Yet Another Constitution Proposal

Gulliver

Gulliver

TNPer
I feel obligated to chip in my own proposal, since I've had it floating around for such a long time and hate to waste such things. For consensus's sake, it's mostly the same system we have now, just written more tersely and clearly. For your consideration:

Article 1. Bill of Rights

1. All nations are afforded the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.


Article 2. The Delegate

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of the North Pacific.
2. The Delegate will hold the in-game position of delegate and vote on World Assembly resolutions as determined by law.
3. The Delegate will be Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Their ability to conduct war may be regulated by law.
4. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. The Regional Assembly may ratify such treaties by a three-fifths majority vote.
5. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to amend the laws within one week of its passage. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a three-fifths majority vote.
6. The Delegate may appoint a Cabinet of ministers to assist them and may dismiss these ministers freely. The ministries of the Cabinet may be regulated by law.
7. An election for Delegate will be held if four months have passed since the most recent one or the office of Delegate is vacant. The Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote.
8. No person may serve more than two consecutive terms as Delegate.


Article 3. The Regional Assembly

1. Requirements for membership in the Regional Assembly will be determined by law.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the laws by a majority vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may remove a government official from office by a two-thirds majority vote.
4. The quorum for any vote of the Regional Assembly except elections will be a third of its membership.
5. The Regional Assembly will decide its own internal procedures by a majority vote and will elect a Speaker to administer them. Where no procedures exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
6. An election for Speaker will be held if four months have passed since the most recent one or the office is vacant. The Speaker will be elected by a majority vote.


Article 4. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal and civil cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and try the constitutionality of laws or government policies.
2. The Court will consist of a Chief Justice and two associate justices.
3. The procedures of the Court will be determined by law and will be administered by the Chief Justice. Where no pertinent procedure exists, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
4. An election for a certain justice will be held if six months have passed since the most recent one or the office of is vacant. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote.
6. New cases will be tried by a single justice. If they rule for the prosecution, the defendant may appeal the case to a trial before all three justices.


Article 5. The Security Council

1. The Security Council will be composed of Regional Assembly members with at least Vassal Influence and who meet any requirements determined by law.
2. Any Regional Assembly member who meets the requirements may apply to become a member of the Security Council. The Regional Assembly may accept such applicants by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. After an election for Delegate, the Regional Assembly will decide a line of succession beyond the Vice Delegate from among the members of the Security Council by a majority vote.
4. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members.
5. The Security Council will monitor the region’s security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.
6. An election for Vice Delegate will be held if four months have passed since the most recent election or the office is vacant.
7. If the Delegate is removed or unable to serve, the Vice Delegate will assume duties of the Delegate. If the Vice Delegate is also unable to serve, the first available person on the line of succession will assume the duties of the Delegate.


Article 6. Qualifications of Office

1. No person who has not been a member of the Regional Assembly for at least fifteen days may hold government office.
2. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.


Article 7. Constitutional Supremacy

1. No law or government policy may contradict this Constitution.


Article 8. Separation of Powers

1. No person serving as Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker or Justice may hold any other office other than member of the Security Council.


Article 9. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution by a two-thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...
There are several notes I'd like to include. First, I personally wanted to include the Bill of Rights in the Constitution itself, as well as strengthen it and simplify the language, but didn't want to stir needless controversy. I would be pleasantly surprised, however, to find that people support this idea, in which case I'd modify the proposal to do just that.

Secondly, when Eluvatar kindly reviewed this draft for me, he inserted the clauses which were recently put into our current Constitution, defining the role of abstentions, what a majority is and what kinds of majorities there are, which were made necessary because of the Court ruling saying that all majorities had to be absolute and abstains functioned as nays, even for legislation, despite the fact that the Constitution didn't even explicitly require a majority for legislation, let alone an absolute one.

I, however, really, really don't like that that ruling and the amendments that it made necessary, and just couldn't bring myself to include them on the initial draft. Being forced to include cumbersome definitions of procedural minutia and everyday words in the Constitution is what we're trying to stop doing after all. My hope is that if it ever came up again the Court would interpret this constitution more practically and literally, but if people feel the clauses are really necessary I'll grudging include them.

Thirdly, a minor point, I put three-fifths majority where the current constitution calls for them and put two-thirds for amendments, but my personal preference is just to have one super-majority threshold and use two-thirds across the board, especially since they're so close anyway. I won't really mind if there's two instead, but I feel I should raise the point just in case people turn out to agree.
 
Huzzah!

I don't really care much about the 3/5 majority cases, but if the constitution takes 2/3 to amend, a 2/3 majority for a bunch of things gets kind of silly.

I don't think that we can just pass and hope. A future court may, if it likes, ignore all precedent and all context to go for whatever 'literalist' interpretation.

I'd prefer not to mess around with the bill of rights right now. We can do that afterward.

A separate thing, reviewing this, I'd rather not too much put separation of powers on the Vice Delegate. I'd like them to be able to serve as a Minister.
 
I like it.

Wonder if "maintaining RA membership" should be added to qualifications for office, so we can automatically remove people who are removed from the RA and/or CTE?
 
So long as the activity requirements aren't so retarded that they end up removing active and participating members of the forums from the roles like the current ones do, I see no issue with what HC has suggested.
 
I would agree that the 3/5ths majority should be replaced, with an across the board 2/3rds majority vote.

In regards to the Separation of powers, i'm not so sure. I feel that the Delegate should be able to appoint himself or the vice delegate as a minister should he wish to. Obviously they should not be allowed to serve on the court, but as cabinet is largely part of the executive, I don't see why they should be prevented from serving in cabinet.

In regards to what HC said, that we automatically remove members from their positions if RA membership lapses. Would this include the Delegate? Because if that is the case, BW would have automatically been removed in the last term.

Furthermore, are people interested in a semi-presidential system Eluvatar suggested?

And what do we think of a confirmation vote, mid-term of the 4 months, to allow the government to continue?
 
I agree with mcmasterdonia concerning the majority requirements.

Something also needs to be done concerning the usual situation where inactivity prevents change.
 
One problem I see if not fixing the requirement for R.A. membership while in office.
I see a few places where "may" is not the right or best word to use and "must" would be much better (such as treaty approval).

This also puts us on a path of unpredictable election cycles the way this is drafted. We could end up always having an mandated elected for one office or another, and I doubt that would be a good idea.

And I agree with Eluvatar about clearly stating and defining voting procedures. The more general and vague some provisions are, the more widely you'll be leaving it up to a Court de jour to change its view on a whim. We've seen this with abstentions, where different Court have adopted three totally different views on the topic in the past three years or so, and creating chaos every time.

And rather than create an inference that the Bill of Rights has equal force to the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights has managed to function without any real changes under three different Constitutions, and my preference is that it should just be left alone. It ain't broke, and it don't need to be "fixed."
 
I will confess that the argument in favor of a consistent calendar of elections myself, with special elections to fill out a term rather than begin a new one, strikes a chord with me.

What do you think, Gulliver?
 
Haor Chall:
Wonder if "maintaining RA membership" should be added to qualifications for office, so we can automatically remove people who are removed from the RA and/or CTE?
Click to expand...
I had considered this actually, wasn't sure what people's opinions were. After all if this had been in force BW would have been removed from office. Of course as BW then points out this wouldn't have been a problem if the requirements for RA membership weren't so strict, which is something I also hope to change. I would like to add it, and will if people want it.

McMasterdonia:
Furthermore, are people interested in a semi-presidential system Eluvatar suggested?
Click to expand...
I'd want it if the Delegate had a really long term so that there could still be real changes in the meantime without imperiling security. As things stand now I don't think it's necessary, and the poll Eluvatar ran last I checked seemed to indicate people want a presidential system.

McMasterdonia:
And what do we think of a confirmation vote, mid-term of the 4 months, to allow the government to continue?
Click to expand...
I think it makes more sense just to hold an election to confirm whether or not people want someone to remain in office. If they do get removed, there's going to have to be one anyway.

Grosseschnauzer:
This also puts us on a path of unpredictable election cycles the way this is drafted. We could end up always having an mandated elected for one office or another, and I doubt that would be a good idea.
Click to expand...
That is possible right now if people quit different offices in a short period of time, forcing special elections. And if they quit close to a normally scheduled election, then you need to have a whole new string of elections right after that. Of course, after those normal elections the calendar would be forcibly reset, whereas my proposal would have rolling elections after that. But then again, it's not like there's that many elected offices so it wouldn't exactly be a tidal wave of elections.

All that self-argument said, while my gut preference right now is for letting people elected to replace someone who quit early serve a full term, I don't feel strongly about this and would be fine with fixed election dates if people want them.
 
Could you leave it to the legal code?

Perhaps specify that a new election must be held no longer than X amount of time after an official is elected?
 
You know, the way to solve the special election issue if a minister quits, etc.,, is to simply permit the Delegate to appoint an interim replacement to fill out the rest of term if less than 50% of the term remains.
 
I suspect that people wouldn't like the Delegate to appoint a Speaker to serve out the term.

It could be done to simply have the Vice Delegate serve out the Delegate's term in case of absence of Delegate, however.
 
I think the Vice-Delegate serving out the rest of the Delegates term, could work in theory. Though I think it could and would be more legitimate if they were elected on a join-ticket.

I think having regular elections would be better, as I said. 3 month terms, maximum term for Delegate 9 months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top