Subject: Re: Bill 5?

From: sallyvacuum@y...
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:43:29 -0000

What is it? I've looked at this puppy 10 times now and I don't see 
any typo.

The second sentence of Bill 5 is:
"All such Royal Edits must be published by the King to Parliament in 
the same fashion as the publication of the Agenda of Parliament. "

Is it a grammar rather than spelling error? In which case I confess 
that the sentence could be clearer, (you don't really publish 
things "to" someone, do you?) but I don't see why it wouldn't be 
effective. More comments please?

Cappocchi

--- In leg-nomic@y..., "Dan Marsh" <dmarsh3000@h...> wrote:
> Why, so there is.
> 
> (1) Game custom has not developed around whether bills can be 
amended
> after submission. My conception was that MPs would devise a system 
of
> amendments sort of as they went along, paralleling amendment 
systems in
> real legislatures. But can a bill be amended by its author while 
it's
> on the Agenda? My immediate thoughts are, No.
> (2) If the bill passes in its current form, the rule does not 
break
> unalterably even in the second sentence is decided to be 
meaningless.
> The King still has the power to make Royal Edits. If he also 
chooses to
> publish those edits to Parliament, so much the better.
> (3) Cappocchi himself sits on The Court beginning Sunday. If 
someone
> decides to put a question similar to that posed in either point 
above,
> he may get to decide it. (Should there be a rule about The Court
> recusing itself in some cases?)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mittnox@y... [mailto:mittnox@y...] 
> 
> 
> There is a typo in the second sentence of Bill 5.
> 
> Mittnox