Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Temporary Suspension Act of February 2015
Topic Started: Feb 18 2015, 07:00 PM (162 Views)
Tyvenia

Preamble: The intent of this Act is to place a temporary hold on any new legislative proposals until those already pending are voted on, placed into effect, and the Region has a chance to experience the existing laws' impacts on the Region. Upon effect, all legislative proposals from the Assembly shall be temporarily suspended.


Article 1 – Scope of Suspension.
1.1) There shall be a 14-day freeze of new legislative proposals by the Assembly.
1.2) This suspension shall have no impact on the ability of any other branch of government to fulfill the requirements of their executive, administrative, legislative, or judicial duties or abilities.
1.3) This suspension shall have no impact on pending legislation, including other Assembly actions already proposed.
1.4) This suspension shall have no impact on the Members of the Assembly to discuss future laws, or changes to existing laws in the appropriate venues.
1.4) This suspension may be repealed by a simple majority of the Senate, or recalled by the President.
1.5) This suspension shall sunset at the 23:59 UTC of the 13th day or March 17, 2015 whichever is earlier.

Edit: To 1.4 to add the ability of the President to recall the Assembly to action.
Edited by Tyvenia, Feb 20 2015, 01:43 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

There is no exact time given in 1.5).

Maybe you could say ''06:00 AM UTC''?

This because March 18 begins at different times in other countries.


Also, guys, I would like to inform everyone that Senators may propose legislation and debate it, but not vote on it,

while the Assembly may propose AND vote on it.

I am referring to 3.7) and 3.8) in our Constitution. The Constitution may need to be clarified a bit on those points.
Edited by Herargon, Feb 18 2015, 07:13 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
This would be a matter for a Standing Order rather than an Act.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyvenia

Well, assuming I agree, and I'm not sure that I do given that our constitution enumerates specific instances when standing orders may be issued by the Assembly (constitutional amendments, overturning judicial decisions and giving orders to other branches), thus implying a preclusion on wider usage, not to mention the lack of a guidance on how to lawfully enact them, what are your concerns about using an Act v. Standing Order? The name? The forum page that it's on? The difference in vote requirements?

They're not widely used in American law above sub-legislative committee parliamentary procedures. And when they are used, they're under the authority of some internal ruleset of the legislative body, which UCON lacks outside of the specific references to SOs in the constitution. Most often they're used in personal practices and agreements between regular business associates here, and almost always as a matter of contract law.

If they are in wide use as a matter of practice or custom elsewhere, I can be easily persuaded to adopt the practice for UCON. However, at this time, I don't find the authority, explicit or otherwise for the Assembly to issue standing orders outside of the constitutional provisions.
Edited by Tyvenia, Feb 18 2015, 08:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Airatania
Member Avatar

Herargon
Feb 18 2015, 07:07 PM
There is no exact time given in 1.5).

Maybe you could say ''06:00 AM UTC''?

This because March 18 begins at different times in other countries.


Also, guys, I would like to inform everyone that Senators may propose legislation and debate it, but not vote on it,

while the Assembly may propose AND vote on it.

I am referring to 3.7) and 3.8) in our Constitution. The Constitution may need to be clarified a bit on those points.
There's no need for clarification about the Senate's duties. Once a proposed bill passes the Assembly, it then goes to the Senate for debate and approval by the Senators. While a bill is in the Assembly, Senators have the opportunity to provide input, but cannot vote, as they already get a vote when the bill goes to the Senate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Airatania
Member Avatar

Tyvenia
Feb 18 2015, 08:17 PM
Well, assuming I agree, and I'm not sure that I do given that our constitution enumerates specific instances when standing orders may be issued by the Assembly (constitutional amendments, overturning judicial decisions and giving orders to other branches), thus implying a preclusion on wider usage, not to mention the lack of a guidance on how to lawfully enact them, what are your concerns about using an Act v. Standing Order? The name? The forum page that it's on? The difference in vote requirements?

They're not widely used in American law above sub-legislative committee parliamentary procedures. And when they are used, they're under the authority of some internal ruleset of the legislative body, which UCON lacks outside of the specific references to SOs in the constitution. Most often they're used in personal practices and agreements between regular business associates here, and almost always as a matter of contract law.

If they are in wide use as a matter of practice or custom elsewhere, I can be easily persuaded to adopt the practice for UCON. However, at this time, I don't find the authority, explicit or otherwise for the Assembly to issue standing orders outside of the constitutional provisions.
I think (and I may be totally wrong about this) that a Standing Order would be used for any legislation that includes a limited time frame, or an expiration date, as it were, thus making it temporary. An Act is meant to be permanent, unless amended by the legislative body; a Standing Order, I would assume, is something that is only temporary.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Wolfeinstein
Member Avatar

Approved
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Airatania
Member Avatar

I did want to ask, Tyvenia, what is your reasoning behind this Act? I'm just wondering what the reason is that necessitates this action.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

The time now is given and in UTC time. Therefore, I approve.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyvenia

Yes, in theory I understand the idea behind a standing order, though it's typically used less for temporary matters than a semi-permanent way to conduct business without having to renew temporary orders all of the time.

However, if there's no substantive difference in where it is posted, or the voting requirements for approval, then Prime's being overly concerned about what's it's called. In addition, I'd repeat my earlier concerns that if there is a substantive difference in the two, I don't see where we're authorized to even issue standing orders.

Regardless of the Act/SO's name, the purpose (as described in the Preamble) is just to allow a cooling-off period. We have proposals for inter alia suspension and banishment, RP moderation and RP rules. That's certainly enough structure that I think we'd benefit from a break in the OOC rulemaking to test out the game before we pass any more laws.

As the rule itself lays out, there's no prohibitions from planning new laws, or discussing what we want to see changed, it's just a pause on new proposals. It also has provisions for allowing the Senate to end it at any time with a majority vote (which I almost vested with the President, and still think that might be the way to go). With some luck, it'll make any proposals which come after it higher in quality and targeted at gaps in the game.

Also, at this point, I think there's at least a minor concern of OOC lawmaking becoming a minigame instead of a way of addressing problems within the game.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Airatania
Member Avatar

I can certainly understand the sentiment behind this Act, but I do have some serious concerns.

First of all, you're creating a law here, which is binding in nature. If there is some unforeseen circumstance that this Act doesn't cover, we could be left in a situation where we can't properly legislate. I understand that this only applies for 14 days, but if there is some kind of legislation that for some reason we need to pass quickly, we can't do it. (Unless of course the Senate revokes the measure, but there are only three of us, if one or more of us are unavailable for some reason, or must abstain from voting, then we're back in the same boat.) I think this unnecessarily ties the hands of the Assembly.

Also, keep in mind that 14 days is not really a long time. There will likely be issues with the legislation currently on the floor for debate that may not show up for months, so personally I think a ban on all legislation for 14 days really has no benefit.

I think a better option, in my opinion, would be to issue a Standing Order saying that the Assembly will not entertain any new legislation for a cooling off period of 14 days (or perhaps even longer), unless the Assembly votes by simple majority to entertain discussion of a bill. This way, you're not limiting the powers of the Assembly, while still maintaining the cooling-off period you wish to enact.

I think that using an Act in this manner is simply too binding and restrictive in its nature, and may not necessarily account for every possible circumstance.

EDIT: One last point, if this is an Act, my understanding is that it will have to be approved by the Senate as well. If it is a Standing Order, the Senate has no authority over the content of the order, and thus can't reverse it.
Edited by Airatania, Feb 19 2015, 07:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Onza
Member Avatar

Tyvenia
Feb 19 2015, 02:12 PM
Yes, in theory I understand the idea behind a standing order, though it's typically used less for temporary matters than a semi-permanent way to conduct business without having to renew temporary orders all of the time.

However, if there's no substantive difference in where it is posted, or the voting requirements for approval, then Prime's being overly concerned about what's it's called. In addition, I'd repeat my earlier concerns that if there is a substantive difference in the two, I don't see where we're authorized to even issue standing orders.

Regardless of the Act/SO's name, the purpose (as described in the Preamble) is just to allow a cooling-off period. We have proposals for inter alia suspension and banishment, RP moderation and RP rules. That's certainly enough structure that I think we'd benefit from a break in the OOC rulemaking to test out the game before we pass any more laws.

As the rule itself lays out, there's no prohibitions from planning new laws, or discussing what we want to see changed, it's just a pause on new proposals. It also has provisions for allowing the Senate to end it at any time with a majority vote (which I almost vested with the President, and still think that might be the way to go). With some luck, it'll make any proposals which come after it higher in quality and targeted at gaps in the game.

Also, at this point, I think there's at least a minor concern of OOC lawmaking becoming a minigame instead of a way of addressing problems within the game.
Well said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyvenia

Airatania,

The fact that it's binding and restrictive is why I proposed it. An Assembly that can recall itself at-will doesn't accomplish the goals of the Act, so even if we can issue standing orders (more on that in a minute) if we can just collapse it any time we want, the potential there is no freeze. I understand your concerns about the ability to get out of it. In fact, that's the reason I limited the impact of the act to 14 days. My original intent was to lock it down for 60 days, but I knew that wouldn't pass. I'm not married to the length of time. I'll edit the proposal to allow the president to recall the Assembly as soon as I finish this response.

As to the issue of standing orders. First, as I've outlined in my response above to Prime, I don't know that we have authority to issue standing orders. Or, more to the point, there is nothing detailing the way SO are to be created, or under what circumstances they should be created. Second, I'm not entirely sure what everyone else considers a standing order, and why it should be any more appropriate here than an Act other than it's allegedly faster and easier to do, and may be temporary. I've described in some detail thus far, how and when they're used in the U.S. Third, I've already suggested that I would consider a SO if Prime can better describe its proper usage and the authority for why he thinks it's a better solution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Airatania
Member Avatar

Tyvenia
Feb 20 2015, 01:41 AM
Airatania,

The fact that it's binding and restrictive is why I proposed it. An Assembly that can recall itself at-will doesn't accomplish the goals of the Act, so even if we can issue standing orders (more on that in a minute) if we can just collapse it any time we want, the potential there is no freeze. I understand your concerns about the ability to get out of it. In fact, that's the reason I limited the impact of the act to 14 days. My original intent was to lock it down for 60 days, but I knew that wouldn't pass. I'm not married to the length of time. I'll edit the proposal to allow the president to recall the Assembly as soon as I finish this response.

As to the issue of standing orders. First, as I've outlined in my response above to Prime, I don't know that we have authority to issue standing orders. Or, more to the point, there is nothing detailing the way SO are to be created, or under what circumstances they should be created. Second, I'm not entirely sure what everyone else considers a standing order, and why it should be any more appropriate here than an Act other than it's allegedly faster and easier to do, and may be temporary. I've described in some detail thus far, how and when they're used in the U.S. Third, I've already suggested that I would consider a SO if Prime can better describe its proper usage and the authority for why he thinks it's a better solution.
Fair enough. I still don't think I can support this act in its present form, simply because its a little too binding, in my opinion. However, I do now understand your reasoning, and I do support the idea in general. Thank you for your explanation.

And I do agree, some clarification on Standing Orders vs. Acts may be good, perhaps eventually we could adopt some specific language that would clearly delineate the differences between the two.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
This Act is now open for voting; please declare your vote as Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Nay

0-1-0
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyvenia

Aye.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Unibearia

Nay

Reason: From the time I post this, there is officially 4 days left from february.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

Aye
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
The three day voting period is complete and the Act is defeated, additional debate may now take place.

2-2-0
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyvenia

I'll volunteer to withdraw this proposed legislation since my intent for putting a temporary "pause" on new proposals has been accomplished.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
Very well, as per the request of the author this legislation is withdrawn. Thank you everyone for participating and for voting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Legislative Archives · Next Topic »
Add Reply


Theme created by vcd of the ZetaBoards Theme ZoneStyle District