Major Legislation Clarification Bill [on the President's desk]

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Bgwah
Bill Slot: 1

[bgwah]

*cough*

thoughts?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This seems like a good idea to me. There's so many amendments and repeals and things that it's hard to tell what is up-to-date and what is not about different Wiki articles.

[bullmoose88]

This seems like a good idea to me. There's so many amendments and repeals and things that it's hard to tell what is up-to-date and what is not about different Wiki articles.

Ditto.  Harrumph.

[bgwah]

Are there any other major pieces of legislation that should be included?

I was thinking I would volunteer to do the initial updating, and then allow all future amendments to be taken care of by the AG as usual.

[Badger]

What about creating a code where each section of law is put under a subject heading given a particular numerical designation. As just an example, here's the Ohio Revised Code table of contents, followed by the Title 29 (Ohio's criminal code) table of contents.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/29

While I don't think Atlasia needs nearly as complicated a code with 33 separate subject titles each with a dozen or 2 chapters (subheadings), but something along these lines would be invaluable for researching applicable laws. One need only know the general subject to look up all applicable laws in one place. If a law arguably applies in two subject headings (e.g. a portion of the criminal code re: voting fraud which could arguably apply under the election code as well") the subject heading where the statute isn't listed can still include links to the statute reading "See also: ___________".

Again, while we probably don't need as extensive a code system as this (or most states I suspect), it may be worthwhile to simply adopt some state's similar code rather than try reinventing the wheel. That way all that need be done is to assign current laws statutory code numbers under applicable subject headings. Other statutes unaddressed by Atlasian legislation can simply be left empty or assumed whatever state's code we adopt is otherwise applicable until when/if we change it.

As a test case, maybe we could start slow by constructing a similar numerical code only for the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act and the Consolidated Electoral Reform Act and see how that works. Though the point of such codification is to make all current Atlasian statutes readily accessable by subject which these Acts already do to some degree. Thus codifying only those two pieces of legislation would merely organize Atlasian law where it is least needed.

I'm not necessarily pushing Ohio's code system here; adopting most any other state's code would probably work just as well (except Louisiana's as it is uniquely unbased in English common law). Whatever state's code system we emulate at least doesn't need to follow Ohio's inexplicable and annoying practice of skipping almost all even numbers in enumerating its titles and chapters.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What about creating a code where each section of law is put under a subject heading given a particular numerical designation. As just an example, here's the Ohio Revised Code table of contents, followed by the Title 29 (Ohio's criminal code) table of contents.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/29

While I don't think Atlasia needs nearly as complicated a code with 33 separate subject titles each with a dozen or 2 chapters (subheadings), but something along these lines would be invaluable for researching applicable laws. One need only know the general subject to look up all applicable laws in one place. If a law arguably applies in two subject headings (e.g. a portion of the criminal code re: voting fraud which could arguably apply under the election code as well") the subject heading where the statute isn't listed can still include links to the statute reading "See also: ___________".

Again, while we probably don't need as extensive a code system as this (or most states I suspect), it may be worthwhile to simply adopt some state's similar code rather than try reinventing the wheel. That way all that need be done is to assign current laws statutory code numbers under applicable subject headings. Other statutes unaddressed by Atlasian legislation can simply be left empty or assumed whatever state's code we adopt is otherwise applicable until when/if we change it.

As a test case, maybe we could start slow by constructing a similar numerical code only for the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act and the Consolidated Electoral Reform Act and see how that works. Though the point of such codification is to make all current Atlasian statutes readily accessable by subject which these Acts already do to some degree. Thus codifying only those two pieces of legislation would merely organize Atlasian law where it is least needed.

I'm not necessarily pushing Ohio's code system here; adopting most any other state's code would probably work just as well (except Louisiana's as it is uniquely unbased in English common law). Whatever state's code system we emulate at least doesn't need to follow Ohio's inexplicable and annoying practice of skipping almost all even numbers in enumerating its titles and chapters.

Would constructing such a code system be more trouble then the benefit gained from it? It would seem, if I understand it right, that a lengthy process of reorganizing the statutes into the codes would be required. Unless of course I missed something which is possible.

[Bacon King]

I'll be opening a final vote on this by tomorrow unless anyone has anything to offer.

[Bacon King]

Also, moving this to slot six as forum affairs.

[Badger]

What about creating a code where each section of law is put under a subject heading given a particular numerical designation. As just an example, here's the Ohio Revised Code table of contents, followed by the Title 29 (Ohio's criminal code) table of contents.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/29

While I don't think Atlasia needs nearly as complicated a code with 33 separate subject titles each with a dozen or 2 chapters (subheadings), but something along these lines would be invaluable for researching applicable laws. One need only know the general subject to look up all applicable laws in one place. If a law arguably applies in two subject headings (e.g. a portion of the criminal code re: voting fraud which could arguably apply under the election code as well") the subject heading where the statute isn't listed can still include links to the statute reading "See also: ___________".

Again, while we probably don't need as extensive a code system as this (or most states I suspect), it may be worthwhile to simply adopt some state's similar code rather than try reinventing the wheel. That way all that need be done is to assign current laws statutory code numbers under applicable subject headings. Other statutes unaddressed by Atlasian legislation can simply be left empty or assumed whatever state's code we adopt is otherwise applicable until when/if we change it.

As a test case, maybe we could start slow by constructing a similar numerical code only for the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act and the Consolidated Electoral Reform Act and see how that works. Though the point of such codification is to make all current Atlasian statutes readily accessable by subject which these Acts already do to some degree. Thus codifying only those two pieces of legislation would merely organize Atlasian law where it is least needed.

I'm not necessarily pushing Ohio's code system here; adopting most any other state's code would probably work just as well (except Louisiana's as it is uniquely unbased in English common law). Whatever state's code system we emulate at least doesn't need to follow Ohio's inexplicable and annoying practice of skipping almost all even numbers in enumerating its titles and chapters.

Would constructing such a code system be more trouble then the benefit gained from it? It would seem, if I understand it right, that a lengthy process of reorganizing the statutes into the codes would be required. Unless of course I missed something which is possible.

I don't think so, Yank, that is if we adopt some state's (or maybe the US Federal?) code title and chapter headings. For that matter we probably for now only need the broad subject headings of titles without having to create subchapters within the titles. Then the only "work" needed is to decide which subject title a statute belongs under (criminal code, taxes, public health, etc.) and list it there. If more than one subject arguably applies we need just pick one to list it under and put an "Also see _____" link to the statute under the other applicable subject headings.

So no, I think this would be basically no more difficult then updating the Wiki (though I understand how much that can lag ).

FYI: Here's a link to the US Code's list of Titles:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/browse.html

And here's a list of 5 additional proposed titles (which I include here as at least 3 of the 5--especially "Voting and Elections"--are highly relevent to Atlasia).
http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml

[bgwah]

It seems a little more complicated than necessary for our purposes...

[Bacon King]

Badger, do you want to offer an amendment or anything?

[Badger]

Badger, do you want to offer an amendment or anything?

Give me 24 hours to decide?

[Bacon King]

Sure.

[Badger]

Thought about it. Not at this time, thank you. Probably better left for other legislation or maybe even the ConCon.

I thank the Senate for its patience.

[Bacon King]

Alright. If you do flesh out your ideas more I'd gladly bring them up for you at the ConCon- feel free to PM me if you want


Senators, this bill is now at final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[Bacon King]

Aye

[Badger]

AYE.

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[bgwah]

aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Aye

[Franzl]

Aye

[bullmoose88]

Aye

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.