[DRAFT] Amendment to the Legislative Procedure Act (withdrawing bills) |
Because of the MoHA vote, I'm proposing an amendment that would allow a bill to be withdrawn from voting so that further revisions can be made.
Amendment to the Legislative Procedure Act Wrote:
I would ask a word other than "suspend" be used only because that implies the vote will be resumed. Other than that, I am in favor.
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
I have chosen the word "cancel" as an alternative.
(06-06-2020, 01:52 PM)Jay Coop Wrote: Any legislator whose bill has been brought to a vote How do you ascertain property over a bill? Is it the initial drafter? The one who drafted the final copy? The one who motioned? Any of the them? 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
A sensible amendment, I support this
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
Reasonable, we've had plenty of times where we're halfway through a vote and someone goes "Oh god we forgot this vital loophole" at which point they have to crudely go around convincing everyone to vote nay before the time ends.
I support the intent of the bill but I do wonder if 24 hours might be unnecessarily long. If the bill is considered so flawed that it is in need of further revision then surely it would be better to do it sooner rather than later?
(06-07-2020, 01:08 PM)Amerion Wrote: I support the intent of the bill but I do wonder if 24 hours might be unnecessarily long. If the bill is considered so flawed that it is in need of further revision then surely it would be better to do it sooner rather than later? I've reduced the window for objection down to 12 hours if that suffices. (06-07-2020, 01:10 PM)Jay Coop Wrote:(06-07-2020, 01:08 PM)Amerion Wrote: I support the intent of the bill but I do wonder if 24 hours might be unnecessarily long. If the bill is considered so flawed that it is in need of further revision then surely it would be better to do it sooner rather than later? That sounds more fitting |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |