Judicial Review Discussion Thread- Amendments to the Code of Laws
- Thread starter Curufinwe
- Start date
robboo
Deity
It cant be the same as an amendment because it in fact over writes the whole thing. There by killing the authority the orginal CoL had in the first place. I think if you are going to over write it you first need to get amendment in the current CoL that gives a power get rid of it. Then you hold that vote of no confidence in the current CoL and vote on the new one.
Now if you were to write the new CoL as amendments then it would be an amendment approval. Most of the changes are minor and some are just terminology( General instead of Sec of War) which if need to be changed can be changed through amendments.
In other words there is ways around this problem instead of having a JR, if people would work within the current CoL and not just try to find the easy way out.
Now if you were to write the new CoL as amendments then it would be an amendment approval. Most of the changes are minor and some are just terminology( General instead of Sec of War) which if need to be changed can be changed through amendments.
In other words there is ways around this problem instead of having a JR, if people would work within the current CoL and not just try to find the easy way out.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Changing the entire code of laws with the current amendment laws, is not only reasonable, it's necessary.
An amendment is the act of formally altering a document. As such, the amendment process is the process by which we alter a document (the Code of Laws). Now, you could say that we are not altering the Code of Laws, but removing it.
That, however, would be wrong. The document itself will remain, the contents is what will be altered.
An amendment is the act of formally altering a document. As such, the amendment process is the process by which we alter a document (the Code of Laws). Now, you could say that we are not altering the Code of Laws, but removing it.
That, however, would be wrong. The document itself will remain, the contents is what will be altered.
Swissempire
Poet Jester
donsig said:
a) has nothing to do with this review b) posted the poll wrong c) i agree with Strider interp
I find nothing in the law which limits the size of an amendment. It merely needs to identify what is being changed, and specify what the change is.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
DaveShack said:
And include the timetable for that change (immediately which is the assumed time frame, or delayed).
-- Ravensfire
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Fellow citizens, as we are waiting breathlessly for the current CC to complete, do you have anything further to say on this JR?
-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
Donovan Zoi
The Return
I see nothing legally wrong with swapping one ruleset out for the other via amendment, although it could be less troublesome to make the transition a bit at a time.
When putting forth a complete ruleset, I would warn the author that people can vote No for even the most minute detail. The more text available for vote, the more opportunity for disapproval. Therefore, I would make certain that an amendment is ready for prime time when it gets presented to the Judiciary.
When putting forth a complete ruleset, I would warn the author that people can vote No for even the most minute detail. The more text available for vote, the more opportunity for disapproval. Therefore, I would make certain that an amendment is ready for prime time when it gets presented to the Judiciary.
Similar threads
