.1.5. [...] "the CRL", [...] may recommend acceptance or rejection , or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
[...]
2.1.6. After the CRL has given its recommendation[...]the bill has passed the Hopper [...]

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

It doesn't even technically say two members must give recommendations. It just says the CRL and apparently we all assumed that means a majority, which sort of makes sense I guess, but it's just one interpretation.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

It doesn't even technically say two members must give recommendations. It just says the CRL and apparently we all assumed that means a majority, which sort of makes sense I guess, but it's just one interpretation.

Ok but it has certainly not been implemented that way. I have attempted to Clark bills and on several occasions "successful" review by the CRL was a requirement.

@Sir Lüc How are you interpreting CRL review requirements for the purposes of Clarking bills?