Opinion of the Arbiter: The Economic Bill.

[Erik Mortis]

As the arbiter I feel I would be remiss in my duties if I did not point out that the passage, and in fact the entire handling of the Economic Bill recently before the Landsraad, violating the Procedures of the Landsraad that were in place when the bill was active. I shall innumerate them below, along with how severe a violation I believe them to be.

1. The bill was open for greater then 4 days. (Moderate to severe based on length of extension)
2. The bill was not initially written as a change to the Lawbook (minor, and I corrected this myself)
3. The bill was divided into two parts, when the Procedures clearly prohibit this. (moderate to minor)
4. The bill was cosed with part 1 passing and part 2 failing, then part two was passed AFTER the vote had ended. (Severe violation of Procedure)
5. The discussion itself was full of minor charter violations due to charter violations in the Procedures of the Landsraad. (minor/indirect)

Most of these violation I honestly would overlook myself.
1. precedent shows that this happens regularly by accident.
2. More a matter of bookkeeping, and would have had to be correct anyway. Was corrected.
3. Once again, more a matter of bookkeeping and there is SOME precedent of this happening in the past, though in many cases it was such a situation as we have here.
4. I find this violation extremely troubling, and a gross violation of procedure and decorum by the those involved.
5. unimportant.

Since I have no implicit authority over the Procedures of the Landsraad, I cannot take any action in this situation. It is the role of the Prætor to enforce these Procedures, and once again, I am not legally authorized to censure him for failure to uphold the Procedures.

[Erik Mortis]

Correction. I am authorized to censure the Prætor officially. Imperial Charter: Article II, Section D states that the Prætor must adhere to the Procedures of the Landsraad. By violating the Procedures he violates the Charter, and thus enters into my jurisdiction.

But... I once again have no legal recourse to take against the bill in question, nor the Prætor, as Lawbook: Chapter VII, Section B states that a bill must be brought before me before I may take action.

More and more I'm finding that my job is pretty impotent as the law stands.

[Jonas]

More and more I think I will need to read the laws again when I'm on vacation...

[Erik Mortis]

Okey. Missed this yesterday. But in The Charter: Article III, Section B it simply states I may overturn laws, passed by the Landsraad that violate the charter. As the passage of the economic bill itself violates the charter, in that it violates the Procedures when the Praetor passed the 2nd half after the close of the vote, and the Praetor is bound by the Charter. I may take action. (long string of causality)

[Jacobus Loki]

May take action? Don't have to?

Should some difficult person who didn't really like the idea formally bring it before you, mustn't you?

(Don'took at me like that, I'm not that difficult. Who was that ? oh, just me again. grumble.)

[Ari Rahikkala]

I could have done this one, too... except it would have felt a bit too much like trying to prevent the bill from passing at any cost...

[Erik Mortis]

I never voted to begin with, and didn't really care either way, so I had no such qualms. And it's my job.

[Kaiser Hasan I]

except it would have felt a bit too much like trying to prevent the bill from passing at any cost...

It did seem a bit that way didn't it?