Users browsing this thread:

Sasha · 11-05-2019, 05:11 PM

Your first post is a bit dramatic but I very much approve of this current version.
(Which I helped draft ofc)

Jebediah · 11-05-2019, 06:13 PM

(11-05-2019, 05:11 PM)Sasha Wrote: (Which I helped draft ofc)

sigh

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

**Belschaft** · 11-05-2019, 07:59 PM

Considering there is already a very simple procedure for the Assembly to require a supermajority to alter a law why is this necessary?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Jebediah · 11-05-2019, 09:02 PM

(11-05-2019, 07:59 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Considering there is already a very simple procedure for the Assembly to require a supermajority to alter a law why is this necessary?

Quite simply, the LPA doesn't specify that any other law can have an effect on the majority requirements, so simply making a clause in law saying that the law must be repealed with a supermajority will raise the argument of which law is correct. This simply clarifies the point altogether.

**Belschaft** · 11-05-2019, 09:20 PM

(11-05-2019, 09:02 PM)Jebediah Wrote:
(11-05-2019, 07:59 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Considering there is already a very simple procedure for the Assembly to require a supermajority to alter a law why is this necessary?

Quite simply, the LPA doesn't specify that any other law can have an effect on the majority requirements, so simply making a clause in law saying that the law must be repealed with a supermajority will raise the argument of which law is correct. This simply clarifies the point altogether.

Could you rephrase that - I don't understand what you are trying to say.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Farengeto** · 11-06-2019, 01:48 PM

I can't even read what that amendment says.

Sasha · 11-06-2019, 07:59 PM

To clarify: the current law says that there are general and constitutional laws and establishes the majorities required for these two.
But if a law were to deviate from this pattern, for example by having a different required majority or by only requiring a supermajority for parts of the law, it would, under the current language, not be entirely clear whether or not that would be legal or which majority would apply.
That part would be clarified by making it clear that laws can state different majority requirements for themselves.

The other part of this amendment is to definitely clarify cases such as the repeal of the criminal code:
By making alternative majority requirements only be valid if it is clear what they apply to, it would be clear any otherwise ambiguous cases (such as the current criminal code repeal) would use the default majority, in other words there can be no implicit higher majority requirements.

Finally, the last sentence applies to laws that might have multiple requirements or other confusing case where there are valid but conflicting majority requirements, to ensure that if there is a valid higher majority requirement it will always win out.

I do not see how the latest version of the draft is confusing, though some of the previous versions did indeed not make much or any sense.
@Farengeto are you sure that you've been reading the latest version? Perhaps I need to ask @Jebediah to actually make it clear which version is the latest instead of having that dramatic and at least somewhat confusing thing in the first post.

**Rebeltopia** · 11-07-2019, 11:36 AM

I dont think this actually solves anything... I think it just makes the requirements for repeal that much more confusing in the long run.

"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011

One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

Quotes