Users browsing this thread:

***Roavin*** · 03-19-2019, 07:34 AM

The problem with that grouping is that a law may change. For example, LegComm used to be non-constitutional, and is now constitutional.

The goal isn't using this system to "tag" laws, it's a system to organize and find things. I'd say A.LPA.1 is a fine convention, where 1 is the initial introduction of the bill, and any number after 1 is an amendment to it.

***Kris Kringle*** · 03-19-2019, 07:42 AM

What if a law’s name is changed?

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Bzerneleg · 03-21-2019, 02:56 AM

(03-19-2019, 07:42 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: What if a law’s name is changed?

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

We would then have to change the code, if we're using Amerion's system.

BZERNELEG

South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.

Positions

Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy

Bzerneleg · 03-21-2019, 03:00 AM

(03-19-2019, 07:34 AM)Roavin Wrote: The problem with that grouping is that a law may change. For example, LegComm used to be non-constitutional, and is now constitutional.

The goal isn't using this system to "tag" laws, it's a system to organize and find things. I'd say A.LPA.1 is a fine convention, where 1 is the initial introduction of the bill, and any number after 1 is an amendment to it.

What if we introduce an amendment to the Legislative Procedure Act, let's name it A.LPA.2. We bring the amendment to vote and it failed. Then another amendment to the Act got introduced, do we call it A.LPA.2 or A.LPA.3?

I think your idea of a system to organize and find things is pretty good and much more doable. I propose we organize debates and votes based on the laws concerned. What that means is, let's say, take the Legislative Procedure Act, any debate thread on the Act will be grouped together in the archive and all voting threads on the Act will be grouped together in the Voting Chamber archive. We will do that for all other laws. Other general discussions which are not related to any law can be grouped under a "Past Discussions" folder.

BZERNELEG

South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.

Positions

Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy

(This post was last modified: 03-21-2019, 03:06 AM by Bzerneleg.)

Jebediah · 03-22-2019, 12:41 PM

(03-21-2019, 03:00 AM)Bzerneleg Wrote: What if we introduce an amendment to the Legislative Procedure Act, let's name it A.LPA.2. We bring the amendment to vote and it failed. Then another amendment to the Act got introduced, do we call it A.LPA.2 or A.LPA.3?

A.LPA.3. Just because A.LPA.2 got rejected, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have seen so many archived debate threads being used in debates so that one can make a point without rewriting half the entire forums. A.LPA.2 is still an amendment, just it failed. So, we should call it "A.LPA.2.F" and assuming the next one passes, "A.LPA.3.P"

[Image: st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u5.jpg]

Jebediah · 03-22-2019, 12:45 PM

(03-18-2019, 06:45 AM)Bzerneleg Wrote: If we were to follow that system, will the code of the original bill be A.LPA?

...I'm assuming this means the original debate thread for the bill. In that case, instead of A.LPA.1, which would look like the first amendment to the bill, we should just do something like "A.LPA.B" B meaning bill. Also, if we go with my other suggestion (using "F" and "P" for fail and pass respectively) then you can distinguish the original bill and an amendment by seeing if it has the last bit in it.

Bzerneleg · 03-23-2019, 05:18 AM

(03-22-2019, 12:45 PM)Jebediah Wrote:
(03-18-2019, 06:45 AM)Bzerneleg Wrote: If we were to follow that system, will the code of the original bill be A.LPA?

...I'm assuming this means the original debate thread for the bill. In that case, instead of A.LPA.1, which would look like the first amendment to the bill, we should just do something like "A.LPA.B" B meaning bill. Also, if we go with my other suggestion (using "F" and "P" for fail and pass respectively) then you can distinguish the original bill and an amendment by seeing if it has the last bit in it.

I think bills and amendments should follow the same format, it should be: A.B.[number of bill].

Why? Because amendments in the Assembly are not really "amendments", they're rather more like "amendment bills". One thing that separates us from RL legislatures is that when we make amendments during the debating process of a bill, we don't vote on it but rather assume that a general consensus has been achieved, and therefore we may move forward with such amended version. That's called an amendment.

When you introduce an amendment as an individual proposal, it is and should be considered as a bill. According to the definition of a "bill" by Merriam-Webster, it says "a draft of a law presented to a legislature for enactment." Thus, I believe bills and amendments should all be using the code (A.B.[number]).

On the question of whether to include the voting results of a bill into the code, I believe it does not really have that much effect if we use the current system or yours. However, I prefer the former as it is simple and easier to view.

BZERNELEG

South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.

Positions

Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy

Jebediah · 03-23-2019, 06:19 AM

(03-23-2019, 05:18 AM)Bzerneleg Wrote: I think bills and amendments should follow the same format, it should be: A.B.[number of bill].

Even if it is realistic... I don't think we should prioritise technical definitions over a legible format.
Anyways, original debate threads for the bill are way different that amendments, and they deserve to be distinguished even if it means getting a dictionary definition slightly incorrect.

(03-23-2019, 05:18 AM)Bzerneleg Wrote: On the question of whether to include the voting results of a bill into the code, I believe it does not really have that much effect if we use the current system or yours. However, I prefer the former as it is simple and easier to view.

I mean, the current system puts a [FAILED] or [PASSED] in front of the amendment, while the new system puts a .F or .P at the end... I guess the current system works except when searching for something.

When you search for an amendment, instead of ordering like:
A.LPA.1.F
A.LPA.2.P
A.LPA.3.P
A.LPA.4.F
A.LPA.B

It will order like:
[FAILED] A.LPA.1
[FAILED] A.LPA.4
[PASSED] A.LPA.2
[PASSED] A.LPA.3
[PASSED] A.LPA.B
(I'm not sure if a letter would come before or after numbers, I'm just assuming "alphabetical order" means special symbols, numbers, letters)

Bzerneleg · 03-23-2019, 07:05 AM

I think once we've figured the bill coding system out, we could move forward with an amendment to the Law Standards Act. But let's just work on the details for now.
-

There is one problem that just came to my mind as I read through this thread: If we're using Amerion's system, what would happen if we have bills with the same initials?

Also, I'd like to clarify that in the A.B. bill coding system that I mentioned earlier, A stands for Assembly and B stands for bill.

BZERNELEG

South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.

Positions

Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy

**Amerion** · 03-24-2019, 12:50 AM

Having skimmed the Matt-Duck Law Archive, I do not think there are two bills with the same initials. However, in the future, we will have to ensure that the initials of new laws are different to what we have currently.