[TWI Only] Supreme Court of The Western Isles

[Randmar]

4. Adds: a new executive position titled "Secretary of Discourse" with duties:
-Promotes civil debate on forum threads and the regional message board
-Serves as devils-advocate on regional discussion and debate
-Poses questions to officer candidates, for the purpose of revealing the candidates' positions on issues

The Randmar Observer stares intently at this piece of legislature.

[Cottoria]

This looks good for the most part, I just have a few questions

4. Adds: a new executive position titled "Secretary of Discourse" with duties:
-Promotes civil debate on forum threads and the regional message board
-Serves as devils-advocate on regional discussion and debate
-Poses questions to officer candidates, for the purpose of revealing the candidates' positions on issues
( So this is just have someone in the opposition of every legislation or do they just guide debate?)

6. Adds: an informal judicial position titled "Chief Justice" and adds under Notes on the Judicial Branch: "A Chief Justice is appointed by the President out of the current Justices, and serves to make the judicial process more efficient, with the sole duty of expediting the judicial process through the use of communication and organization. The Chief Justice also serves as a liaison to non-judicial nations, fostering communication between the two groups."
(Will this be an additional Justice? Or will we keep the same number just with one as head? I do like the idea of a Chief Justice)

10. Changes: "A maximum of five candidates can run in each election, determined on a first-come first-serve basis." to "A maximum of ten candidates may run in each election, determined on a first-come first-serve basis."
( I think ten candidates are too many, I think leaving it at five or six is the best way to go.)

[Dansawae]

"My opinion is clear on this amendment, and I will describe it with one word: Unsatisfied.
Even though the constitutionality of this amendment has been evaluated and the document is regarded respectful of the constitution, this document is saturated with legislations of all kinds: this prevents clarity of the amendment as a whole and confuses the voter, whom's interests may be at internal conflict in the amendment. Let me explain myself:

A person enters a grocery store. He is interested in buying orange juice. The only orange juice on sale is an orange-carrot juice. The problem is that the person( lets call him Peter) is allergic to carrots. Peter really wants his orange juice, because it is good for him; but knows the carrot is fatal for him. What shall Peter do?
Peter thinks "Juice is made of fruits, so if I buy oranges I might as well be able to make juice out of them". So peter goes to the fruit section and realizes there are no oranges in the store, neither are there carrots!
Peter has then four choices:
- He either buys the orange-carrot juice (and probably goes to hospital or dies, or simply has explosive diarrhea)
- He either decides not to buy it (and regrets not having orange juice in his breakfast)
- Or maybe he lets someone else decide for him
OR
In the worst scenario ( for the owners of the grocery store)
- He decides to go to another grocery store that may not be the same, because he is determined to get his orange juice (100% orange juice)

As you must have surely realized, Peter represents a WI citizen. The grocery store is the WI and the owners are the officials (who want our region to be prosperous and habited)
Now, the orange-carrot juice represents the amendment that is being evaluated: the thing is that maybe there are Peters out there that would want some orange juice but not carrot juice, or maybe (must surely) some people who want carrot juice but not orange juice:
-The same goes for this amendment, maybe there is someone who likes the Chief Justice idea but is negatively affected by the increasing of the number of candidates; maybe there is someome who is grateful the number of candidates in elections is increased, but is unhappy with the existence of a Secretary of Discourse.
These two citizens may want to vote for some of the contents of the amendment and against some others, but they don't have the option to do this. Example: There is a referendum up tu vote, it says: "The wage of all French people will go up by 200 euros, also the Eiffel Tower will be sold to China", in that case a typical french citizen would vote against the law because he is unwilling to cede the Eiffel tower to China, but at the same time he would be missing the opportunity to have his wage increased at same time.

Now let's get back to the Peter thing, and replace the elements of the story:
The WI citizen has then four choices:
- He either votes for the amendmet, voting actually for some of the contents of the amendment (and probably votes partly for something he is against)
- He either decides to vote against (and regrets not profiting some of the contents of the amendment)
- Or maybe he abstains, and let the fate of the amendment in someone else's hands
OR
In the worst scenario ( for the WI)
- He decides to leave the WI for another region that may not be the same, because he is doesn't find true democracy in the WI

This kind of amendment is the one that corrupt democracies use to cheat on their citizens, and one that I will not approve.

The solution: What we need to do is divide the amendment in several sub-amendments whose contents share some similitudes, just as Peter would have liked to buy some oranges; in the grocery store there were no oranges, but we can give the people of the WI some.

I propose this format:
Amendment No1:
RECOGNIZING the success of the Western Isles Constitution thus far;

NOTING that situations could occur in which the Constitution would be unable to provide guidance on, either due to ambiguity or absence of text;

WISHING for the continued happiness, security, and prosperity of the Isles;

The following changes to the Constitution are hereby enacted:

1. Deletes: "Dismisses inactive officers" as officers should not be unilaterally dismissed for inactivity; rather, an election should take place for their position, as previously proven to be a successful practice.

2. Changes: "All non-officers may run, regardless of tenure" to "All non-officers may run, regardless of length of residence."

3. Changes: "A maximum of five candidates can run in each election, determined on a first-come first-serve basis." to "A maximum of ten candidates may run in each election, determined on a first-come first-serve basis."

4. Changes: "Re-elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent a reasonable period of time in office (approximately a month unless determined otherwise)." to "Re-elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent a reasonable period of time in office, or the defending officer is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling their duties."

5. Adds: under Rights of Nations: "XII. To campaign politically on behalf of itself or others."

Amendment No2:
RECOGNIZING the success of the Western Isles Constitution thus far;

NOTING that situations could occur in which the Constitution would be unable to provide guidance on, either due to ambiguity or absence of text;

WISHING for the continued happiness, security, and prosperity of the Isles;

The following changes to the Constitution are hereby enacted:
1. Changes: "If more than two justices are absent for an unreasonable time, then the vote will be postponed until all minus one (who the Vice President will fill in for) are ready for the vote. No votes will be cast if more than one Justice is absent." to "Judicial votes may conclude as soon as the majority required is achieved and the additional votes would be irrelevant, but it is recommended that every Justice be allowed their opinion and vote to be published."

2. Adds: under Notes on the Judicial Branch: "If a conflict of interest exists for any Justice, then that Justice's duties shall be temporarily filled by the Vice President until the situation is resolved. If a conflict of interest exists for more than one Justice, a regional discussion shall take place on how to proceed, and if an agreement isn't reached, then any options shall be put up for vote and the option that prevails in the vote shall be followed in order to resolve the situation.

([3. Adds: an informal judicial position titled "Chief Justice" and adds under Notes on the Judicial Branch: "A Chief Justice is appointed by the President out of the current Justices, and serves to make the judicial process more efficient, with the sole duty of expediting the judicial process through the use of communication and organization. The Chief Justice also serves as a liaison to non-judicial nations, fostering communication between the two groups."] might me added or made an amendment itself)

Amendment No3:
RECOGNIZING the success of the Western Isles Constitution thus far;

NOTING that situations could occur in which the Constitution would be unable to provide guidance on, either due to ambiguity or absence of text;

WISHING for the continued happiness, security, and prosperity of the Isles;

The following changes to the Constitution are hereby enacted:
4. Adds: a new executive position titled "Secretary of Discourse" with duties:
-Promotes civil debate on forum threads and the regional message board
-Serves as devils-advocate on regional discussion and debate
-Poses questions to officer candidates, for the purpose of revealing the candidates' positions on issues
(The "Secretary of Dicsourse" thing deserves to itself an entire amendment, in my opinion)
-------------------------------------------------
([2. Deletes: "Serves as the head of the Western Isles Navy (WIN), if one should be required in a time of war or natural disaster" as WIN currently does not exist, and recommends a future amendment to replace this if deemed necessary, with more clarity on whether this is a gameplay raider/defender force, or exists solely for the purpose of a regional alliance.

3. Changes: "Acts as ambassador to other regions or foreign nations" to "Acts as an ambassador to other regions and foreign nations"

5. Adds: "Notes on the Executive Branch: The World Assembly delegate is not a formal officer position, and shall therefore have no authority or powers, but shall ideally vote on WA proposals in a manner that best represents the Western Isles and the people therein."] 6,7 and 8 are mostly clarifications, so they will be mostly accepted and thus don't really change the outcome of elections so they can come in any amendment or have an amendment for their own, that would be most likely voted unanimously)
_________________________________
This is my position in this amendment and I will not support it's legislation until it is divided (most preferably as I said)
Have a nice day"
-Z. Jouons, representing Dansawae's interests on the SupCourt (via Skype)

PD: I still don't trust Bhumidol's IA, and still fear for the lives of everyone in the Supreme court

[Vancouvia]

You have a very real concern, and one that I thought would be brought up.

My counter: if this amendment is passed, those parts that someone deems unfavorable could be struck down by a repeal amendment. This would be more efficient as the specific parts that someone doesn't like could be specifically repealed.

I'm not trying to purposefully have a huge conglomerated law because there's parts that I think won't get passed if they're separated; I'm doing it because it's much more efficient and won't hijack the regional polls for the next week and a half. Nothing in this amendment, in my opinion, would not get passed if it was singled out.

My reasons behind the amendment have thus been stated, and I think I have offered a reasonable counter.

[Dansawae]

This looks good for the most part, I just have a few questions

4. Adds: a new executive position titled "Secretary of Discourse" with duties:
-Promotes civil debate on forum threads and the regional message board
-Serves as devils-advocate on regional discussion and debate
-Poses questions to officer candidates, for the purpose of revealing the candidates' positions on issues
( So this is just have someone in the opposition of every legislation or do they just guide debate?)

6. Adds: an informal judicial position titled "Chief Justice" and adds under Notes on the Judicial Branch: "A Chief Justice is appointed by the President out of the current Justices, and serves to make the judicial process more efficient, with the sole duty of expediting the judicial process through the use of communication and organization. The Chief Justice also serves as a liaison to non-judicial nations, fostering communication between the two groups."
(Will this be an additional Justice? Or will we keep the same number just with one as head? I do like the idea of a Chief Justice)

10. Changes: "A maximum of five candidates can run in each election, determined on a first-come first-serve basis." to "A maximum of ten candidates may run in each election, determined on a first-come first-serve basis."
( I think ten candidates are too many, I think leaving it at five or six is the best way to go.)

I would also like to ssy that I preferred the name "Secretary of Dissent"

[Dansawae]

You have a very real concern, and one that I thought would be brought up.

My counter: if this amendment is passed, those parts that someone deems unfavorable could be struck down by a repeal amendment. This would be more efficient as the specific parts that someone doesn't like could be specifically repealed.

I'm not trying to purposefully have a huge conglomerated law because there's parts that I think won't get passed if they're separated; I'm doing it because it's much more efficient and won't hijack the regional polls for the next week and a half. Nothing in this amendment, in my opinion, would not get passed if it was singled out.

My reasons behind the amendment have thus been stated, and I think I have offered a reasonable counter.

I don't believe the president's intentions were others, but I have to disagree on the "Nothing in this amendment, in my opinion, would not get passed if it was singled out" as there are aspects which I do not favor of this amendment and do not think I would be the only one in the WI who doesn't.

I also believe it is better to dose the laws into middle sized amendments than into big ones, even if we have to vote twice a week instead of once.

[Vancouvia]

I'm sure there are people who don't like parts of it. There are 5 people who are currently voting against a very slight clarity change.

Make me aware of your concerns, and I'll either amend it or throw them out for a later amendment. Get the parts that are less controversial passed, then deal with the controversial parts separately.

[Dansawae]

Amendment No1:
RECOGNIZING the success of the Western Isles Constitution thus far;

NOTING that situations could occur in which the Constitution would be unable to provide guidance on, either due to ambiguity or absence of text;

WISHING for the continued happiness, security, and prosperity of the Isles;

The following changes to the Constitution are hereby enacted:

1. Deletes: "Dismisses inactive officers" as officers should not be unilaterally dismissed for inactivity; rather, an election should take place for their position, as previously proven to be a successful practice.

2. Changes: "All non-officers may run, regardless of tenure" to "All non-officers may run, regardless of length of residence."

3. Changes: "A maximum of five candidates can run in each election, determined on a first-come first-serve basis." to "A maximum of ten candidates may run in each election, determined on a first-come first-serve basis."

4. Changes: "Re-elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent a reasonable period of time in office (approximately a month unless determined otherwise)." to "Re-elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent a reasonable period of time in office, or the defending officer is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling their duties."

5. Adds: under Rights of Nations: "XII. To campaign politically on behalf of itself or others."

Amendment No2:
RECOGNIZING the success of the Western Isles Constitution thus far;

NOTING that situations could occur in which the Constitution would be unable to provide guidance on, either due to ambiguity or absence of text;

WISHING for the continued happiness, security, and prosperity of the Isles;

The following changes to the Constitution are hereby enacted:
1. Changes: "If more than two justices are absent for an unreasonable time, then the vote will be postponed until all minus one (who the Vice President will fill in for) are ready for the vote. No votes will be cast if more than one Justice is absent." to "Judicial votes may conclude as soon as the majority required is achieved and the additional votes would be irrelevant, but it is recommended that every Justice be allowed their opinion and vote to be published."

2. Adds: under Notes on the Judicial Branch: "If a conflict of interest exists for any Justice, then that Justice's duties shall be temporarily filled by the Vice President until the situation is resolved. If a conflict of interest exists for more than one Justice, a regional discussion shall take place on how to proceed, and if an agreement isn't reached, then any options shall be put up for vote and the option that prevails in the vote shall be followed in order to resolve the situation.

([3. Adds: an informal judicial position titled "Chief Justice" and adds under Notes on the Judicial Branch: "A Chief Justice is appointed by the President out of the current Justices, and serves to make the judicial process more efficient, with the sole duty of expediting the judicial process through the use of communication and organization. The Chief Justice also serves as a liaison to non-judicial nations, fostering communication between the two groups."] might me added or made an amendment itself)

Amendment No3:
RECOGNIZING the success of the Western Isles Constitution thus far;

NOTING that situations could occur in which the Constitution would be unable to provide guidance on, either due to ambiguity or absence of text;

WISHING for the continued happiness, security, and prosperity of the Isles;

The following changes to the Constitution are hereby enacted:
4. Adds: a new executive position titled "Secretary of Discourse" with duties:
-Promotes civil debate on forum threads and the regional message board
-Serves as devils-advocate on regional discussion and debate
-Poses questions to officer candidates, for the purpose of revealing the candidates' positions on issues
(The "Secretary of Dicsourse" thing deserves to itself an entire amendment, in my opinion)
-------------------------------------------------
([2. Deletes: "Serves as the head of the Western Isles Navy (WIN), if one should be required in a time of war or natural disaster" as WIN currently does not exist, and recommends a future amendment to replace this if deemed necessary, with more clarity on whether this is a gameplay raider/defender force, or exists solely for the purpose of a regional alliance.

3. Changes: "Acts as ambassador to other regions or foreign nations" to "Acts as an ambassador to other regions and foreign nations"

5. Adds: "Notes on the Executive Branch: The World Assembly delegate is not a formal officer position, and shall therefore have no authority or powers, but shall ideally vote on WA proposals in a manner that best represents the Western Isles and the people therein."] 6,7 and 8 are mostly clarifications, so they will be mostly accepted and thus don't really change the outcome of elections so they can come in any amendment or have an amendment for their own, that would be most likely voted unanimously)

These are my propositions. Also, if the 2,3 and 5 laws have already been voted against, we could make an amendment about them. Not all the amendments should be voted this week.

[Dansawae]

I'm sure there are people who don't like parts of it. There are 5 people who are currently voting against a very slight clarity change.

Make me aware of your concerns, and I'll either amend it or throw them out for a later amendment. Get the parts that are less controversial passed, then deal with the controversial parts separately.

I'd rather make that with the help of my fellow Justices

[Vancouvia]

I'm sure there are people who don't like parts of it. There are 5 people who are currently voting against a very slight clarity change.

Make me aware of your concerns, and I'll either amend it or throw them out for a later amendment. Get the parts that are less controversial passed, then deal with the controversial parts separately.

I'd rather make that with the help of my fellow Justices

Some have already aired their concerns, and I plan on taking that into consideration in my next draft; air yours.

[Dansawae]

I'd rather make that with the help of my fellow Justices

Some have already aired their concerns, and I plan on taking that into consideration in my next draft; air yours.

"Well, apart from what I already said; I will evaluate each of the laws by themselves and independently:

1- This is an acceptable change to the constitution, so I will agree to it's legislation.
2- I judge this apt for vote, I support the writing of another amendment in case of the creation of a Regional Navy.
3- A small gramatical correction can change the whole meaning of a sentence, I support the legislation of this law.
4- I believe the creation of a "Secretary of Discourse" is the most important change of this amendment and should be separated from it.
5- I approve this law for legislation.
6- I approve the creation of the Chief Justice, as long as it replaces one of the justices and is not meant to be an additional charge (a sixth justice), and also as ong as his vote remains equal to each of the other justice's.
7- I approve the legislation of this law as long as the majority means 3 out of 5 justices as I think it does. "but it is recommended that every Justice be allowed their opinion and vote to be published" I would change it to "every Justice must share their opinion and vote to be published, even after the majority has resolved" in order to have active officers, the other version allows a Justice to be completely inactive (just as Dezaloth)
8- "If a conflict of interest exists for any Justice, then that Justice's duties shall be temporarily filled by the Vice President until the situation is resolved" I approve, as long as the Justice requests for that replacement himself.
" If a conflict of interest...regional discussion shall take place on how to proceed" I believe this regiaonal discussion should be held for (at least) 24 hours, in order to have the highest number of nations to participate, and the voting should be always held regardless of the result of the regional discussion.
9- It is always nice to clarify, I approve
10- Same as Cottoria, I believe the maximum should be lower (6 or seven candidates)
11- I approve this law for legislation
12- This is fine, I approve

It is to be noted that I support each of the laws ( some of them completely some of them only if changed ) independently and not if put in only one amendment
Have a nice day"
-Z. Jouons, representing Dansawae's interests on the SupCourt (via Skype)

[Dibeg]

I do not believe that this legislation has any constitutional problems.
However, I do agree with Dansawae that although there is no negative intention in this case, setting a precedent of omnibus bills is a bad thing for our region.
I am in favor of having a chief justice, I believe a certain nation deserves recognition for stepping up as he has already done (it starts with an L and ends with an INAVIAR)
I think that allowing as many candidates as possible to run in an election is a good thing, I don't think there should be any limit at all to the number, but maybe we could require a certain length of speech or something to make sure people actually care.
The Secretary of Discourse/dissent:
I think this is a good idea overall but am not sure it should be a government position the same way sec. of defense or sec. of the interior is. In my opinion it is a kind of malicious sounding position that I don't think should be on the same level as our other, more positive positions. Maybe we could call the position "The regional Ombudsman" and would be part of neither the executive or judicial branch, but separate. This persons duties would be same as the sec. of discourse, but would also be charged with helping smaller/newer nations find their regional voice and helping those currently not in government. Maybe?
I think that Dansawae is also right because since this amendment is so large, it is hard to really get a proper discussion about all the points of the legislation.
Therefore I do not approve this legislation as it is and think it should be split into three smaller bills.
I agree with all that dansawae says above except on the number of candidates allowed into an election (I am in favor of as many as possible)

[Polar Svalbard]

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=pola ... /id=416760
This an amendment for the constitution to include a committee on War Crimes for the Judicial committee to head. As the upcoming war ma lead to such things something like this is very important for the region. The section 2 is the only part to be added to the constitution for clarification.

[Cottoria]

Section 1 Reasons for this amendment.
As clouds of war loom over the region we need to make sure that any war crimes in any war will be addressed.
Section 2 Amendment
Adds the Section War Crimes, under Judicial Branch.
I. The Judicial branch shall also serve as the prosecutors for those accused of war crimes,
II. War Crimes include; Genocide, use of Biological weapons, use of Nuclear Weapons, use of chemical weapons, Inhumane treatment of POWs, Inhumane treatment of noncombatants in occupied territory, and Murder of Surrendering Foes.
III. The Judicial system can dole out sentences such as Imprisonment or Execution to War criminals.
IV. War criminals must be given a chance to discuss their actions.
V. War criminals will be held where it is not possible for them to commit suicide while in custody.

This seems good but I have a few things to point out

1.Though the judicial branch is most likely group to preside over these cases. Some of the Judges are involved in the war and that might go over well with some nations.
2. Not using Nuclear weapons may not get the support of many of the high ranked nations with nukes. Maybe propse a nuclear non-proliferation treaty as legislation maybe.

[Linaviar]

Discussion on Polar Svalbard's bill at this time is a bit premature. We've handled the docket one by one so far, and I wish to continue to do so. If we ever get a large amount of legislation to look over in the future then having a "one at a time" system in place could do a lot to help with organization.

[Republic of the Cristo]

http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=416844
This is an amendment to alter the clause regarding chemical warfare.

[Linaviar]

http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=416844
This is an amendment to alter the clause regarding chemical warfare.

Added to the docket

[Dibeg]

I totally agree wig you linaviar, handling multiple bills at a time is not feasible, especially when they are large like vancouvia's. I think we shoul split vancouvia's bill as dansawae suggested and once we deal with that, move on to svalbard's.

[Vancouvia]

Removed some things, edited some things, taking in your suggestions.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=417283

[Dibeg]

Removed some things, edited some things, taking in your suggestions.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=417283

This amendment solves most of our issues. but not that of being too large a bill. I still think that this amendment is too large to be effectively voted upon by the citizens of this region. It should be split into three parts based on content. This is important to make sure all voters can easily understand the intent of the amendment, and to avoid setting a precedent of allowing omnibus bills.

Another thing I have said before, but other justices have disagreed with, is that I think that five or six candidates in an election, on a first come first serve basis is too few.
This is limiting to democracy and I think goes against the intent of the constitution and the goals of the region. I believe that we should allow all participants to enter the election, but they must make a speech of a certain length and a campaign logo. Just to make sure that the candidates are serious. (maybe not these exact requirements, but something to stop random people from writing their name down for fun)
I am quite sure about this, I believe that limiting democracy in this way is a bad thing for our region, we should be as open as possible.

[Linaviar]

Removed some things, edited some things, taking in your suggestions.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=417283

This amendment solves most of our issues. but not that of being too large a bill. I still think that this amendment is too large to be effectively voted upon by the citizens of this region. It should be split into three parts based on content. This is important to make sure all voters can easily understand the intent of the amendment, and to avoid setting a precedent of allowing omnibus bills.

Another thing I have said before, but other justices have disagreed with, is that I think that five or six candidates in an election, on a first come first serve basis is too few.
This is limiting to democracy and I think goes against the intent of the constitution and the goals of the region. I believe that we should allow all participants to enter the election, but they must make a speech of a certain length and a campaign logo. Just to make sure that the candidates are serious. (maybe not these exact requirements, but something to stop random people from writing their name down for fun)
I am quite sure about this, I believe that limiting democracy in this way is a bad thing for our region, we should be as open as possible.

I am in full agreement with Dibeg on the number of candidates, but would disagree with his barrier to entry requirement. The submission of a speech is, in my opinion, enough, and that instituting such requirements could discourage candidates that posses a large amount of potential from running for office. While I oppose the change in legislation however, I will still support Article 10.

I am very pleased with the amendments to Articles 7, and 8. They have gained further support from me.

Unlike the other justices, I will not be directly opposing this bill on the grounds that it is omnibus legislation. While I support the notion that this bill should be broken up, I do not believe that it is grounds for an opposing vote. Blocking omnibus legislation could open the door to the blockage of other bills for arbitrary reasons, and I would urge the other judges to reconsider their stance in the light of the negative precedence that such an action could establish.

[Vancouvia]

So many of the changes are minor. It looks huge but when it really comes down to it, it's very small alterations that would be silly to disagree with, such as limiting the President's power or editing language slightly.

I'm back and forth on the number of candidates thing. I've already required a speech, and I think that's enough limitations on who can run. I would be in favor of getting rid of the number limitation, and I disagree that it may dilute votes. In practice, such as the last election, it really hasn't--clear frontrunners developed.

[Dibeg]

I totally agree with you on the number of candidates in elections issue.
On the size of bill issue, I agree that this bill is a motley collection of small changes. With one or two bug things. Maybe split it into two, one for the little word changes, and another for the bigger issues.

[Vancouvia]

I totally agree with you on the number of candidates in elections issue.
On the size of bill issue, I agree that this bill is a motley collection of small changes. With one or two bug things. Maybe split it into two, one for the little word changes, and another for the bigger issues.

Then you'd want the bigger issues split into two. I've already taken out the biggest issues already.

This doesn't have to start a precedent of big bills always getting put through. Use your judgment on all laws presented to you in the future. What is the aim of the legislation--to efficiently pass through needed improvements, or to sneak through things that otherwise wouldn't get passed? I think you're capable of knowing the difference.

[Randmar]

Question, does our court use a common law system or some case by case thing? For all of our native English speakers minus the one who have studied law, common law is the system you might be most familiar with as it is a English invention that was spread throughout their empire. Basically it amounts to a system of precedents being used to determine what is just and what not rather than specific laws for each thing that comes up.