> [Apologia]: In an ideal world, the legislature would not be filled with lawyers and non-technical people, but technical expertise does not confer an understanding of how to adapt legislation to that field of expertise. Instead experience has shown that political philosophers and lawyers, when brought up to speed with the technical particulars, can more readily fit those particulars into their political philosophy's model. Obviously the ideal politician is one who is both knowledgeable about law, economics and philosophy; and about the particular technical field s/he is attempting to legislate -- i.e, a technically experienced politician. However, since the norm is likely to be that non-technical politicians will be attempting to govern things they generally do not understand, the technical consultation is intended to bring them up to speed.
Before any nominated `issue` is judged for recognition, or before any bill which references an `issue on record` is considered by the legislature, the judging/voting members for the particular nominated `issue` or bill being considered before the legislature, shall be educated on the relevant technical details concerning the industry/issue under consideration by consultant experts, renowned in the field, both from academia and industry.
> [Apologia]: There was a strong desire to give the industry consultants a greater weight in representation on the consultation panels, but as long as the government is not allowed to subsidize academia, there should be no reason to believe that academia will become a stronghold of anti-individualist ideology. It is up to the `WS` residents then, to ensure that they do not allow the government to subsidize schooling/academia. The claimable tax discounts on schooling specified elsewhere in this constitution should already go a long way toward ensuring an abundant supply of schooling so no politician should be able to make an argument that government subsidies are required to meet the demand for schooling/education.
Congress shall not have the power to proceed to judge the bill/nominated `issue` until the consultants are satisfied that 90% of the politicians judging the bill/nominated `issue` understand the specific scope and challenges comprising the `issue`. The consultants shall agree among themselves to prepare an exam or assessment or some other transparent, open criteria for determining whether or not the relevant politicians understand the `issue`. The consultants shall **not** weigh in on whether or not they *approve* of the policy solution to the technical issue and their syllabus and assessment criteria shall be confined to technical details, bearing in mind always that the consultants were **not** elected.
Should congress push legislation without consultation or without passing the consultant assessment, a cause of action at law, "*Rash and Incompetent Legislation*" shall avail itself to the people through the courts, **even if** the bill is not unconstitutional, and upon judgment proceeding against congress, the bill shall be unenforceable and stricken from the body of legislation; but no politician shall be outlawed, since the bill was not *unconstitutional*, but merely hastily passed.
The steps here were crafted both to discourage ambitious politicians from using the legislative process to build a career by passing unjustifiable laws as well as to incentivize individualist legislation. Bills should address well defined issues. Issues should not be addressed by legislation unless their nature requires a legislative answer.
When a new bill is to be crafted to address some issue, the `issue` must be one that was recognized through the nomination process. No bill may be passed into law unless it references an `issue on record`. Bills which do not address an `issue on record` shall be unceremoniously thrown out.
Logically distinct `issues` must be defined and nominated separately. `Issues` must be well defined in scope, and must clearly define the exact private property or co-ordination problem they describe. Congress may not proceed until the `issue` itself is clearly defined. When a new `issue` is defined and nominated, a Technical Consultation panel shall be assembled and commissioned to educate the legislature. The final vote/judgment to determine whether or not the nominated `issue` is recognized and entered into the `Record of issues` shall not occur until the legislature passes the consultation assessment criteria.
After the legislature passes the consultation assessment criteria, they may begin debating and considering the `issue` on its merits, and may proceed, after considering the nominated `issue` on its merits, to judge/vote on its recognition. It is intentional that the question of whether or not the subject of the nominated `issue` even constitutes a problem, will be central to the debate. A nominated `issue` may appear to be a problem, but upon closer examination show itself to be a non-issue, or it may already be addressed by some existing law or private sector mechanism.
#### Ensuring that politicians are kept up to date on the issues they govern.
When a new bill is tabled before the legislature to address some `issue on record`, if the legislature has not taken technical consultation on that `issue` within the last 6 years, they **shall** be made to go through a new technical consultation process for that `issue` again, and to pass new consultation assessment criteria again in order to ensure that their understanding of the industry or technology they are attempting to govern, is current.
A bill may only be submitted to Congress if it references an `issue on record`, and explains how it plans to address that `issue on record`. Any law which is passed as a solution to an `issue on record` may be challenged at any time by a new bill. Only one act may control any `issue on record` at any given time.
When multiple bills contend in congress as solutions to the same referenced `issue on record`, the winning bill shall be that bill which preserves freedom the most, measured in the amount of redistribution, the amount of govt spending and the number of controls on movement, labour, thought, action and expression.
#### Reward to incentivize liberty-preserving legislation:
For the first bill passed to address an `issue on record`: The difference per annum between the least and most free of the competing bills, quantified monetarily, shall be awarded to the drafters, co-sponsors and voting adopters of the bill. Unconstitutional bills shall not be considered in the calculation, and they are subject to the normal outlawing process.
For a bill which replaces the current bill for a particular `issue on record`: When an existing law is replaced, an award of the same kind shall be granted to the new law's drafters, co-sponsors and voting adopters, with the difference calculated between the old law and the new.
The old block of awardees shall not lose their award. Any awardees who are sponsors of both the old and new bill shall retain the higher of the two awards only.
