Formal Discussion, Constitutional Appendix

wizardofoz01

wizardofoz01

TNPer
Submitted by Heft:

This is a move to create a separate appendix from the Constitution for notes on how the Constitution was updated/changed. The quoted part would be the text of such an appendix.

The title of Article II (Membership and Registratin) and Section 2 (Registration) of said Article was amended by a constitutional amendment that made certain corrections following earlier amendments, and that was approved by the regional assembly 12 April to 19 April 2006 and by the Cabinet on 24 April 2006.

Article II Section 2 (Registration) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

Article II Section 3 (Jurisdiction, Review of Regional Government Action) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

Clauses B and E of Article II Section 4 (Political, Diplomatic and Military Relationships With Other Regions) were amended, and Clause F of the same Article and Section was added by a constitutional amendment adopted by a vote of the Regional Assembly, 9 January to 16 January 2006. The measure also amended portions of TNP Law 9. Clause B was further amended by a constitutional amendment that was approved by the Regional Assembly 12 April to 19 April 2006 and by the Cabinet on 24 April 2006

Article II Section 4 (Political, Diplomatic and military Relationships With Other Regions) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

A former Section 1 of Article III (Elections and Elected Offices) entitled "Election Rules and Regulations" was repealed and replaced by the current Section 1 (Election Procedures) by a constitutional amendment adopted by the regional assembly 27 September - 4 October 2005. This section was amended by a constitutional amendment that created the office of UN Vice Delegate adopted by the regional assembly 9 October-15 October 2005. This section was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

Article III Section 2 (Elected Offices of the Regional Government) was amended by a constitutional amendment that created the office of UN Vice Delegate adopted by the regional assembly 9 October-15 October 2005. This section was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

Article III Section 3 (Term Limitations) was amended by a constitutional amendment that created the office of UN Vice Delegate adopted by the regional assembly 9 October-15 October 2005.

Article III Section 5 (Deputy Ministers) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

A former Section 6 of Article III (Elections and Elected Offices) entitled "Elections for UN Delegate for the Region" was repealed by a constitutional amendment adopted by the regional assembly 27 September - 4 October 2005.

A former Section 7 of Article III (Elections and Elected Offices) entitled "Additional Rules and Regulations for Delegate Elections" was repealed by a constitutional amendment adopted by the regional assembly 27 September - 4 October 2005.

A former Clause A to Article IV Section 1 (The Regional Assembly of the North Pacific) was repealed by a constitutional amendment adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006. Clauses formerly designated as B through G were redesignated by that same amendment.

Article IV Section 3 (Legislation) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

Article IV Section 5 (Quorum) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

Article IV Section 8 (Roles of Officials) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

Article IV Section 9 (Security Council) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

Article V Section 2 (Chief Justice and Associate Justices) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

Article V Section 4 (Criminal and Impeachment Trial Rules and Procedures) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006. Bracketed word was not shown in the amendment and appears to be an inadvertent omission.

Article V Section 5 (Grounds for Civil, Criminal or Impeachment Proceedings) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

Article VI Section 2 (Power of Expulsion) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

Article VII Section 1 (Amendment Proposals) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

Article VII Section 2 (Amendment Procedures) was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006. This section was further amended by a constitutional amendment that revised amendment procedures adopted 21 - 28 March 2006
Click to expand...
 
I like it. Being an academic type, I have to say that I hate running commentary and prefer simple subject references or footnotes. I like the idea of the parenthetical subject references.
 
Sounds good, looks good. I slept for 4 hours last night and I was still able to understand the whole thing. There's no other option than to like it.
 
I don't think it is really a problem that needs fixing.

I sort of feel like given the source of the original complaint about it, that it is more a underhanded political pot shot at me.
 
I think this is a wonderful idea! Basially, it's a changelog for the Constitution. IT might be good as a secondary document, too. But basically I like the idea as it is. Dates of changes would be nice, too.
 
AlHoma:
If it's a formal discussion, put it back in the discussion subforum
Click to expand...
Formal Discussions are alwasy in the main forum. That's why the sub-forum is called "Preliminary Discussions".

I don't think it is really a problem that needs fixing.
Click to expand...
It's not the most urgent of issues, but it is something that will make the Constitution far easier to deal with on an everyday basis. The dates of when Section X.X.X was amended aren't really necessary to include in the main text.

I sort of feel like given the source of the original complaint about it, that it is more a underhanded political pot shot at me.
Click to expand...
Ha! Join the club.
 
Ceysil:
I think this is a wonderful idea! Basially, it's a changelog for the Constitution. IT might be good as a secondary document, too. But basically I like the idea as it is. Dates of changes would be nice, too.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I don't think it is really a problem that needs fixing.
Click to expand...
You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else!! If more peopel share your opinion then the proposal will be defeated!! Let your beloved democracy take its course!!

I sort of feel like given the source of the original complaint about it, that it is more a underhanded political pot shot at me.
Click to expand...

You overestimate your importance!! Bottom line is, over time the editorial comments will get out of hand!! This proposal will make the changes that have occurred easy to follow with out cluttering an already over-sized document with additional notes!!

But it wouldn't be a consitiutional amendment without you moping about people changing your precious document!! Let it go, GS!! ;)
 
It's not really a change to the Consitution at all. It's rather a change in annotation.

And off-the-cuff solution would be to have a posting of the Constitution as it stands, updated as amended or not in the future in its current state.

Then, you post a second 'annotated' Consitution that shows the changes and earlier states. A sort of, if you will pardon the expression, a constitutional 'concordence', as it were.

That way, you don't really have to amend the constitution at all. You can leave the annotated version as it is and then by simple legislative action post a un-annotated version of the Constitution without notes, etc., as the official reference point.

Any thoughts?
 
Just one...why?!

Why do we need to make everything so complicated?! Two versions of the Constitution?! One with and one without the editorial notes?! To appease GS and his aversion to anything he does being changed?!

Give me a break!!

The proposal makes sense and it will prevent the monstrosity of a Constitution we now have becoming bigger and more cumbersome (if that is even possible)!! It will be easy to look at the appended posts to see what has changed and yet leaving the actual Constitution in its usable form uncluttered with annotations!!

The habit this region has putting some people's ego ahead of what makes sense never ceases to amaze me!! Oh no, GS is pissed that his editorial notes will get the arse, we better make everything twice as complicated as it needs to be to stop him being upset!!

Two versions of the Constitution... :duh:

[insert flamebait warning here, thanks Hers!!]
 
It's not two versions of the Consitution. One is the Constitution as it is in its current state. The second is an annotated version detailing the changes in chronolical fashion with notes on each change. If someone doesn't want to know about the when, where and why of the changes, they don't have to look at the annotated version.

For historical reference, it is worth keeping a running commentary in library/archive form.
 
Romanoffia:
It's not two versions of the Consitution. One is the Constitution as it is in its current state. The second is an annotated version detailing the changes in chronolical fashion with notes on each change. If someone doesn't want to know about the when, where and why of the changes, they don't have to look at the annotated version.

For historical reference, it is worth keeping a running commentary in library/archive form.
Click to expand...
So, two copies of the Constitution, one with notes and one without, doesn't equal two versions of the Constitution? I'm not following.

More importantly, why would we need to do that?
 
I'm just nitpicking about the term 'version'.

Personally, I think it's fine just the way it is, when you get down to the nitty-gritty.



R
 
If we remove the notes and add the historical changes as appended posts on the Constitution thread then people who don't want to see the notes (read: historical changes) need not read the appended information whereas those that wish to see what was changed and when can simply scroll down to see it!! One version, both camps happy!!
 
I support this change and, as Polts said, if the majority support it then it ought to be passed, despite the protectiveness of the Constitution's original authors.

Of course my support may possibly be this proposal's death knell but there ya go ;)
 
Gah, Cathyy's kiss of death!! :pinch:

:P

Yes, the proposal makes sense!! Yes, if it gets majority support it should be passed regardless of the pressure applied by the original authors of the constitution!!

But this is TNP...lets see what unfolds!!
 
I too think the proposal makes sense (giving it the kiss of death from the other side)

I think we all have the wit to look up the revisions etc if we need to .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top