Subject: Proposal for discussion: Royal Editing Privilege

From: sallyvacuum@y...
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 06:36:43 -0000

Take a look at Statute 1.2 in the rules. Or don't, because I'm 
about to print the applicable part. The first sentence reads "The 
King may, in times of great crisis (by his definition), dissolve 
Parliament by publish a statement to that effect to all Members of 
Parliament."

The word "publish" should probably be "publishing", or the sentence 
doesn't make grammatic sense. (Yes, I know, I nitpick. Get used to 
it:) ) The King should have the power to dissolve Parliament, but 
the way this statute currently exists means he may not. I was just 
going to inform His Majesty of the misprint, but I think fixing it 
outside the scope of the game would be granting the King an 
unreasonably broad scope of Royal Powers. Errors in the body of laws 
should be corrected by Parliament.

Therefore, I suggest this bill:
----------------
Statute 3.5.1 - Royal Editing Privilege
The King may edit Statutes, or Bills on the Agenda or Parliament, for 
clarity or grammar. All such Royal Edits must be published by the 
King to Parliament in the same fashion as the publication of the 
Agenda of Parliament. Each Royal Edit must list the Statute or Bill 
both in its original and corrected forms, and delineate the reason 
for the Royal Edit. 

A Royal Edit becomes effective immediately upon its publication. Any 
Member of Parliament may appeal a Royal Edit by bringing a Case 
before the Court. Such appeals shall be decided in a timely fashion 
in the manner consistent with other Cases before the Court.
--------------------

Suggestions? Comments? I don't know about the second paragraph - 
obviously our King is a monarch of exceeding wisdom and jutice, but 
we don't want him changing the laws willy-nilly. Perhaps we should 
have a stronger power to undo Royal edits than just bringing a Case 
before the Court.

I will subit this bill to the King for next week's Agenda unless 
strenuous objections arise.

Cappocchi

---

From: miggs_ectomorph@y...
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:50:42 -0000

--- In leg-nomic@y..., "Dan Marsh" <dmarsh3000@h...> wrote:
> I'm debating the wisdom of continuing to comment on proto-bills.
> Nomically speaking, I favor a weak 
administrator/speaker/moderator/king,
> or even none at all. I'm wondering if continuing to comment on 
bills
> and proto-bills is too much of a power grab, if my footprint is 
then too
> heavy on the ruleset (statute-set). There are historical 
precedents, of
> course, such as the actual strength of the U.S. President even when 
his
> constitutional role is small.
> 
> Fortunately Cappochi brings up the very question of royal 
prerogatives
> in a small manner so that we can discuss what they should be.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sallyvacuum@y... [mailto:sallyvacuum@y...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 2:37 AM
> To: leg-nomic@y...
> Subject: [leg-nomic] Proposal for discussion: Royal Editing 
Privilege
> 
> 
> Take a look at Statute 1.2 . . . The King should have the power to
> dissolve Parliament, but 
> the way this statute currently exists means he may not.
> 
> Statute 1.2 
<http://members.home.com/dmarsh3000/lnomic/current.htm#1.2>
> almost got left out of the initial set. It's designed to be 
an "escape
> hatch," for when the game irrecoverably crashes. My hope is that
> neither I nor a future King ever need use it. Historically 
speaking the
> King should be able to dissolve Parliament, but Nomically speaking,
> escape hatches can be trouble. A commentator on nomic.net worried 
that
> the escape hatch might lead to Imperial Nomic, and that possibility 
does
> exist.
> 
> I didn't put mutable and immutable rules in the initial set. If
> Parliament wishes to write a "constitution," though, they can 
decide how
> mutable 1.2 ought to be. Or get rid of it entirely.
> 
> we don't want him changing the laws willy-nilly. 
> 
> A court case strikes me as just about right. Questions: Should 
Royal
> Edits be numbered and archived? Or should statutes be annotated 
with
> edits? Or should edits erase the original form of the bill (which
> strikes me as somehow Orwellian)? Food for thought.

Well, I agree about the speaker/moderator idea, but it may make 
progress too slow. I for one like to see posts on a regular basis, at 
least five a day perhaps. But then that's me. The reason why I 
suggested the "God" player in an earlier post was for precisely 
things such as this: limiting the King's power to some extent. Any 
Player can assume the position of God (of course, all clerics are to 
some extent self-appointed but they of course have some kind of time 
delay "training period" I suppose).
Ectomorph