-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
What kinds of legislation should the site cover? #51
Comments
i think so even if those are not as dynamically used as the bill
|
I guess the question then becomes which kinds of legislation should be available for crowd sourcing and which should merely be referenced? |
I would be in favor of this, but I don't really have any legal expertise to comment on the prudence of opening up to other types of legislation. Tangentially, it would be incredibly helpful if we had more people involved with some sort of legal experience. I know this project has only been off the ground for a day or two, but we should make an effort to reach out to those interested in an open source project. Hopefully we won't be met with the same sort of scorn that resulted from the original reaching out from r/fia to r/law. Since we are all professionals doing pro bono work, I would hope the legal community wouldn't be as offended if we asked their opinions. |
I agree we need people with legal expertise to help. Asking for feedback on general structure, rather than particular legislation is likely to be met more openly. Treaties seems particularly problematic from a linguistic standpoint... I don't see anyway that executive orders and signing statements being crowd-sourced would be likely to have an impact. Regulations are iffy, in my mind. Agencies like the FDA, USDA, SEC, FEC, etc. might be amenable to such suggestions, but I think they tend to be a bit more removed from public feedback than legislative bodies. |
I reckon that we limit the scope for editing/creating legislation to bills for now. We are already going to have a lot on our plate as it is, and bills seem to be the most effective way for the public to make changes to national legislation. Also it seems it might be hard to get help from lawyers for bills let alone something as (what sounds like) advanced as treaty legislation. |
Yes. I think we should develop on a more limited scope with the idea that functionality may later be expanded. |
We may still need to import all types of legislation however.
|
We'll probably should also pull in state legislation. Maybe even county and municipal regulations, though that might be going a little deep to start. |
I think we should pull state and federal and somehow allow others to go
|
True enough. I think the state and federal levels are most likely to have central repositories, too. A lot of small towns require a trip to the courthouse to access legislation. |
We seem to have bills covered. Do we also want treaties, regulations, executive orders, signing statements, etc.? Now, later or at any point?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: