NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: I've put in links to all the relevant resolutions involved. This is a convoluted issue though. Basically, R17 was meant to provide basic healthcare, R20 modified it, R102 repealed R17, and R20 was left on the books for... nothing really. As a matter of fact, it's one of the few resolutions that literally does nothing. My hope is that we get it out for the mere fact that we should keep the books neat.

IC: I trust in the United Nations to do what is right, so I come to you today with a piece of legislation that should pass for the very fact that we hold ourselves to a higher standard of lawmaking. Let's not leave years old laws on the book that mean nothing. Lets stand up and be intelligent. I trust you guys!

Whereas the United Nations is committed to effective legislation.

Understanding that Resolution 20 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029623&postcount=21) was an administrative move in the early days of the UN.

Noting that Resolution 17 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029615&postcount=18) was repealed by Resolution 102 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8873901&postcount=103).

Further noting that Resolution 20 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029623&postcount=21) relied heavily upon that repealed document to outline it's intentions.

Accepting that the repeal of this piece of legislation will in no way affect healthcare.

Hereby repeals Resolution 20 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029623&postcount=21).

OOC: That is my draft for my current repeal, I would like to hear any and all comments on how to improve the draft, if I don't receive to many comments I will be submitting at the first of the year.

Erm...

Links can't be in proposals.



Someone else will point out other flaws

Why 'regret' that #17 was repealed? It was crap. And even us beastly nanny-welfare-state one-worlders in Quintessence of Dust don't think its provisions can reasonably be forced upon all nations.

In fact, I'm still not sure you understand. #20 was a repeal: it's just repeals weren't a technical possibility at that point. 't's [i][sic] intentions' were to repeal #17, so it's understandable it would rely on it a lot.

And you spelled 'intelligent' wrongly.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Erm...

Links can't be in proposals.



Someone else will point out other flaws

I think he's put them there as a reference for drafting. So whoever reads over it can like to the proposals without having to search for them.

Yeah Zarq, thanks for the clarification.

QoD I do indeed understand what this was meant as a replacement without a repeal.

The regret line, is in understanding that sadly, this piece of legislation means nothing with R17 repealed. If I need to change it, I can.

"The repeal itself noted that R17 would still be used as a reference document and not to be enforced. The whole justification of the repeal is that new people might be confused. So R20 does act as a useful resolution...it goes and URGES the idea of universal health care. It's not a good blocker that works, so it can be seen as useless, but R20 still has a point."
--Dr. Bob.

We believe that the honoured author has carelessly omitted the phrase, "Observing that Resolution 20 does no more than wring its hands ineffectually at social injustice..." This would be one of the remarkably few repeal attempts that we would be strongly tempted to support no matter the arguments given, since in the name of not placing an unbearable burden on member nations, 'RBH' Replacement instead places no burden upon them at all.

Original post edited with my current version, submitted!

It reads like an episode of "Sesame Street." "This episode is brought to you by the number 17 ... and the number 20." We know what the resolutions are, but without naming them, it's just a bunch of numbers, and I doubt the rank and file will be bothered to find out their significance on their own. The argument by itself is rather weak. You should probably take Gobby's advice and add one or two clauses about the ineffectiveness of the resolution itself. I would also advise you not to campaign for this repeal just yet, even though it's already been submitted. Submit again when you have crafted an argument that works. This doesn't.

I'll have to see how it rolls at this point, if it fails I'll start working on it again.

Telegrams are already sent.

For what it's worth, 'its' should have no apostrophe.

That caught my eye like 5 times in drafting but I ignored it(why is beyond me).

Oh well, thanks.

FYI, this needs a mere 12 approvals before making it to the floor.

Voting Ends: Thu Jan 3 2008 (even I can't tell you what time of day, though)

Just got home, oughta be soon. I don't think it'll make it, even though it's only got to get 7 more. I've got a new version, but I wouldn't mind if this made it to vote.

I think it'll go at the 2am (EST) update, that gives you about fifty minutes.

EDIT: Here's the approval list as of 2am last night.

Approvals: 104 (Iron Felix, WZ Forums, Extremation, Vom53, The Seventh Realm, Ruritania, Niatland, NewTexas, Nevadar, Onding, The Earthen People, Niveus Vesica, GodKing I, Flibbleites, Something orOther, Midbar, Compulsoria, Homieville, Nurdia, Waggi, Spaz Land, Belisaurius, Letonija, Aleeworld, Graalium, Crados, The Voltarum, Sci, Agent Death and Blu, Meg Meg, Yshurak, Mottzealand, Upper Urs, Hisnot3, Esselldee, Leroyal, Phthisis, Neo Ozia, Invicible Burninator, Used by Former Nation, Njeering, COMUNI, Audland, Caer Bannogg, Shorak, Jedi States, DHaran Islands, Slacktonovich, Tyrantstan, Great Atlantea, Peso_lover, Tinapolis, Ellenburg, Gallantaria, Leocardia, Avda, TheGreatHarmon, South Thasland, Hades359, TheDeadEye, Krankor, New Alboria, Warbler and Pecker, Hollowmenphobia, Jason-shire, Labaigo, Project Quantum Leap, Jey, Paleotopia, Slices Right, Hamiltana, Sanguinis Lands, Linnosa, Wee Free peeps, Servojsek, Verliluc, Praeland, The Southern Acre, Aurania-Shifre, Satansylvania, Ithania, Sancte Michael, Kentischerburg, Herrebrugh, Worldia555, Cool Hippies, Anglo Germany, Charlotte Ryberg, Keelon, Vaantage, Great British Islands, Khalnar, Tarmsden, Mallatarsland, Skenderbeg, Major Buds, Wonder Land City, Queskellye, Gates of Fire, Eleytheria-Duo, Wicked229, Colonial Timocria, Disillusioned Peoples, Kungpaomao)

I see you've already resubmitted (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=replacement), without waiting for suggestions from your peers. It's better than it was, and makes several good points, but fails to "connect" them in an overarching case against the resolution.

You've already picked up a good amount of approvals, which suggests you're telegramming. I know you're enthusiastic about getting a proposal passed with your name on it, but next time, try a little patience. Wait for suggestions for improvement before jumping the gun. The legislative process doesn't happen overnight here, not even on easy repeals.

That said, if this reaches quorum, I'll probably vote for it.

I do tend to do things quickly, I got all my telegrams off both times a few hours after submitting. Now I'm just going to have to watch.

I made my changes based on what was said here(and elsewhere, and in replies to my original telegram campaign), I assumed that if there was more needing a change, I'd have more comments while this was underway the last time.

That's not a safe assumption. All the same, we congratulate you on reaching quorum, and are in slightly disturbed awe at the completion of your telegram campaign only a few hours after submission.