2.1, 2.3, and 2.4: These are duplications of the Concordat and the Standing Orders of the Conclave and so are unnecessary.
2.5: This is assumed in our legal system. I see it as also unnecessary but if we want it written, it would be preferable to amend the Criminal Liability Act for this.
2.2: I disagree with this very strongly. The legal systems of other regions are distinct. We should use nothing in law except our own laws, precedents, and principles and logic.
fair enough, section 2nuked
Aside from formatting, nothing from me. I support.
What’s wrong with the formatting twt
The formatting bill requests Magisters use a separate citation and definition section. I’m not bothered since I want to go through the laws and reformat them all soon anyway.
oh, ill fix it soon then oop
formatting hopefully fixed
I’ve looked over the formatting. It’s fine.
Seems as if nothing else is necessary. Could you motion to vote?
I motion the Concordat amendment to vote, and only the amendment.
I plan to motion the Conclave Act to vote later, solely because I’m unsure of the legality of some proceedural things that would be nessecary to motion both together.
Thus, I strongly suggest Magisters who do not support the Conclave Act in any iteration (i.e. you dislike it and nothing I can say or feedback you suggest would fix anything) to vote against the Concordat amendment.
I mean, I get the people most likely to support the Conk amendment but be against the Conclave Act will probably believe the Conclave should have this broad power. But I urge y’all to remember that the Conclave is ultimately an easily stackable branch, and we shouldn’t endeavor to give it extremely far-reaching powers without some restraints.
second
Seconded Concordat amendment.