Failed Amendment to the Constitution, 2022 (Withdrawn)

The Speaker or Chairperson may assign this to a thread that has failed 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
Coat_of_Arms_UDS.png


A MOTION

To amend the bill "UL-002 Legislative Act"
Introduced into the Senate of the Union of Democratic States on the 18th of January, 2022, by Guess and Check
As follows:
​

UNDERSTANDING the good intentions that caused the institution of the law dispatch,
BELIEVING that following the general neglect of these archives over multiple months, it would be best to abolish the law dispatch,
YET NOTING the importance of having an on-site copy of the Constitution,
ALSO NOTING the vestigial clauses and wordings within the Act from when the General Assembly existed, and believing such items should be removed,
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate:

Section 1: Amendments
1. A new clause shall be added to Section III of UL-002. The clause shall read as follows: "In any case wherein the Constitution is changed, a copy of the updated Constitution shall also be saved in a NationStates dispatch. The President or an appointee(s) thereof shall work with the Administration Team to complete this task."
2. Section IV, Clause I shall be replaced in full with the following: "All laws passed by the Senate shall be conferred a serial number that shall begin with UL-### (Union Law)."
3. The word "solely" shall be struck from Section IV, Clause II.
4. Section IV, Clause III shall be struck null and void in its entirety.
5. Section II of this Act shall be struck null and void in its entirety, and the following Sections shall be renumbered as appropriate.
 
Senators,

I am proposing this bill primarily because there is no use for our current on-site legal archive. The sentiment behind the archive is solid, but if we cannot keep it updated, then it is best to not have one at all. However, I put in a mandate to keep a Constitution copy on-site, as that is a common regional practice and it makes sense for our basic governance ruleset to be readily available.

Also some changes to address the GA's abolition have been made.
 
I oppose much of this amendment, since I stood on a manifesto that sought to protect the on-site law dispatch.

Naturally, Section IV, Clause III should be struck null and void in its entirety because it refers to a chamber which no longer exists. However, the other amendments I can't abide. The on-site law dispatch is an important part in making Union Law as accessible as possible to our citizens and on-site players.

I understand the forum fulfils this function very well, but the government should be committed to making Union Law as accessible as possible, and this amendment would be a step back. The fact that the law dispatch is in disrepair is not an indictment on the institution itself, but on those who ought to keep it from disrepair.

I lend my support for the amendments removing all mention of the General Assembly (clauses 2, 3, and 4). But I don't believe that the law dispatch should be abolished, and I will oppose this.
 
North Plegia said:
I oppose much of this amendment, since I stood on a manifesto that sought to protect the on-site law dispatch.

Naturally, Section IV, Clause III should be struck null and void in its entirety because it refers to a chamber which no longer exists. However, the other amendments I can't abide. The on-site law dispatch is an important part in making Union Law as accessible as possible to our citizens and on-site players.

I understand the forum fulfils this function very well, but the government should be committed to making Union Law as accessible as possible, and this amendment would be a step back. The fact that the law dispatch is in disrepair is not an indictment on the institution itself, but on those who ought to keep it from disrepair.

I lend my support for the amendments removing all mention of the General Assembly (clauses 2, 3, and 4). But I don't believe that the law dispatch should be abolished, and I will oppose this.
Click to expand...
My own philosophy in law is if there is something not being done or followed, the law is ineffective/useless and should be removed. That is why I proposed this - there is no point in legally mandating an on-site legal archive if no one cares to update it.

However, I agree that it would be best to keep it up, and I'm perfectly fine with finding a better system to keep it updated.

In order to save time, I will motion to withdraw this amendment, for now, so we can all look at it and come up with a better system to keep our on-site archives updated. We can amend the GA stuff easily at that point.
 
A motion to withdraw has been moved. If in the next 24 hours, beginning at the time of posting of the message on the forum, there are no objections, the motion will successfully and the bill will be withdrawn. Should any of you object, I will put it to vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back