Passed Archival Constitutional Amendment

The Speaker or Chairperson may assign this to a thread that has passed their respective house's legislative process.
Status
Not open for further replies.
EUKBICR

EUKBICR

The Devil
Citizen
Oct 25, 2020
1,729
175
Awards
6
R][/HR]
Coat_of_Arms_UDS.png


A MOTION

To amend the Constitution for the purposes of standardised archival in accordance with the wishes of each House in the Legislature of the Union, the President and the Sponsors and Co-Sponsors of each given Motion.
Introduced into the Senate of the Union of Democratic States on the 16 of February, 2021, by @Kron
As follows:
​

RECOGNIZING that laws should be archived as passed,
CONCERNED that currently this is not done,
BELIEVING that this ought to corrected,
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly:

Section 1: Definitions and Short Title
1. This Act may be referenced as the "9th Motion to Amend the Constitution"


Section 2: Amendments
1. Article 2, Section 3 shall have the following added to it:
“2. In the process of proper documentation and archival, grammatical, spelling and formatting edits may be made to allow for standardisation, understanding, or authorial intent. These edits may not be substantial and must receive confirmation from the most senior justice available before they go into effect.”
 
So this is important, lets anyone doing archival, whether it be for the law library, or for executive reports, legislative reports edit things for our sanity anyway,
aggressively yields
 
Law Clerk said:
So this is important, lets anyone doing archival, whether it be for the law library, or for executive reports, legislative reports edit things for our sanity anyway,
aggressively yields
Click to expand...
Begone law clerk
 
This looks simple enough, but my only objection is that the Chief Justice should be consulted first about changes rather than the most senior Justice
 
Surely the most senior justice is the chief justice.
 
Not always, I would like to remind you that the Chief Justice are elected by other Justices and that theoretically even the former CJ’s replacement can become the new CJ
 
I find this to be very understandable amendment. Gives our clerks more power to make our motions more legible.
 
Surely the most senior justice would then be more then capable to give the correct response upon consultation. I concur with Isles, it's main goal is to guarantee our legislation is in the best condition possible, that is something to be applauded.
 
The ayes have it, Motion is approved. I hereby open the amendment period.
 
If there aren’t any amendments, I would like to move with closing amendment period.
 
I would like to amend section 2 clause 2 to read ”In the process of proper documentation and archival, grammatical, spelling and formatting edits may be made to allow for standardisation, understanding, or authorial intent. These edits may not be substantial and must receive confirmation from the Chief Justice, and in its absence the most senior justice available ,before they go into effect.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back