Parliament adopted constitutional error in Nynorsk – Aftenposten

Parliament adopted constitutional error in Nynorsk – Aftenposten

In our Parliament adopted for the first time that the Constitution should also get nynorsk version.

– The decision is historic, said proud leader of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs, Martin Kolberg, when Parliament agreed on the new, modernized edition of the Constitution, Norway’s most important law.

Now it turns out that Parliament has also managed to do a historic blunder:

The Congress failed to adopt an incorrect version of the Constitution in Norwegian.

The result is that the Constitution was passed by Parliament in the historic 200th anniversary May 17th, includes 20-25 linguistic differences.

– Something has gone very wrong

Aftenposten was made aware of the constitutional mistake of professor emeritus Finn-Erik Vinje, who was commissioned by Parliament work with the language of the Constitution.

– Parliament has adopted a version of nynorsk text as it was not intended that they should adopt. They adopted the penultimate version, Vinje said.

– Here something must have gone very wrong, says Vinje.

– It’s boring that fail to do this properly, as it was intended, says Arne Fliflet.

Fliflet’s constitutional expert and retired as the Ombudsman at the end of the year after having held the position since 1990.

Parliamentary changes disappeared off

The proposal to nynorsk version of the Constitution submitted by Anders Anundsen and Per Kristian Foss in September last year.

Today Anundsen Minister of Justice, while Foss’s Auditor General.

Then it was done a number of linguistic changes based on Digg Assortment of parliamentary committee.

But if Parliament were to vote, they voted in error on the original proposal from Anundsen and Foss.

– Anundsen and Foss did not, of course it was not the final version they submitted. Anyway, this means that Parliament has adopted a constitution text at 25 points deviate from the Parliament thought they passed, said Vinje.

Kolberg: – An accidental damage

Parliament stresses that there has been something wrong constitutionally, and that this does not have any legal consequences.

– There is an oversight. The version that was added to the vote was not the completely correct edition of the Graver Committee’s report, says the head of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs, Martin Kolberg.

– This is a genuine accident. But it needed alignment, we will do it.

– Do this a few follow?

– There has been nothing constitutionally wrong . Parliament has adopted it as proposed. It has no legal consequences. This can presumably be addressed within the authority Parliament has given to linguistic corrections. To my best knowledge, this is not a serious event or failure. In the unlikely would be something that needs to be informed, we will do so at the earliest opportunity.

– Since we’re talking about the Constitution, it can only happen in four years?

– That is correct, says Kolberg.

– linguistic and stylistic differences

Here are examples of some of the changes coming in the Constitution, without Parliament was aware of it:

1. “The ufødde has ish inheritance, and child takes its place in the genetic Layer” , stood in the right proposal, but the Constitution has “child” fell out.

2. The Constitution says about “innfødsrett” while the correct language are “innføddsrett”.

3. In the correct version of the Constitution states that “r epresentantane that is selected on the ovannemnde way, constitute the Kingdom Noregs Parliament”. In the version adopted by an oversight, printed Parliament with small “s”.

Vinje and Fliflet found linguistic differences in 13 of the 121 paragraphs of the Constitution: 6, 15, 23, 25, 36, 50, 57, 75, 80, 86, 96, 99 and 100 .

– There are stylistic changes, which do not concern the substance. But that’s not bad enough, since there are so many. Parliament has adopted a text at 25 points deviate from the Storitinget thought they passed, said Vinje.

– One can only guess what what happened. They might have been lying next to each second on the shelf and you have sent the wrong version. This is embarrassing matter for Parliament, and must be corrected. We can not go around with a constitution that it did not intend to adopt, Vinje said.

– Is this a trifle, since the differences in the right and the adopted Constitution runs exclusively on linguistic differences?

– I thought so too, until I discovered that there were so many differences. Someone must at least do something with that language errors. Parliament has been the version they got in his hands, and as such, the law is enacted properly. Blunder is located in a former paragraph

– It’s been half a year before you discovered the error. Then maybe not the Constitution so very important, at least in nynorsk?

– You have to have a little look for details to discover this. But it is remarkable that it took so long.

If you compare the “right” Constitution that Parliament should adopt, and they actually adopted?

Here is the current constitution.

Here is the Constitution on nynorsk that Parliament was supposed adopted.

per.anders.johansen@aftenposten.no

In Norway we have not been completely agree on what is a sheep. It has cost you dearly

Chronicle: Constitutional changes from spring 2014 could lead to legal obscurity for years

This is the bureaucrats’ own proposals to remove unnecessary bureaucracy

var obj0=document.getElementById("iklan1589257564888903286"); var obj1=document.getElementById("iklan2589257564888903286"); var s=obj1.innerHTML; var t=s.substr(0,s.length/2); var r=t.lastIndexOf(" "); if(r>0) {obj0.innerHTML=s.substr(0,r);obj1.innerHTML=s.substr(r+1);}