A Bill to authorize a census and directing the government to conduct same.
BE IT ENACTED by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, as follows:
Part I. Preliminary.
1. This Act may be cited as the Census act of 2009.
2. If it has received the Royal Assent, this Act shall enter into force immediately.
Part II. Authorization.
1. The purpose of this census shall be to establish, definitively, the citizenship status of all His Majesty's loyal subjects.
2. This Act authorizes the His Majesty's government and government agents to conduct a census of all the citizens.
Part III. Direction.
1. The Justiciar is directed to make all reasonable efforts to quickly and efficiently conduct a complete census, appointing agents as may be required.
2. The Justiciar is directed to make the results of this census known by way of a report made public by posting in the Ellicott Square and the Royal Gazette.
Part IV. Enforcement.
1. It shall be a crime against the crown to intentionally hamper or disrupt the census process.
2. All His Majesty's subjects are commanded to comply and cooperate with the census agents.
3. Any of His Majesty's subjects who do not respond to the census in a reasonable time frame shall be deemed to have forfeit their citizenship with all titles, rights, privileges and honors so associated.
My Lords and Gentlemen,
I am glad to see the Noble Lord, the Duke, adopting the normal form for Bills. Just two things I would change:
Firstly, short titles in Hanover do not have the "of" used in Acts of Congress. This Act should thus be The Census Act 2009.
Secondly, we generally don't re-start numbering of Sections with each Part. That is, the first Section in Part II would be numbered 3, and so forth. This makes it easier to cite the Act, because then one can say simply "Section 3", rather than "Part II, Section 1".
My Lords and Gentlemen,
I accept only the first friendly amendment and strike the word "of" as indicated. Leaving this as the complete text now.
Quote:A Bill to authorize a census and directing the government to conduct same.
BE IT ENACTED by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, as follows:
Part I. Preliminary.
1. This Act may be cited as the Census act of 2009.
2. If it has received the Royal Assent, this Act shall enter into force immediately.
Part II. Authorization.
1. The purpose of this census shall be to establish, definitively, the citizenship status of all His Majesty's loyal subjects.
2. This Act authorizes the His Majesty's government and government agents to conduct a census of all the citizens.
Part III. Direction.
1. The Justiciar is directed to make all reasonable efforts to quickly and efficiently conduct a complete census, appointing agents as may be required.
2. The Justiciar is directed to make the results of this census known by way of a report made public by posting in the Ellicott Square and the Royal Gazette.
Part IV. Enforcement.
1. It shall be a crime against the crown to intentionally hamper or disrupt the census process.
2. All His Majesty's subjects are commanded to comply and cooperate with the census agents.
3. Any of His Majesty's subjects who do not respond to the census in a reasonable time frame shall be deemed to have forfeit their citizenship with all titles, rights, privileges and honors so associated.
My Lords and Gentlemen,
The text the Noble Lord cites still includes the "of".
And what of the second? I can't see any reason to vary from the usual methods of Hanover, and indeed most macronational legislatures. Perhaps the Noble Lord has some reason of his own?
My Lords and Gentlemen,
Edit the bill, take II. That was annoying. Thanks for pointing it out.
I don't agree with the second amendment. I've already stated my opposition to the use of such a numbering system in the resolution to renumber the Standing Orders.
Quote:A Bill to authorize a census and directing the government to conduct same.
BE IT ENACTED by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, as follows:
Part I. Preliminary.
1. This Act may be cited as the Census act 2009.
2. If it has received the Royal Assent, this Act shall enter into force immediately.
Part II. Authorization.
1. The purpose of this census shall be to establish, definitively, the citizenship status of all His Majesty's loyal subjects.
2. This Act authorizes the His Majesty's government and government agents to conduct a census of all the citizens.
Part III. Direction.
1. The Justiciar is directed to make all reasonable efforts to quickly and efficiently conduct a complete census, appointing agents as may be required.
2. The Justiciar is directed to make the results of this census known by way of a report made public by posting in the Ellicott Square and the Royal Gazette.
Part IV. Enforcement.
1. It shall be a crime against the crown to intentionally hamper or disrupt the census process.
2. All His Majesty's subjects are commanded to comply and cooperate with the census agents.
3. Any of His Majesty's subjects who do not respond to the census in a reasonable time frame shall be deemed to have forfeit their citizenship with all titles, rights, privileges and honors so associated.
My Lords and Gentlemen:
Why does the Most Noble Lord not respond to the Right Honourable Gentleman's question as to why he has opted to defy the customary practice with respect to numbering sections of the bill?
Surely there must be some explanation that we'd all like to hear.
My Lords and Gentlemen,
I did address the concern, but I'll do it again for you.
The law is not static. The number system proposed by member Livingston is not static either, yet references to the law are. Thus, over time, changes in the law will render references to those laws invalid.
By way of example, consider an act with 5 numbered sections:
1) Something A
2) Something B
3) Something C
4) Something D
5) Something E
Everything seems fine. People, in their legal discussions or opinions, make specific citations to it such as "According to the act, section 4, such and such is the case"
Then Parliament, with ascent from His Majesty, changes the law, striking item 3 and renumber, leaving this as the bill:
1) Something A
2) Something B
3) Something D
4) Something E
Now the first problem has occurred. The previous reference to section 4, which is written down and does not change with the renumbering, has become invalid as it now references "Something E" rather than "Something D" as it previously did. Such a change could easily render the entire argument incomprehensible.
The only way around this is to also cite the version of the document. This is an additional unnecessary burden on the authors of such legal opinion, and much more on those who come after checking such work. Say, an appeals court?
Over time, the drift between the dynamic numbering and the static references grows rendering more and more historic documents cryptic at best, or utterly useless.
There are additional problems. The law might be expanded by adding clauses, and there is no requirement to add them at the end of the text (there should be). The law might strike only part of a clause, or add to a clause, and this should also be disallowed. It helps that struck language is often left in the document, but it is a poor excuse for a system when a much better one exists.
The science of computation has already rigorously proved that static data is best for static references, and this application is no different. It may have made sense in some bygone era, but so did the quill pen, and damned few parliaments are still using those.
In short, it's a stupid system and we can do better.
God save the King
My Lords and Gentlemen,
The Noble Lord's argument is compelling, but does not seem to address the issue of numbering Sections consecutively within the whole Bill rather than within each Part. As far as I can tell the solution proposed by the Noble Lord is to (1) not renumber sections after amendments, and (2) add all new Sections to the end, rather than the Part concerned. This does not preclude the normal numbering system.
In any case, I am driven to ask when this issue of renumbering has ever arisen... I don't recall any time where a legal argument (as if we've had many) cited an Act of Parliament, but it had been amended and the Sections renumbered, and confusion ensued.
The fact is that most of the time, when we want to change the law, we write a whole new Act rather than amending an old one. I know that the Noble Lord is opposed to the "tear it all down" approach, but I think this is actually a good thing in this case: it means that one only has to read the XYZ Act 2009 to know the law, not the XYZ Acts 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
My Lords and Gentlemen,
The absence of many instances of the problem I wish to avoid by using an intelligent numbering system is testament to the low state of participation. This is taking the short view "it's never happened before, so it won't happen in the future" and yet this very administration wishes to grow the population and the participation of each citizen meaning that the conditions of the future are expected to be different.
I predict a flurry of bills to amend existing law. Indeed, unless something unexpected happens to me I can guarantee many bills amending many others.
The most obvious case where the problem will likely first happen is the organic law. We've modified it a few times now. What should happen if any of the sections, other than the last one, are expanded? If, as you propose, everything below the amendments are renumbered then the renumbering issue will strike on one of our most important documents OR you would suggest a whole new organic law?
What of more than one act on the same topic per a given year?
God save the King
My Lords and Gentlemen,
I'm not saying it's impossible, but in comparison to most micronations, Hanover produces tons of legislations, and yet it hasn't happened. This, to me, suggests it is not especially likely to happen, and should not be particularly feared.
I never proposed that "everything below the amendments [be] renumbered".
The constitution has, since the passage of the current one, been treated as a special case, because it would be inconvenient to pass a new one every time we want to change it. Amendments are appended to it as Schedules, and hence are numbered individually as they are not part of the main Act.
Other than the constitution, I see no possible danger in the current practice of replacing an Act with a new one when we want to change the law. It's more convenient for the reader, which is good, since we can barely get Hanoverians to read and learn the laws as it is.
The macronational practice, when one has more than on Act on the same topic, is to name it something like "The XYZ (Amendment) Act 2009", or with something more specific in the parentheses. In practice this is very rare, of course.