Constitution Changes...

Ator People

Ator People

TNPer
Over the past few days the problem of inactivity and lower interest in TNP has been discussed here. I'm opening this thread to entertain the idea of ammending the Constitution to allow for the following:
  • Greater power to the delegate.
  • Greater power to the Prime Minister and the rest of the cabinet.
  • Less "red tape" and complex procedures in the court system.
  • A reform of the RA/RV system; possible combining the two.
 
This topic is just for open discussion on the idea before we make a first draft. What do people think should change, how should it be worded, etc.
 
The RA/RV thing is simple...remove RV's altogether and make them all members of the RA!! It is not like there is a major difference between the two at present anyway!!

As for granting officials more power or scope to work in their respective offices I suggest we look at removing the clauses that require a referendum in order to make a decision!! This has been done with the MoEA thanks to Goal's proposal but we need to make similar changes across the board!! The security council is a waste of time, in my opinion!! The elected government should be entrusted to act in the interests of the region with there being scope for an inquiry should any wrongdoing be suspected!!

The avenues to challenge a RV (or RA) membership should be made more stringent!! At the moment 2 people with a grudge can haul a nation over the coals and send their application to referendum without an iota of evidence required!! This could turn people away from registering and also clogs up the system with meaningless bureacracy and legal posturing!! Look at Fedele, Cathyy and Fulhead Land!! The sky has not fallen since they were given a vote!!

The Delegate should be included in the cabinet so as they have a greater say in regional governance!! They should not be seen as higher ranking than the PM but they should have a role in External Affairs!! Either that or combine the Delegate role with MoEA!!

The MoAE and MoCE should be combined as there is no real reason for two people to cover those areas!!

Hopefully Wizaedofoz01's proposal will pass allowing the RA to have first access to legislative change proposals before the Cabinet approval allowing these proposals to be fine tuned before cabinet reviews them!!

The changes being proposed here will take time to refine and even longer to process in the system we have, so a concerted effort by members of the RA and the cabinet will be needed to work on any changes and process them under the constitution we now have!!
 
I agree. The PM needs to have more executive latitude in determining government policy within the scope of the constitution and individual ministries, considering they are with one exception, all dealing with internal matters. The PM also needs more direct control over external affairs in general as per policy and agenda.

I think it is a good idea to combine the RA/RV into one unit, that being the RA. All that would take is a general change in wording in the relevent articles of the Constitution.

We also need to deal with the quorum issue so that inactivity (non votes) do not paralyse the RA and the Government as a whole. Perhaps a change in which the qorum is based upon the percentage of votes cast. If 50 people vote, then a percentage of that total number should be attained for passage of the item. Say, 50%+1 of total votes cast for legislation and 66% of the total RA roll for constitutional amendments. I also believe that the PM should have the ability to veto the RA if a bill passes with less than 66% of the RA vote.

Ministers in general should be elected, not appointed and the Delegate should also have a vote in the cabinet. Remember, the primary function of the delegate is to interact with the UN and to promote regional security as per the directive of the government in relation to WFE entries and ejections.

We must also preserve and promote the rights of nations and individuals as set fourth in the constitution.
 
Does the PM have the ability to act in any ministry should a situation arise that may make his intervention necessary?
 
Not currently!! To be honest, within the current constitution, the PM is merely an overseer who does not really have any power in any ministry!!
 
A veto is never good, it only causes problems, a majority is a majority for a reason.

I agree as well to scrapt the RV, and make the RA the sole people's body.

The PM should be able to step in any ministry if there is a need for it.

The PM and the delegate (we need a political title for that) should be the check and balance for each other, the two chief executives of the cabinet.
 
Tresville took charge of the NPA when Grim left, I believe. Of course, that was during my absence, so I don't know all the details about that. I'm not sure if he had real constitutional authority to do it as PM, or if he was made a General or something, or if he simply did it because no one else was and he felt it needed to be done.
 
Poltsamaa:
The RA/RV thing is simple...remove RV's altogether and make them all members of the RA!! It is not like there is a major difference between the two at present anyway!!

As for granting officials more power or scope to work in their respective offices I suggest we look at removing the clauses that require a referendum in order to make a decision!! This has been done with the MoEA thanks to Goal's proposal but we need to make similar changes across the board!! The security council is a waste of time, in my opinion!! The elected government should be entrusted to act in the interests of the region with there being scope for an inquiry should any wrongdoing be suspected!!

The avenues to challenge a RV (or RA) membership should be made more stringent!! At the moment 2 people with a grudge can haul a nation over the coals and send their application to referendum without an iota of evidence required!! This could turn people away from registering and also clogs up the system with meaningless bureacracy and legal posturing!! Look at Fedele, Cathyy and Fulhead Land!! The sky has not fallen since they were given a vote!!

The Delegate should be included in the cabinet so as they have a greater say in regional governance!! They should not be seen as higher ranking than the PM but they should have a role in External Affairs!! Either that or combine the Delegate role with MoEA!!

The MoAE and MoCE should be combined as there is no real reason for two people to cover those areas!!
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Several quick points:

I wish, sincerely, that folks would actually read the constitution before suggesting changes. You might find what is being sought is already there.

The introductory paragraph in the section listing the Cabinet Ministers makes clears that each minister, and the Prime Minister, has such powers as they may require to perform their duties. The Prime Minister is head of the government (and not head of state), and as such, has the authority to act when an individual minister is not available. Where there is a disagreement, then that is what the Cabinet is for collectively and if they deem it appropriate the Cabinet or individual ministers can ask the RA for the adoption of legislation.

The Delegate is ceremonial head of state. The Delegate is already a member of the Cabinet, it is just that the Delegate does not have a standing vote in the Cabinet. Since the Delegate is already a member of the Cabinet, and entitled to participate in the Cabinet, what is it that is actually being advocated?

The RA is a subset of the RV, not the other way around. Prior to the constitutional convention, the RVs were the legislative branch, participation levels in votes reached 60 to 70 percent with ease, and referenda voting took place without the complaints listed above. The compromise to create an RA was to satisfy those who insisted that there had to be an assembly, never mind the fact that the RV system as it then existed worked. It would be just as easy, and simplier to abolish the RA but keep the office of Speaker. I went along with having an assembly but thought at the time that we were tinkering with a system that had already proven it worked; I now believe that the creation of a system outside of the direct legislative system of registered voters was a mistake, and would support a return to that approach.

The prolem with the judicial system has not been the judiciary -- but the lack of prosecutorial leadership from the office of the Attorney General. That is an elected position, so please do not blame the judges for the failings of the prosecutors to do their job.

Nor is the problem the holding of referenda. Except for a circumstance on constitutional amendments that has not yet been used, no referenda period exceed seven days. Votes in the regional assembly are likewise seven days.

But again, as previously noted, I sincerely belive a big part of the problem is an unwillingness to r-e-a-d. Proposing imperial schmes and authoritarian solutions is not the way to resolve the issue of participation.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Several quick points:

I wish, sincerely, that folks would actually read the constitution before suggesting changes. You might find what is being sought is already there.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand, Grosseschnauzer!! This thread is to post ideas to achieve what people think needs to be done to reinvigorate the region!! I do not see any proposals here that quote sections of the constitution to be changed!! Once it is decided the direction we want to go, then we can look at the constitution and see what does need to be changed to achieve that!!

The introductory paragraph in the section listing the Cabinet Ministers makes clears that each minister, and the Prime Minister, has such powers as they may require to perform their duties. The Prime Minister is head of the government (and not head of state), and as such, has the authority to act when an individual minister is not available. Where there is a disagreement, then that is what the Cabinet is for collectively and if they deem it appropriate the Cabinet or individual ministers can ask the RA for the adoption of legislation.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps the job descriptions for cabinet positions need to be updated to reflect the attitudes of the people of the region!!

The Delegate is ceremonial head of state. The Delegate is already a member of the Cabinet, it is just that the Delegate does not have a standing vote in the Cabinet. Since the Delegate is already a member of the Cabinet, and entitled to participate in the Cabinet, what is it that is actually being advocated?
Click to expand...

That the Delegate be a full member of Cabinet with voting rights!! Maybe even merging the Delegate role with MoEA or even the PM!! Many suggestions have been made!!

The RA is a subset of the RV, not the other way around. Prior to the constitutional convention, the RVs were the legislative branch, participation levels in votes reached 60 to 70 percent with ease, and referenda voting took place without the complaints listed above. The compromise to create an RA was to satisfy those who insisted that there had to be an assembly, never mind the fact that the RV system as it then existed worked. It would be just as easy, and simplier to abolish the RA but keep the office of Speaker. I went along with having an assembly but thought at the time that we were tinkering with a system that had already proven it worked; I now believe that the creation of a system outside of the direct legislative system of registered voters was a mistake, and would support a return to that approach.
Click to expand...

How long had the registered voter system been working for prior to the formation of the RA?! What people want is a system set up to cater for the future, not just the immediate!! If we change RV's to members of the RA and keep the Regional Assembly, what difference is that? People can relate to the Regional Assembly as a body rather than just a loose collection of RVs!! There is no real difference in being a RV or a member of the RA as far as applications and prerequisites go so why not keep the body that works well, the RA, and legislate so as people who are inactive do not seize the legislative process up?! Simply saying that it is not a problem now does not mean in the long run it will not be!! so why not prepare for it rather than react?!

The prolem with the judicial system has not been the judiciary -- but the lack of prosecutorial leadership from the office of the Attorney General. That is an elected position, so please do not blame the judges for the failings of the prosecutors to do their job.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is blaming the judges!! Someone merely stated that translating RL legal process into NS is flawed and I think that is self-evident from both TNP and other regions who have tried to apply similar methods for their judiciaries!! I think a simple tribunal system would be more useful and allow for speedy "trials" based on evidence and the laws of the region!!

Nor is the problem the holding of referenda. Except for a circumstance on constitutional amendments that has not yet been used, no referenda period exceed seven days. Votes in the regional assembly are likewise seven days.
Click to expand...

Again, you miss the point entirely!! The referendums are not necessary in most cases and make processes in this region overly bureaucratic!! RV application appeals being a case in point!! Whether it takes 3days, 7 days or 2 weeks makes no difference!! If they are a waste of time they waste time no matter how little time they take!! Regional Assembly votes are entirely different as they are a vital part of the legislative process!! Referendums for referendum's sake are not vital!!

But again, as previously noted, I sincerely belive a big part of the problem is an unwillingness to r-e-a-d. Proposing imperial schmes and authoritarian solutions is not the way to resolve the issue of participation.
Click to expand...

You may say people do not read the constitution!! Some would say you do not read what people post!! People have posted their ideas about how to revitalise the region!! This discussion is an open forum to post ideas and work on them!! Your dogged determination to cling to the constitution you wrote is understandable, but because people want something to change does not make them stupid or ignorant!!
 
Can I also point out, as it has been touched on, personally we need to look at totally re-writing and simplifying the Constitution rather than further amending it as the fundemental problems with it will remain.
 
I'd be happy to see the constitution started from scratch, with a mind to efficiency rather than fear of a rogue delegate.

Once we all come to terms with the fact that any delegate can remove the constitution regardless of what it says, we'll find things much easier to work with.
 
Wow, I'm gone two days and looks what happens! heh.

Okay, here's my two cents.

The RA's and RV's I agree should be merged (personally I wondered why it wasn't one in the same to begin with). Some of the responsibilities of the Ministers should be reworked as well as the PM. Personally, I'm all for merging the PM with the Delegate position, but that's just me. Right now the PM has little power to back up the title.

The consititution definately needs reworking or at least some reordering. Scraping it in its entirity might be a good idea and rebuilding it from the ground up. At LEAST make the beast a bit easier to read.
 
I believe that the constitution should be simplified (less legal jargon) but other than that all this talk of streamlining, red tape, and efficiency is hogwash. It would involve a lot of giving up of rights and freedoms that we've fought much too hard for.

I mean in the end, a dictatorship is the most streamlined, red tape-free, and efficient govenment around. It takes time to pass laws because our mode of establishing law is through consensus, if we take less time or try to mute voices then it would be faster but would be based on less consensus.

Molding RV's and RA's together is sound but that has nothing to do with original document since RA's and political parties were developed AFTER the original constitution was made.

Making the delegate and the PM role into the same would simply bring back the governments and problems of the past. If you're for it then so be it but I for one will use everything in my power to stop it.
 
Making the delegate and the PM role into the same would simply bring back the governments and problems of the past.
Click to expand...

How so? At the moment, PM does not have much power and the delegate is basically just supposed to sit up there and look pretty. I fail to see how combining the two jobs would make them some huge political figure.
 
mr_sniffles:
I believe that the constitution should be simplified (less legal jargon) but other than that all this talk of streamlining, red tape, and efficiency is hogwash. It would involve a lot of giving up of rights and freedoms that we've fought much too hard for.
Click to expand...
No offence, but you seem rather sure that we are interested in a Dictatorship.

Nevermind though, to each their own.

On to your points

I mean in the end, a dictatorship is the most streamlined, red tape-free, and efficient govenment around. It takes time to pass laws because our mode of establishing law is through consensus, if we take less time or try to mute voices then it would be faster but would be based on less consensus.
Click to expand...
I can understand your concern, but we are not looking for an end to democracy, what we are looking for is an efficient way for our executors and legislators to work under the constitution. We most definitely would not be removing our bill of rights, what we are suggesting is that there has to be a less bureaucratic way to work. This is not a direct democracy, but a representative one; when you elect the executors, you are giving them power to manage the region in your stead. What the constitution does is limit their effectiveness, so rather than protecting the region, it makes it much harder to manage.

Molding RV's and RA's together is sound but that has nothing to do with original document since RA's and political parties were developed AFTER the original constitution was made.
Click to expand...
The RA were part of this constitution from the beginning. This constitution is the one we are working under rather than the old constitution which did not have an RA system. What we would be doing is taking a step backwards towards the old constitution in fact, except we'd be giving the RV (as the RA) more power to work with legislature.

Making the delegate and the PM role into the same would simply bring back the governments and problems of the past. If you're for it then so be it but I for one will use everything in my power to stop it.
Click to expand...
The delegate is head of the region, it doesn't matter what we say or do, that is the plain truth. We can write it down in our constitution, laws and guidelines but Erastide could still do whatever the hell she pleases. All the feeders are in essence a dictatorship, what we need to do is find a way of encouraging the Delegate to take part in the democractic government we have in place. Restricting them from being anything other than our slave is not the way to go about it.

Maybe a seperation of power between the PM and Delegate would be safer, but we still have to give the Delegate some position in the government and it should be one that is proportional to their actual power.
 
Perhaps if we are getting rid of the seucrity counsel, the delegate can be the one in charge of security for the region...
 
GoalVA:
The delegate is head of the region, it doesn't matter what we say or do, that is the plain truth. We can write it down in our constitution, laws and guidelines but Erastide could still do whatever the hell she pleases. All the feeders are in essence a dictatorship, what we need to do is find a way of encouraging the Delegate to take part in the democractic government we have in place. Restricting them from being anything other than our slave is not the way to go about it.

Maybe a seperation of power between the PM and Delegate would be safer, but we still have to give the Delegate some position in the government and it should be one that is proportional to their actual power.
Click to expand...
GoalVA I agree with much of your post. Back in the days when trying to become Delegate meant intense effort with endoswapping and constantly maintaining endorsement levels I often asked who would do that merely for the sake of being a figurehead.

I'm not saying that the Delegate should have the level of power that was the norm in the days when I became Delegate but I do believe that much of the current constitution was reactive. I'm also not saying that the drawing up of a reactive constitution was not inevitable but maybe now is the time to try to find balance.
 
I agree, the smell of fear permeates the current document. We need to be trusting without being open to exploitation.
 
GoalVA:
I agree, the smell of fear permeates the current document. We need to be trusting without being open to exploitation.
Click to expand...
This is also true. It's probably time to dispense with the paranoia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top