Perland
Former Members
New flag be lit son
Posts: 63
|
Post by Perland on Jul 26, 2017 19:36:06 GMT -5
The Confederate Parliament
Amendment #002 An Amendment to the Constitution Entitled: The Amendment to Clarify Changes During Voting
July 26th, 2017
Member of Parliament: Perland
Parliament Proposal
Resolved by the Confederate Parliament of the Confederacy of Free Nations, that the following article is proposed as an amendment under the jurisdiction of the Confederacy of Free Nations, enforceable by all of its institutions. Be it enacted by the MP’s of the Confederacy of Free Nations in the Confederate Parliament, that; Section 1
The Original Text
ss.1. "Bills proposed to Parliament are considered to be static at the moment of their proposal. No changes beyond grammatical, spelling or minor structural edits can be made to a bill once it has been proposed. These edits can only be made at the discretion of the Speaker." -Section Eight, Article Three. Section 2
Changed Text
ss.1. The above section shall be changed to the text in sub section two of this section. ss.2. "Bills, amendments, motions, and referendums proposed to Parliament are considered to be static at the moment of their proposal. Documents for elections (such as platforms) and referendums (such as a law, petition, etc.) are also static at the time the vote goes up. No changes beyond grammatical, spelling or minor structural edits can be made to a bill/legislation/etc. once it has been proposed. These edits can only be made at the discretion of the Speaker." ss.3. Any legislation, referendums, etc. that are active before the passage of this amendment shall not be affected by this. ss.4. The Speaker of Parliament and their staff, as well the Ministry of Justice and their staff, shall be tasked with enforcing this.
|
|
Perland
Former Members
New flag be lit son
Posts: 63
|
Post by Perland on Jul 26, 2017 19:36:46 GMT -5
Note: This will be on debate for four days, ending upon the 30th of July. Discord debate Sunday the 30th, 12:00 PM EST.
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Jul 28, 2017 22:50:55 GMT -5
I don't feel like this does too much; it still keeps bills static at proposal, except for the originally-guaranteed changes at the will of the Speaker.
There either needs to be language differentiating debate and voting (allowing broad changes during Debate), or there needs to be a set time where edits must be stopped.
|
|
Perland
Former Members
New flag be lit son
Posts: 63
|
Post by Perland on Jul 28, 2017 22:59:13 GMT -5
I don't feel like this does too much; it still keeps bills static at proposal, except for the originally-guaranteed changes at the will of the Speaker. There either needs to be language differentiating debate and voting (allowing broad changes during Debate), or there needs to be a set time where edits must be stopped. Lemme see what I can do with that.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Jul 29, 2017 17:18:25 GMT -5
I don't agree with Vista that there needs to be differentiating language between debates and voting as we already have a working process that differentiates these two things: if a bill is in the voting chamber it is static while those proposals before the debating chamber can be changed before going to the voting chamber. It seems that the Speaker, by establishing these two separate chambers, has distinguished a bill in the voting stage as the official "Bill proposed to Parliament" that our Constitution refers to. When in the debate stage, the bill seems to be unofficial and therefore not officially "proposed". Which makes sense, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of the debate.
As for what you've written, Per, I think the beginning should just be as comprehensive as possible. Such as:
"Bills, amendments, motions, and referendums are considered static at the moment of their proposal. No changes beyond grammatical, spelling or minor structural edits can be made to these documents once they have been proposed. These edits can only be made at the discretion of the Speaker."
This clears up the technical error that comes from grouping motions as legislation as they technically are not such. Also, it stops this amendment from covering electoral platforms because I don't think it's appropriate for the Constitution to be telling private candidates when they can amend their platforms, which are essentially private factbooks. Electoral issues may arise after voting has begun that candidates should be allowed to incorporate into their platforms. Also, there could be changes in circumstance; for instance, if Jas had dropped out of the race during the last election my platform would still have to continue saying I endorse him even though that statement would no longer make sense.
Also, subsection 3 and 4 are not necessary. The Constitution already forbids retroactive application unless specifically defined in the legislation and those officers you say will enforce the amendment would already be assumed by dint of the Constitution: the Speaker has jurisdiction over Parliament, the Minister of Justice would investigate and prosecute violations, and the Judiciary would rule on violations brought before the Courts.
|
|