Formal Constitutional Draft

[Gulliver]

The poll has now concluded, and Proposal 2 has been picked as the initial draft to work from. Here is the proposal (and now associated omnibus) as it currently stands:

Spoiler: Omnibus

1. The Constitution will be amended in its entirety as follows:

In order to guide The North Pacific in its practice of democratic governance, we the nations of The North Pacific establish this constitution.

Article 1. Bill of Rights

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


Article 2. The Regional Assembly

1. Requirements for membership in the Regional Assembly will be determined by law.
2. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal 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 elect a Speaker every four months by a plurality vote.
6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
7. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes.


Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
4. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote.
5. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive offices may be regulated by law.
6. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
7. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds the Vice Delegate’s endorsement count.
8. If the Delegate is removed or unable to serve, the Vice Delegate will assume the duties of the Delegate. If the Vice Delegate is also unable to serve, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the Delegate.
9. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person may serve more than two consecutive terms as Delegate.


Article 4. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal and civil cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or government policies.
2. The Court will consist of a Chief Justice and at least two associate justices.
3. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
4. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
5. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a plurality vote every four months.


Article 5. The Security Council

1. Any person who is a member of the Regional Assembly and meets any endorsement and influence requirements determined by law may apply to become a member of the Security Council.
2. The Regional Assembly may exempt a person from Regional Assembly membership or any requirements by a two-thirds majority vote, and may terminate an exemption by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
4. 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.
5. The Regional Assembly may establish a line of succession beyond the Vice Delegate among the members of the Security Council by a majority vote. If a new member is admitted to the Security Council, they will be added at the end of the current line of succession. If a member is removed from the Security Council, they will be removed from the line of succession.


Article 6. General Provisions

1. All government officials must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly. Candidates in any election must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly for the fifteen days before the opening of nominations.
2. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
3. No person may simultaneously hold more than one elected office or simultaneously hold offices in more than one judicial, legislative or executive category.
4. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
5. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.
6. Procedures to fill vacancies in elected offices may be established by law.


Article 7. The Regional Forum

1. The Regional Forum will be located at http://s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/.
2. Violation of forum Terms Of Service and moderation policies will be the responsibility of forum administration.


Article 8. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters majority vote.

2. Clause 8 of the Bill of Rights will be amended as follows:

No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security, they may order the ejection or banning of the nation. the Any ejected or banned Nnation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The WA Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to this Constitution or to the Legal Code.

3. All instances of "this Constitution" in the Bill of Rights will be replaced with "the Constitution".

4. Chapter 4, clause 8 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:

8. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it . An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice. Vacancies are filled through a special election unless a it cannot be completed prior to the beginning of the general or judicial appropriate scheduled election cycle. Pending an election, however, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this the Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.

5. Chapter 4, clause 15 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:

15. The election cycle for the 6-month terms of the Chief Justice, the two Associate Justices, and the Attorney General will begin on the first days of the months of April and October March, July, and November.

6. The current Judicial term will be extended to 7 months to transition to the new schedule. This clause will have constitutional force but will not be recorded as part of the Constitution.

7. The following is adopted as section 6.6 of the Legal Code:

Section 6.6: Ejections and Bannings
31. The Delegate may eject or ban violators of NationStates rules.
32. The Delegate may eject or ban nations for which the Court has issued an indictment permitting it.
33. The Delegate will eject or ban nations that have been so sentenced by the Court.
34. The Delegate will promptly inform the region and Government of all ejections and bannings.

8. Rule 3 of the Regional Assembly will be repealed in its entirety.

9. No part of this proposal will take effect unless all other parts do as well.

Spoiler: Version 4

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 two-thirds 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 two-thirds 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. The Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months.
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 will elect a Speaker to administer its procedures. Where no procedures exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
6. The Speaker will be elected by a majority plurality vote every four months.
7. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes.

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 at least two associate justices.
3. The Chief Justice will administer the procedures of the Court. Where no pertinent procedure exists, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
4. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority plurality vote every six four months.
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 endorsement and influence 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 exempt applicants from Regional Assembly membership requirements by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. The Security Council may accept such applicants by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not accept an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may force the acceptance of such an applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
4. After an election for Delegate, tThe Regional Assembly will may decide a line of succession beyond the Vice Delegate from among the members of the Security Council by a majority vote. If a new member is admitted to the Security Council, they will be added at the end of the current line of succession. If a member is removed from the Security Council, they will be removed from the line of succession.
5. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members.
6. 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.
7. The Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months.
8. 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.
3. All government officials must maintain their membership in the Regional Assembly.


Article 7. Constitutional Supremacy

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


Article 8. Separation of Powers

1. No person may simultaneously hold more than one elected office.
2. No person may simultaneously hold a judicial, legislative or executive office.


Article 9. Other Provisions

1. If an elected office is vacant and there are more than two weeks until the end of its term, a special election for it will be held.
2. Government bodies may create procedures for their own governance.


Article 10. Regional Forum

1. The Regional Forum will be located at http://s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/.
2. Violation of forum Terms Of Service and moderation policies will be the responsibility of forum administration.


Article 11. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters majority vote.

Spoiler: Version 3

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 two-thirds 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 two-thirds 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. The Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months.
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 its procedures. Where no procedures exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
6. The Speaker will be elected by a majority vote every four months.
7. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes.

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 The Chief Justice will be administered by the Chief Justice the procedures of the Court. Where no pertinent procedure exists, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
4. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every six months.
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 exempt applicants from Regional Assembly membership requirements by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. The Security Council may accept such applicants by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not accept an applicant, Tthe Regional Assembly may force the acceptance of such an applicants by a two-thirds majority vote.
3 4. 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 5. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members.
5 6. 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 7. The Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months.
7 8. 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.
3. All government officials must maintain their membership in the Regional Assembly.


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.
1. No person may simultaneously hold more than one elected office.
2. No person may simultaneously hold a judicial, legislative or executive office.


Article 9. Special Elections Other Provisions

1. If an elected office is vacant and there are more than two weeks until the end of its term, a special election for it will be held.
2. Government bodies may create procedures for their own governance.


Article 10. Regional Forum

1. The Regional Forum will be located at http://s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/.
2. Violation of forum Terms Of Service and moderation policies will be the responsibility of forum administration.


Article 11. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters majority vote.

Spoiler: Version 2

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 two-thirds 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 two-thirds 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 every four months.
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 every four months.
7. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes.

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 every six months.
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. The Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months.
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. Special Elections

1. If an elected office is vacant and there are more than two weeks until the end of its term, a special election for it will be held.


Article 10. Regional Forum

1. The Regional Forum will be located at http://s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/.


Article 9 11. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters majority vote.

Spoiler: Version 1

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.

I will edit this post as the proposal is altered and amended up until a final version is settled on.

As stated before, proposals which are minor tweaks or have obvious widespread support will be included immediately. Things which are more ambiguous will be decided by a poll.

Anyway, let's get started.

 

[Gulliver]

I've gone ahead and taken the liberty of starting polls on a few issues that came up when this draft was first proposed, here and here.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I believe we've already had the discussion about including the essential rules for the RA concerning quorum, abstentions, and defining the required majorities. The language in this draft as it current reads neutralizes all of that even though the majority has clearly said they want it in the Constitution so as to permanently end the debate and the Court's flip-flops on the matter.

 

[Eluvatar]

Perhaps:

5. Abstentions will not count against the result of a vote in the Regional Assembly and will count only toward a quorum.

Or similar?

 

[Gulliver]

I'm willing to include it if necessary, though I suspect the language can be made a bit more compact.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Perhaps:

5. Abstentions will not count against the result of a vote in the Regional Assembly and will count only toward a quorum.

Or similar?

Unfortunatey the Gulliver draft doesn't appear to even recognize the power to adopt rules and that is unfortunate.
I'd consider a new chapter in the Legal Code carrying forward the provisions from the current Constitution, but we'd still need something in the constitution to protect it from more judicial abuse.
As to your choice of language, "will not count against implies it could be counted for a result, which opens the door to judicial abuse.
Perhaps:

As to any abstention cast in the Regional Assembly, it shall not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes.

 

[Eluvatar]

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.

That seems like a power to adopt rules.

And your suggestion for abstentions works, and is reasonably concise. Thank you!

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

There's a topic that isn't even touched in this draft, and that the designation of the official forums, and with that, the broadest possible approval for any changes to the designation. (i.e., more than just the regional assembly, but the entire regional community beyond the members of the R.A.) There is neither any provision in the Constitution nor in the revamp of the Legal Code currently at vote.

I'm not sure why it's being left out so cavalierly; in the past three constitutions a specific constitutional provision was included on the point and a constitutionally precise statement on what level of approval would be required. I don't think just a law is sufficient or appropriate.

Second item is very simple The Bill of Rights is separate from the Constitution and there should be a clear additional sentence on amendment (and it should be more difficult that the Constitution to amend, say, three-fourths.

 

[Gulliver]

As to any abstention cast in the Regional Assembly, it shall not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes.

This works, though I'd pare it down a bit more to:

Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and other purposes

I'm wondering if the "cast in the Regional Assembly" part is necessary, or would be sufficiently implied by the clause being in the article on the Regional Assembly. I don't mind if it stays, but if we feel it needs to be stated specifically, then do we need to also touch on the issue of abstentions in elections?

There's a topic that isn't even touched in this draft, and that the designation of the official forums.

I would have no objection to adding an article which addresses this. I left it just because I was limiting myself to the bare-bone basics.

Second item is very simple The Bill of Rights is separate from the Constitution and there should be a clear additional sentence on amendment (and it should be more difficult that the Constitution to amend, say, three-fourths.

I realized that I'd forgotten to include the Bill of Rights in the amendment section, and was going to say I should put it in, but I didn't want triple post at the time. If there's no major objection, I'll add "Bill of Rights" into the line.

As to the necessary threshold to amend it, I have no issue with just keeping it as a 2/3's majority vote. That is what we currently use. If necessary I'll start a poll and if people want a separate threshold for the Bill of Rights then the amendments article can contain two clauses.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I think the Bill of Rights should be far more difficult to amend, partially because its not had any substantive change for three constitutions, now. I had some issues with it being in the same amendment clause before the approval fraction was changed from three-fourths to two-thirds, and with the constitution just changed to two-thirds, I think it needs to be changed back as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned. Had the goal of advancing a constitution in the near time frame not been there, I would have introduced an amendment by now to fix the issue in the current constitution.

As to the abstention clause, I do think "the one clause should be "all other" and not just "other," because of the way the Court has dealt with the topic. I want to slam the door shut on any more judicial machination on the subject.

 

[Romanoffia]

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.

A 3/5ths majority is a bit high of a bar for a legislative vote to over-ride a veto and would not be constructive to changing some of the problems we have in constitutional terms. A 3/5ths might be good for passing constitutional amendments over a veto, but not for general legislation. Such a high bar could backfire in the long run.

A better majority would be 2/3rds.

 

[peoples empire]

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.

A 3/5ths majority is a bit high of a bar for a legislative vote to over-ride a veto and would not be constructive to changing some of the problems we have in constitutional terms. A 3/5ths might be good for passing constitutional amendments over a veto, but not for general legislation. Such a high bar could backfire in the long run.

A better majority would be 2/3rds.

 

[Namyeknom]

If you‘re wanting to make it easier to overide a veto, a 2/3rds majority is harder to achieve than a 3/5ths one.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I will draft proposed language on the forums and on amendment of the Bill of Rights sometimes this weekend. With all the other stuff going on both here and elsewhere that I'm trying to take care of today, the weekend would be better for me to do that.

 

[Gulliver]

As to the abstention clause, I do think "the one clause should be "all other" and not just "other," because of the way the Court has dealt with the topic. I want to slam the door shut on any more judicial machination on the subject.

I see the point. Three extra letters is a worthy price to pay for absolute clarity. If there's no objection, I'll add my shortened version of the abstention clause with the "all" restored to the draft.

As for forums, what about:

The regional forum will be the s13 zetaboard “TNP” forum.

That was Eluvatar's original suggestion when he was drafting something. His also included an additional clause:

Forum rules must be followed, but arbitrary or capricious moderation is prohibited.

Do we also want this or something like it?

As for the Bill of Rights it seems to me it can be either be

The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters majority vote.

or

The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution or the Bill of Rights by a two-thirds majority vote.

depending on whether or not they use a single fraction or separate ones.

Actually, since we do need some way of amending the Bill of Rights, I'll stick in the second version, as per the current constitution, if no one objects and we can switch to the first version if we decide to restore a 3/4's majority.

 

[Romanoffia]

If you‘re wanting to make it easier to overide a veto, a 2/3rds majority is harder to achieve than a 3/5ths one.

By 6/100 of a percent.

There is a statistical reason why 2/3rds is better than 3/5ths and it involves deadlock votes, which is why 2/3rds is a consensus standard. I know, it's nit-picky, but that's just the way I am.

 

[Gulliver]

So you're saying you do want it to be harder to override a veto, not easier like you were saying before?

Also the 2/3's ratio is an additional 6.6 repeating percentage points higher, not .06.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Proposed article on the official offsite forum.

We need to use the traditional URL, as thenorthpacific.org is an overlay on the actual URL.

1. The official regional off-site forum shall be s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/.
2. Violation of forum host and moderation policies remain the responsibility of forum administration.

I changed "Terms of Service" from the current constitution language because when that was originally adopted Invisionfree only had Terms of Service. Zetaboards has both Terms of Service and Terms of Use and potentially other policies, and "forum host" is a shorter and more generic way of covering all of that,

Bill of Rights amendment process. Perhaps add it to Article I as a second sentence since it is a separate document from the Constitution?

As to the omission issue raised by Eluvatar in the current text of the Bill of Rights, there is nothing preventing the immediate use of the Legislative Corrections Act right now before the Legal Code revamp becomes law, which may make it harder to fix.

 

[Eluvatar]

Proposed article on the official offsite forum.

We need to use the traditional URL, as thenorthpacific.org is an overlay on the actual URL.

1. The official regional off-site forum shall be s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/.
2. Violation of forum host and moderation policies remain the responsibility of forum administration.

I changed "Terms of Service" from the current constitution language because when that was originally adopted Invisionfree only had Terms of Service. Zetaboards has both Terms of Service and Terms of Use and potentially other policies, and "forum host" is a shorter and more generic way of covering all of that,

Bill of Rights amendment process. Perhaps add it to Article I as a second sentence since it is a separate document from the Constitution?

As to the omission issue raised by Eluvatar in the current text of the Bill of Rights, there is nothing preventing the immediate use of the Legislative Corrections Act right now before the Legal Code revamp becomes law, which may make it harder to fix.

I don't think TNP Law 32 can be applied to the bill of rights.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Under its terms, Law 32 includes the Bill of Rights within the scope of "legal documents" subject to its provisions:

Legislation Correction Act

Upon the passage of this law, whenever legislation is enacted by the Regional Assembly, and due to possible oversight, that legislation fails to include a co-ordinated change in the legal documents governing The North Pacific, the following procedure may be used to incorporate any insubstantial change consistent with the enacted legislation:

A. Any member of the Regional Assembly may notify the Speaker and the Chief Justice of the need for making an change in the governing documents of The North Pacific to reflect the enacted legislation, which was not included in such legislation prior to enactment.
B. Within three days after notification of an oversight error, the Speaker and the Chief Justice shall compile a list of such items related to a specific enactment that are identified as co-ordinated changes that were not included in the text of the enactment.
C. That list shall be presented to the Regional Assembly, and unless a Regional Assembly member makes an objection within 72 hours thereafter as to a specific item, the Speaker and Chief Justice shall authorize the corrections for which no objection is given to be made to the official text of the legal documents governing The North Pacific.
D. Any item on the correction list to which an objection is made shall thereafter be treated as legislation to make such change under normal legislative procedures.
E. As used in this Law:
1. “Legal documents governing The North Pacific” refers to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Legal Code, or any rules adopted by any entity as provided under the Constitution or Legal Code, including but not limited to the Delegate, the Regional Assembly, the Court of the North Pacific, and the Security Council.
2. A “co-ordinated change” that may be included on the correction list include grammatical errors, typographical errors, cross-references, or omitted changes that should have been included in the enacted legislation.

This won't be the case under the way the Legal Code revamp is written. This is an example of where the revamp doesn't include something that should have been retained.

 

[Eluvatar]

I am not comfortable with the idea of automatic adjustment of the constitution or legal code.

I'm not sure that the Court would have been either.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

But it is not automatic. Any member of the R.A. has the right to object, and if there is objection, the matter then proceeds as a normal legislative matter.

The closest analogy is a unanimous consent motion or calendar in legislative bodies.

And I think it is superior to the one included in the revamp since it makes any correction dependent on the full Court.

 

[Eluvatar]

I do not want any changes to the Constitution or Bill of Rights to happen without the full scrutiny of a week long vote on a formal proposal.

 

[Gulliver]

It is time to update the draft. The next version of the bill will now incorporate the following changes:

• Fixed election dates, and a clause for special elections;
• 3/5's majorities will be replaced with 2/3's ones;
• A clause will be added allowing for the amendment of the Bill of Rights by a 3/4's majority vote;
• A clause will be added specifying that abstentions do not affect the outcome of votes, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes;
• A clause about about the location of the regional forums.

EDIT: Once I'm done, you all should probably read and point out any major flaws in the language if I've made them. If I have, or if there's some disagreement about what we want, it can be corrected.

Also, I considered adding maintaining membership in the RA to the section on qualifications for office, but there's a vote on that now anyway. If it passes, I'll add it.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Things I see that still need to be addressed, including some I had not had time to notice until now:

1. I strongly recommend that the following be included with respect to the status of the forum moderation team in the same article that designates the official forums:

2. Violation of forum host and moderation policies remain the responsibility of forum administration.

There is a strong historical preference for independence on the matter, and I don't think silence in the Constitution on the matter is a good idea.

2. I have reservations about the article on the S,C, (1) having the R.A. voting to admit Security Council members without vetting for trustworthiness or other any non-numerical standards. Having a R.A. vote only turns the process into something highly partican and political and defeats the intent of having the body in the first place. I also think the ability to exempt S.C. members from R.A. membership is essential as far as the participation of at least some long-time high-influence nations in TNP are concerned. The mechanism was originally designed to accommodate that need, and I will have serious reservations about constitutional revision with the unacceptable changes Gulliver has put in his draft with regards to the S.C. Under the current constitutional provisions, the R.A. gets to override an action of the S.C. if there is disagreement with the initial action, but it avoids having every aspect becoming an R.A. vote.

3. I am seriously bothered by the lack of any utonomous rule-making power for the Court, the Delegate, and the Security Council. There's been no evidence that any government body has abused its current rulemaking powers, and I see no justifiable reason to remove those powers.

4. We need to have some clarity about court proceedings involving judicial review of government action or constitutionality. Are these seriously going to be given first to one justice courts in the first instance? And if the appeal is then to a three Justice panel, then we'd better have four elected justices, with the three judge appeal panel being the three justices who are not the sole justice in the first level of proceedings.

I am not comfortable with the idea of automatic adjustment of the constitution or legal code.

I'm not sure that the Court would have been either.

I disagree with Eluvatar on this. The current Law has been used several times since its enactment, and it is important to point out that it is not automatic. If any R.A. objects, then the correction has to be handled as normal legislation. The limited procedure in the Legal Code revamp leaves it to the affirmative discretion of the Court and no one else gets a say in the matter. It is a dilution of a workable device that needs to changes, and should be retained.

 

[Gulliver]

1. I strongly recommend that the following be included with respect to the status of the forum moderation team in the same article that designates the official forums:

2. Violation of forum host and moderation policies remain the responsibility of forum administration.

There is a strong historical preference for independence on the matter, and I don't think silence in the Constitution on the matter is a good idea.

I can understand the concern, but I don't see how that particular clause would help. Nothing in that clause guarantees independence, since it says nothing about who the forum administration is.

I have reservations about the article on the S,C, (1) having the R.A. voting to admit Security Council members without vetting for trustworthiness or other any non-numerical standards. Having a R.A. vote only turns the process into something highly partican and political and defeats the intent of having the body in the first place.

Nothing in the draft prohibits the RA or Speaker from establishing procedures for vetting applicants. As to the process becoming partisan, admission requires not a simple majority but a two-thirds majority consensus. Someone who was overly controversial would not get in.

I also think the ability to exempt S.C. members from R.A. membership is essential as far as the participation of at least some long-time high-influence nations in TNP are concerned.

The law is currently being altered so that staying in the RA requires only logging in once every 30 days, and if it's not it can be. That's a completely reasonable expectation for minimal activity from SC members, and RA membership should pose no undue burden.

Under the current constitutional provisions, the R.A. gets to override an action of the S.C. if there is disagreement with the initial action, but it avoids having every aspect becoming an R.A. vote.

I would be fine with an explicit oversight mechanism for the SC.

I am seriously bothered by the lack of any utonomous rule-making power for the Court, the Delegate, and the Security Council. There's been no evidence that any government body has abused its current rulemaking powers, and I see no justifiable reason to remove those powers.

All of these bodies are still free to make their own procedures in the absence of a law saying otherwise, and allowing the RA to exercise some oversight where necessary is prudent.

We need to have some clarity about court proceedings involving judicial review of government action or constitutionality. Are these seriously going to be given first to one justice courts in the first instance?

As currently worded, yes. If people want to make it so that questions of constitutionality go immediately to the full Court, or eliminate the appeals process entirely, things can be rewritten.

And if the appeal is then to a three Justice panel, then we'd better have four elected justices, with the three judge appeal panel being the three justices who are not the sole justice in the first level of proceedings.

I don't think that would be practical, we already have enough trouble filling the Court as it is. We've managed perfectly well with people only being able to present their case to a total of 3 justices, why should we add a 4th? The appeal system proposal was meant only as a way to streamline routine questions and to give a chance for hastily decided cases to be reconsidered, and I'm actually on the fence about it myself despite writing it.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Then I guess we're going to have to have a series of polls, or you can plan on a series on amendment proposals after the fact. Either way I think there are some fundamental values being attacked and they need a better treatment than being summarily dismissed.

 

[Gulliver]

I'm not summarily dismissing them, I've given a reason in each case why I disagree with you. And in once case I actually said you made a good point. If you have a good counterpoint I will listen.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Then I guess we're going to have to have a series of polls, or you can plan on a series on amendment proposals after the fact. Either way I think there are some fundamental values being attacked and they need a better treatment than being summarily dismissed.

I don't think Gulliver was trying to summarily dismiss your concerns, but I do agree with some of your concerns.

I do agree with Grosse on the point that the SC requirements meaning that every member be approved by the Regional Assembly instead of the existing Security Council is a little odd. While the biggest criticisms of the security council, have been that some consider it to be a closed oligarchical organisation, I feel that those who can best assess the trustworthiness of nations are those who have been around here for a long time.

I believe in the current constitution there is the ability for SC applicants to apply to the Regional Assembly for membership, if they are refused it by the current members. (I may be wrong). Perhaps it is something we should consider including again. Its important that we address these concerns that members of our citizenry have, to prevent facing ongoing criticism with the new constitution.

I do agree with Gulliver that there is little point having an RA exemption as the new RA requirement will only be to log onto the forums once every 30 days. It is likely security council members would do that easily.

I also would like to note that perhaps the best thing to do in regards to the court, is keep it simple. I like the way Hileville has appointed temporary judicial officers to deal with cases. Perhaps it is something we should allow the chief justice to do more of, just a thought.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

The issue of forum independence is an important one from the perspecticve of those who have been in Nationstates when that was not observed. It is dangerous from the point of view of the regional community that has thrived here to open the door to political interference by not including a clause in the constitution that recognizes that independence. Who forum administration is not relevant to acknowledging, recognizing and protection their collective authority to function in that area.
TNP in its past has seen delegates move the "official" forums to forums where they controlled the root account, and used that authority to restrict who could even join the forums. In addition, the policies that forum administration enforces on behalf of the forum's relationship to the forum host really should not be part of a government issue. There is a community here that ought to give input to issues that arise from time to time and should be able to do so outside of the government mechanism. The one additional sentence I have suggested does those things and maintains the tradition separation that has developed here. I still think it is needed in the Constitution as a demarcation line as far as the government is concerned.
The RA exemption issue -- those of us who have been involved with this from its being have always understood that there would be long-time, high-influence nations that would be willing to cooperate in the S.C. but who do not want and won't accept a requirement to join the R.A. They do not even want that type of involvement. The sound policy reasons for having that process have not changed, and trying to force those nations to join the R.A., at all, will only cause the S.C. to be less effective and less coordinated in fulfilling its role. I have no problem with the current provision that has the R.A. voting to grant a player an exemption from RA member being a two-thirds vote, but I do believe it needs to be retained.
As to SC oversight, I'm not entirely sure you see what I'm referring to. The current constitutional language ought to be preserved without a substantive change where the SC is concerned. There has been quite a group that has been involved in working out the mechanics of out S.C. system over a period of three years (Eluvatar and I were part of the original work group, in fact; the two waves of revision were the result of not adequately planning an initial implementation, and then Blackshear and I worked together about a year and a half ago to further adjust the mechanisms in the statute so that the system could function. In all of this, the primary problems were implementing the current constitutional language, which seems to meet the needs for a functioning SC. So I think the article in the proposed draft needs to be reviewed with an eye towards carrying forward the current structure and placing the RA in an oversight/backup role and not in the position of micro-managing the S.C.
The problem on the rule making is that there is nothing in the Constitution giving any of the name bodies any rulemaking power; you're assuming that it is there, but I do not see any current provision in the draft (unless the current constitution, where there is such a provision. Bringing that provision forward from the current constitution would address my concern about the current lack of power to adopt rules, especially for the Court and for the Security Council. If the RA doesn't like a rule then it can adopt a law that supercedes it, but for the first instances, the other bodies of government should be able to adopt rules that addresses their own functions without being depending on the RA to adopt something whenever they get around to it.
As to the Court, you can't have a truly fair and impartial appeal panel of three judges if one of the three judges presided over a trial of the matter on appeal in the first instance. That justice is more often than not going to be interested in sustaining his original rulings, even if they were in fact wrong. A one plus three system avoids that issue and assure whoever appeals that the review panel will be impartial because they were not involved in the trial of that case. Can't make it any more clear cur than that.
As to the practicality of a four judge panel; there's no reason why it wouldn't work better that a three judge system if we're going to have two levels. If for no other reason than the issue of fairness, assuring that the trial judge is not one of the appeal judges is a very significant way of assuring a fair trial and a fair appeal.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

If we want the SC to become more inclusive and have larger membership, then perhaps we should consider keeping the RA exemption.

However, if we plan to simplify the process, and by default all citizens become regional assembly members when joining the forum/posting of the oath, it may not be an issue.

What I am asking, will we be no longer requiring the registered citizens mask any more?

 

[Gulliver]

On the topic of forum independence, I misunderstood the intent of the original point, and now do see how the clause would contribute to forum independence. However, I still believe that on its own it's insufficient, and might even be detrimental.

If administrators can be politicians, and forum administration alone decides and enforces policies, couldn't unscrupulous administrators adopt detrimental policies, like letting no one join as you pointed out, and legally be completely in the right?

Also, no such clause exists in the current Constitution, and it appears to have worked fine.

The RA exemption issue -- those of us who have been involved with this from its being have always understood that there would be long-time, high-influence nations that would be willing to cooperate in the S.C. but who do not want and won't accept a requirement to join the R.A. They do not even want that type of involvement.

I see the point a bit better now. The question now for me is, how many SC members right now are not members of the RA, and how many of them would absolutely refuse to join the RA under any conditions, even if they only had to log into the forums ever 30 days?

The problem on the rule making is that there is nothing in the Constitution giving any of the name bodies any rulemaking power;

The draft explicitly says that if the RA hasn't legislated procedures for a certain matter for the Court, the Chief Justice may use their discretion to keep things running:

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.

As for the Delegate and Security Council, I still believe it's sufficiently implicit. If an office has the power to do something, and establishing internal rules is a necessary part of doing it, then they have the power to establish those rules by virtue of having the power to do what makes them necessary. Saying "you're allowed to do this, but not what would make it possible unless we state it explicitly" strikes me as daft and self-contradictory.

Of course, this is TNP. If it really is necessary, or people feel it is, I can live with one more clause.

As to the Court, you can't have a truly fair and impartial appeal panel of three judges if one of the three judges presided over a trial of the matter on appeal in the first instance.

You're absolute right, ideally all the judges should be entirely different from the initial hearing. But we don't have legions of eager members rushing forward to be justices. Just look at the most recent special judicial election. Adding a 4th justice would be another seat that would have to be filled, and it could very well just end up being someone who offhand volunteers or is impressed in desperation, regardless of how good of a justice they'd actually make.

Remember, right now there isn't any appeal system at all. An imperfect one could still represent an improvement potentially, even if it's not ideal. And if not, if the inclusion of a justice from the original case is indeed a fatal flaw, then I thin it would be better to just scrap the proposal and keep things as is.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I only have time right now to respond to one of the issues I've raised, and that is the second sentence I've suggested on the topic of the forums.
This provision is in the current Constitution in slightly different form. Article VI Section 1, Clause 1 includes:

Violation of forum Terms Of Service and moderation policies remain the responsibility of forum administration.

So it is in the current Constitution, and I'm suggesting a modified version of it to fit what is the current reality.

 

[Gulliver]

You are correct, I was mistaken. It's in a somewhat unintuitive place but it's there, so retaining it certainly wouldn't change anything.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

In view of the overwhelming approval of this amendment to the current Constitution, I believe an appropriately formatted version of it needs to be included in the planned revision:

Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin. These elected officials, and all other judicial or executive officers, must maintain membership in the Assembly throughout their tenure in office. No Player may hold more than one elected office at any time. Except as provided by law, no Player may simultaneously serve as a judicial officer, a legislative officer, or an executive officer.

I'm fully aware that the style of the planned revision is different, but I'm sure it can be worked through to carry forward these provisions.

 

[Isimud]

In view of the overwhelming approval of this amendment to the current Constitution, I believe an appropriately formatted version of it needs to be included in the planned revision:

Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin. These elected officials, and all other judicial or executive officers, must maintain membership in the Assembly throughout their tenure in office. No Player may hold more than one elected office at any time. Except as provided by law, no Player may simultaneously serve as a judicial officer, a legislative officer, or an executive officer.

I'm fully aware that the style of the planned revision is different, but I'm sure it can be worked through to carry forward these provisions.

I still have problems with the bolded line above: "No Player may hold more than one elected office at any time." This would seem to prevent a Council of 5 from holding the Delegate's or Vice Delegate's position, if the clause is enforced. Perhaps it could be something like:

Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin. These elected officials, and all other judicial or executive officers, must maintain membership in the Assembly throughout their tenure in office. No Player may hold more than one elected office at any time, with the exception of the executive offices. Except as provided by law, no Player may simultaneously serve as a judicial officer, a legislative officer, or an executive officer.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Read the following sentence. The Council of Five is a totally nonconstitutional arrangement at this point (i.e., they are not elected offices, and are "exeuctive officers" in the language of the current constitution. I added the "Except as provided by law" to the following sentence to address your concern, and that change in the final version before the vote opened was acceptable to Eluvatar.

 

[collettiquette]

I like the formal draft so far, but would recommend that the Bill of Rights Article have less ambiguous language when describing the rights of TNP citizens. Instead of "afforded," I'd like to see something like "guaranteed." Also, instead of as part of a second document, I would rather see the Bill of Rights specifically listed in the first Article.

 

[Gulliver]

The current separation of powers article could be rewritten as:

1. No person may simultaneously hold more than one elected office.
2. No person may simultaneously hold a judicial, legislative or executive office.

and the qualifications for office as:

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

That would be my initial suggestion for language consistent with the current proposal, but it might need tweaking.

This might also be an appropriate time to note that the original draft only required 15 days in the RA before being able to run for office. Do people prefer 15 or 30?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

In response to Gulliver's reply on a number of points other than the forum administration topic that we've already cleared up (I think).

R.A. Exemption on the Security Council:

I see the point a bit better now. The question now for me is, how many SC members right now are not members of the RA, and how many of them would absolutely refuse to join the RA under any conditions, even if they only had to log into the forums ever 30 days?

At the moment all of the S.C. members are members of the Regional Assembly. Until the motion about Great Bights Mum was put forward, no effort had been made to even seek an exemption for any eligible nation in part because the effort was in trying to get the S.C. mechanism working the way it was intended. And the appeal by Romanoffia was the first time that question that been referred to the R.A. for a vote after a rejection within the S.C. on grounds of "trustwirthiness."
The current motion related to F.E.C. is only the second such motion.

It is important that going forward we have the tools as a community to protect the community. (I say "community" because the intention has always been to aid the stability of the regional "community" and not just the regional "government.")

The draft explicitly says that if the RA hasn't legislated procedures for a certain matter for the Court, the Chief Justice may use their discretion to keep things running:

I fail to see the reason for removing rulemaking authority from the Court as a body and requiring R.A. legislation on each and every procedure in the Court. There's no evidence of abuse of the Court's rulemaking authority under both the current and prior Constitution, although there is evidence of parties or new Justices not following the rules already adopted and in place. I fail to see how having a requirement that the R.A. adopt rules for the Court will prevent that problem or who that is an improvement. The Court, as an equal branch of the government should have the ability to set its own procedures. I'll consider some sort of R.A. "veto" over specific proposed court rules (within a set amount of time), but the first level of making rules for the Court should come from the Court that has to operate under them,

Which leads me to this:

As for the Delegate and Security Council, I still believe it's sufficiently implicit. If an office has the power to do something, and establishing internal rules is a necessary part of doing it, then they have the power to establish those rules by virtue of having the power to do what makes them necessary. Saying "you're allowed to do this, but not what would make it possible unless we state it explicitly" strikes me as daft and self-contradictory.

Of course, this is TNP. If it really is necessary, or people feel it is, I can live with one more clause.

I've been around this region long enough to see that if you leave some things too implicit, some will argue it isn't permitted in the first place. It was that sort of reasoning we've seen from some Court decisions in the past three years (what I call "literalism") on the issue of abstentions, and we've seen it on other issues as well. There will be arguments about any branch setting its own procedural rules if there isn't authority for them, even ones to provide for temporary chairs or justices when the need arises. Simply because there are rules currently under the current constitution isn't sufficient because the current Constitution expressly grants rule-making authority to each body. You will get the "literalness" theologians arguing that it means it cannot be done without explicit rule making power.

You're absolute right, ideally all the judges should be entirely different from the initial hearing. But we don't have legions of eager members rushing forward to be justices. Just look at the most recent special judicial election. Adding a 4th justice would be another seat that would have to be filled, and it could very well just end up being someone who offhand volunteers or is impressed in desperation, regardless of how good of a justice they'd actually make.

Remember, right now there isn't any appeal system at all. An imperfect one could still represent an improvement potentially, even if it's not ideal. And if not, if the inclusion of a justice from the original case is indeed a fatal flaw, then I thin it would be better to just scrap the proposal and keep things as is.

I would rather try a four justice system and avoid the appearance of built-in bias so we can have a real appellate review process for single judge cases. The fact is that appeals are actually easier to manage judicially because (1) we'll already have a record of the one-judge court proceeding (2) the party seeking to appeal will have to identify the issues that they want reviewed, and (3) once both sides file their statements the three judge panel will be able to look at everything, discuss the matter and issue their opinion.
We can adopt time limits on the appeal process and it can be shorter than the trials because of these elements.

Now getting to collettiquette's comment:

I like the formal draft so far, but would recommend that the Bill of Rights Article have less ambiguous language when describing the rights of TNP citizens. Instead of "afforded," I'd like to see something like "guaranteed." Also, instead of as part of a second document, I would rather see the Bill of Rights specifically listed in the first Article.

How article I is written in the draft is a matter of personal style of its drafter. I, personally, would prefer a more active verb than "afforded."

I would not support putting the Bill of Rights into the Constitution proper. First we've had the same document both ways, and the sentiment seems to be that it be much harder to amend, and as a separate document, that difficulty would be re-enforced. The Bill of Rights has now gone through three constitutions virtually unchanged, and this proposed revision would make it number four. I think as a community, we're satisfied that it serves its purpose and does not need any tinkering.

Edited to add:

The current separation of powers article could be rewritten as:

1. No person may simultaneously hold more than one elected office.
2. No person may simultaneously hold a judicial, legislative or executive office.

and the qualifications for office as:

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

I have no problems with your treatment of the qualifications and separation of offices provisions. On the question of RA eligibility, I would prefer 30 days to run (from the day nominations open), and 15 days in order to vote in an election (from the day the voting opens.) [Got to prevent some forms of ballot stuffing. ]