[Draft] Legislative Procedure Act |
After discussing legislative procedure with @Belschaft and @Omega on Discord, Belschaft noted that he didn't think legislative procedure should be found in two separate locations (the Charter and a general law), and Omega noted that he thought legislative procedure should be subject to a supermajority. Taking into account that @sandaoguo objected to including Assembly voting times in the Charter, I've arrived at a compromise solution. All legislative procedure will be stripped from Article IV of the Charter, and will be legislated in a constitutional law rather than a general law, ensuring that all legislative procedure is found in one place and is subject to a supermajority, but isn't in the Charter.
I have split this from the discussion @Rebeltopia started about Assembly voting times, as this now encompasses much more than Assembly voting times and I believe it should have its own discussion thread. I have also incorporated a modified version of Omega's language for checking the Chair's legislative ruling power. Please refer to those threads for prior discussion. Are there any other legislative rules that should be incorporated into this legislation? Quote:
I'll just note my surprise at taking up at 3:30AM, checking this forum for a certain unspecified reason, and noticing you'd just posted something. O,o
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
Looks good.
Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021 (04-17-2017, 04:26 AM)Cormac Wrote: (4) Upon the Chair making a determination or ruling, a legislator may propose a resolution to overturn the determination or ruling. If, following a 24 hour debate period, a motion to vote on the resolution receives a second, a vote on the resolution will begin and will last for three days. Such a resolution will require a simple majority of those voting to pass.Why did you change it to resolution instead of keeping it as a motion? And I'm guessing the resolution would look something like: RESOLVED, the Chair ruling in regards to the status of debate on this matter be overturned. Because I was thinking that by proposing and seconding that motion you were also proposing and seconding a vote on the. I also thought a motion would look like this. I move that we overturn this ruling made by the Chair; (insert ruling here). Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021 (04-17-2017, 11:01 AM)Omega Wrote:(04-17-2017, 04:26 AM)Cormac Wrote: (4) Upon the Chair making a determination or ruling, a legislator may propose a resolution to overturn the determination or ruling. If, following a 24 hour debate period, a motion to vote on the resolution receives a second, a vote on the resolution will begin and will last for three days. Such a resolution will require a simple majority of those voting to pass.Why did you change it to resolution instead of keeping it as a motion? I changed it to "resolutions" because we already have that language in the rest of the rules, but there is no language about motions. It didn't seem like we needed to add yet another thing.
Okay got it. Carry on.
Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
This seems to be a logical approach.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
I think it'll be very predictable that drafters/supporters of a bill will "object" to a Chair's adverse ruling, no matter the merit, and overturn it based on politics alone, rather than any real legislative or procedural precedent.
Don't like that the Chair says this amendment needs be voted on game-side? Screw that, I'll just object and we'll let politics decide. Oh, the Chair disagrees? Guess we'll spend forever in court. Disagree with that court decision? Whatever, we'll just motion to reverse the chair anyways. (Guarantee this'll happen all the time.) Want to delay a vote? Let's motion to reverse the Chair's decision that enough debate has happened. That'll buy us 4 days! Just really hate who got elected chair? Did they make a ruling about your amendment format, and you just want to troll them for the lulz? Motion to overturn. 4 days of delay just because! We may as well just get rid of the Chair and put every procedural decision up to a vote.
You're omitting what can happen under the current system, which is at least as troubling as anything you've brought up:
The Chair doesn't like legislation? He can indefinitely extend debate on it. The Chair doesn't want legislation to go to vote game-side? He can rule that it doesn't affect game-side, even if it does. The Chair doesn't want legislation included in the Charter? He can rule that it can't be there. That's too much unchecked power for the Chair. That leaves recall as the only recourse, and recall is an extreme recourse and now also a limited recourse because officials can't just be recalled for any reason. You're massively exaggerating how often the Chair's rulings are going to be overturned, and completely ignoring the potential for abuse inherent in letting the Chair have this much unchecked power. Another option would be to just remove the Chair's unchecked powers altogether. We could eliminate the Chair's discretion over these matters and instead opt for fixed debate periods, giving the Local Council the power to decide when legislation affects game-side, and letting the Assembly amend the Charter without the Chair's approval. Do you think that would be better than allowing the Assembly to overturn the Chair's rulings? Alternatively, if you have some constructive suggestion for limiting this check on the Chair's power so it's not overused, I'm all ears. But just leaving the Chair with a massive amount of unchecked power to obstruct any legislation, should he choose to misuse his power, shouldn't be an option. |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |