Constitutional Editing

Unterwasserseestaat

Unterwasserseestaat

TNPer
For a bit, I've been going over the Constitution and trying to figure out how to go over it loosely with an editor's touch to make it more user-friendly. From the time I've spent reviewing it, I firmly believe that it is a fundamentally sound document, though wordy or even redundant in spots.

My purpose here is not to alter the meaning of the document, merely to make it more accessible. Since accessibility is subjective, other ideas are welcome. If you believe that any of my changes below does alter the meaning of the document, please comment on that as well.

Deletions in red, additions in blue, with comments (separated by section) at the bottom.

ARTICLE I. Declaration of Rights.

1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection, adding or withdrawing endorsements and UN membership.
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.
3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the United Nations shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.
4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding UN member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a UN member.
5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the impeachment of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with this Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.
6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.
7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
8. 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, the ejected or banned Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter.   The UN 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.
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or imposeNo nation shall be subject to an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.
Click to expand...

Notes:
1. Added in endorsement rights to eliminate part 4
2. The first deletion isn't a right (though I'm open to arguments for its altering the meaning), the second is more properly dealt with in sections 5 and 9
4. See comment to section 1
5. I don't think we need a comment in the bill of rights to protect the region from frivolous impeachment requests.
7. Proof of guilt should be covered in the Judicial section of the constitution, or other court guidelines.
8. The section deleted is not a right, but a curb on the power of the Delegate which is already expressed in Art. VI sec. 2.
9. The section deleted is not a right, but a curb on governmental power which would violate the right just stated.
11. This is not a right, but a power of government which should be stated in Art. III.
 
The legalese is necessary to counter any potential loopholes, you can make your own guide to help people without a vote. The dummies I made is already dated plus way too many dead hooker analogies.
 
mr_sniffles:
The legalese is necessary to counter any potential loopholes, you can make your own guide to help people without a vote. The dummies I made is already dated plus way too many dead hooker analogies.
Click to expand...
Legalese is certainly important in order to give precise meanings, but saying things multiple times in legalese still isn't necessary. (If everyone is simply talking about legalese when making fun of the constitution, I'll stand corrected and will no longer see the point in this affair.)

This is, IMO, the most glaring redundancy in the entire Constitution:
Art. III sec 1:
D - Only Nations who are members of the Regional Assembly when the voting period commences shall be entitled to vote, which shall take place exclusively at the Regional off-site forum.
E - Nations that join the Regional Assembly after a voting period commences shall not be able to vote in the election of offices or positions under this Constitution, or on referenda as to any other matter subject to a vote of the Regional Assembly as provided in this Constitution, or The North Pacific Legal Code, until the next election or referendum that occurs after that Nation's registration is validated and accepted.
Click to expand...
Here E is logically equivalent to D (it is essentially its contrapositive), that's why I think it isn't necessary and inhibits people from using the document.
 
The Declaration of Rights is intended to place, in one statement, all fundamental protections of the residents of TNP and fundamental limitations on the Government.

As to the alleged doplicity mentioned in Article III, it was felt to be necessary to make it crystal clear what was intended....since the legislation procedue was new, and the exerience of the players who worked on the early versions of the Constitution had to deal with players who had a mindset to loop for any lexiconic loophole.

The statements on essential procedural guarentees in criminal proceedings are of a similar nature. The statements in the Declaration of Rights intentionally specify those elements that are felt to be necessary in order to guarantee a fair trial.

As to the protection as to impeachment, that was specifically offered by Romanoffia and he was insistent that the right of any nation to seek impeachment of a government official be protected in the Declaration of Rights so no loophole would be created as to its application.

I am strongly adverse to any "editing" of the Declaration of Rights from its current form. The elements of the Declaration were settled upon as a result of the experience many players had during the Great Bight and Pixiedance eras, and the results of that experience should not be lightly disregarded.

Keep in mind that the Declaration of Rights protects the liberty of the individual players in the region from the excesses of autocratic government and by imposing limits on the scope of governmental power. Any change needs to be measured by that standard, and I will oppose any change that removes any concept currently in the Declaration of Rights on the ground that it "belongs" elsewhere.
 
They look fine to me, as they don't really change the meaning of the document, just cut out some of the language, which is always good.

To be honest, this might be the first time I've ever actually read Art I all the way through.
 
This seems ok to me, I guess. I am in favor of simplification, usually.

Ik
:clap:

:bat: :ph34r:
 
This is primarily in response to Schnauzer's comment here.

First, let me reiterate that the purpose of this amendment is not to alter the meaning of the Constitution or any procedure described therein. Also, this is one of a planned series to go through the entire Constitution, a longer task which we would presumably want to make a final vote on as a whole. Since it would be impossible to keep a cohesive comment thread on such an undertaking, and as a test balloon, I have only posted my thoughts on Article I thus far.

For Schnauzer's comment above in this thread, I fail to see why various limitations on the actions of the government need to be redundantly placed in one position in the Constitution. A listing of rights of individuals is necessary, but the Constitution as a whole necessarily sets out how the government is to run, clearly describing powers and limitations.

If a clearinghouse of limitations needs to be made I think it would be more appropriate to commission an analogue to the Federalist Papers.

As to the alleged doplicity mentioned in Article III, it was felt to be necessary to make it crystal clear what was intended....since the legislation procedue was new, and the exerience of the players who worked on the early versions of the Constitution had to deal with players who had a mindset to loop for any lexiconic loophole.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing the word 'lexiconic' is meant to imply we still face such a threat. My ears are open if you would explain what kind of loophole would be exploited if Article III section 1 part E were deleted? I'd also like to know if you think it would be seriously considered on the part of TNP government.

The statements on essential procedural guarentees in criminal proceedings are of a similar nature. The statements in the Declaration of Rights intentionally specify those elements that are felt to be necessary in order to guarantee a fair trial.
Click to expand...
I can certainly see this as a concern, but section 7 already outlines broad rights concerning fairness of trials. Does the concept of 'proof' need to be defined or should it be a given that an 'impartial' trial have objective standards? (OOC aside: I think it's fascinating that you bring this up. Are there particular schools of thought on this?)
 
I am with Unterwasserseestaat on this one. I dont really think it limits our freedoms at all. On a side note, since you are trying to do a restructuring of the consitution, does that mean you are going to try to ammend every article?
 
The Southern Acre:
I am with Unterwasserseestaat on this one. I dont really think it limits our freedoms at all. On a side note, since you are trying to do a restructuring of the consitution, does that mean you are going to try to ammend every article?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it would be appropriate to go through the entire document. Most of the changes that I would make would be to put the election information in one place and do likewise for what it means for approval of the RA.
 
I see a potential use for editing, but I am uncomfortable with this editing being done outside the constitutional process required for other changes. Regardless of the intention, meaningful change is going to creep in, so we need to vote on it.

Or, more succinctly: As an amendment, or over my dead body. :)
 
Any change to the Constitution, whether it makes a meaningful change or no, would have to be approved by the manner already described in the Constitution. I mention that this is not intended to make meaningful change as a call to others to help make sure we don't make them, and to prevent getting sidetracked discussing meaningful changes we'd like to make.
 
Unter, would you be willing to consider the following:

That where there is a perceived overlap of a phrase in Article i and elsewhere, that the Article I provision be retained, and delete the overlap from other articles of the Constitution?

I am quite concerned about making any changes to Article I because it encapsulates the liberties of individual nations/players in the regions as well as imposes conceptual limits on regional government power. I am not in favor of making changes in Article I because of the symbolic importance of the Declaration of Rights to the foundation of regional law and governance.
 
Schnauzer, I'm more than willing to consider your suggestion, right now it's my busy week but I'll see how I could make such a thing work.

However, here is my caveat: I understand that you were one of the primary authors of the document and passage I'm considering here. Unfortunately, I had chosen to go on a separate path of action during the unpleasantness. My view of the symbolism contained in Art. I or elsewhere in the document is thus going to be different, as with anyone who wasn't an active part of the drafting.

I think that laying out conceptual limits on the powers of government is something to have in any foundational document. Putting the limits in at the heads of Articles III and V as appropriate makes more sense to me, and puts more emphasis on Invividual rights.

Here's a quick outline of what the Constitution looks like to me:
I. Rights of Individuals (and limits on government)
II. Responsibilities of Individuals, various protections and relations w/other regions.
III. Elections & Elected Officials
IV. Authority of the RA / Body Politic
V. Courts
VI. Expulsions
VII. Amendment Procedures

We could split Art. I into two sections making one for the limits in Art. I and Art. II, keeping both rights and limits at the head of the document. How is this idea in moving toward an amicable solution?
 
I like the idea above. It makes things much simpler.

Although the consitution is clearly a grand document, one of the greatest in NS, it could use some updating simply for the simplicity of the document, not for its actual meaning.
 
:yes:

I agree with the idea of cleaning up the constitution. I remember looking over it a couple of months back (yes, I have read it all, page turning stuff), and thinking it needed a spring clean.

However, hitting the Declaration of Rights first might not be the best idea. While it may be cumbersome, at least while the original is there we have something to draw on while dealing with other areas of the constitution. Also I'm not keen on removing some of the fundamental passages without insuring they are fully adressed in other areas of the document first.

Saying that, having read the amendment, I would agree to all changes except for the removal of the last sentance in Clause 2, and the total removal of Clause 11. I have no really legal reason, I just like them there.
 
It's just hard to say principal-wise because on one hand, should we really be cutting into which is the cornerstone of our region? Or has the Constitution in effect become so jaggedly confusing that it is out of touch with our citizens?
 
:yes:

Considering the combined length of the constitution and legal code, and the problems that could be caused by step by step amendments, I'd even go so far as to suggest we set up a (to steal a TWP tradition) constitution committee. That way we could discuss everything thats repeated and problems caused by subsequent amendments, without the worry of editing bit by bit, only to discover we've totally edited out somethings by accident. Obviously nothing quite on the scale of a TWP ConCom, we would only be tidying rather than changing anything.
 
On the one hand, I believe it is a good idea to make the constitution more accessible to readers.

On the other hand, though, I think that a rewrite would detract from the cultural value of the document. All of the legalese, the redundancies, and the sheer length add a certain mystique to the constitution that nearly all other regional charters lack. I'm not at all a religious person, but this is the only analogy I could think of...

Why is the King James Bible considered by nearly everyone to be the standard translation of the the Bible? Its English is archaic, and it uses vocabulary that most people are not familliar with. By all rights, a more modern translation should be the norm, for ease of reading and accessibility to the reader. So why, then, is this outdated, sometimes confusing, text used?

It's because all those "thou"s, all those "spaketh unto"s and every other phrase unfamilliar to the modern reader, create the feeling that the reader is reading something spiritual in nature.

When I read TNP's constitution, the strutcure and language made me feel as though I were reading the supreme law of the land, something official, something concrete. It's a sense I haven't gotten from any other NS legislation, and I think it'd be a shame to strip the constitution of it.

But as I said, I could go either way on this issue.
 
I think the Constitution should be completely rewritten, in order to better reflect the realities of the region. The legalese and length is secondary. The Constitution was a reactionary document, designed while we were still reeling from the Pixiedance delegacy. Thus, the sometimes-unnecessary restrictions on the delegate, the overly large Cabinet and weak Executive (the Prime Minister doesn't have any real power, for example), and the inefficient Judiciary, accompanied with bearaucratic nonsense like the security council.

We have too many positions with too little power. In an ideal world, it's a wonderful document. In the reality of TNP, it works, but not nearly as well as we deserve.
 
Actually I think the amendment is to make things either less verbose or just more efficient (as in, not repeating the same things....repeatedly).

I just went off on a tangent, because I can do that. nodnod
 
Last election-period there were a fair number of people who expressed an interest in reworking the Constitution. Several people went farther to suggest a Convention to draft a new document. I don't really believe we ought to have a convention because (1)I usually end up being busy the week we draft and vote and (2)I don't think people can take in and analyze several very different proposals for each section in a week or so. That's just me though.

Part of what gives our Constitution a different flavor than other NS regions' is Schnauzer's involvement and sheer amount of time he's put into it. Because of that we have a document which is of very high quality, though a little sprawling at points.

So, as no one else seemed to be getting around to it, I decided to go over our Constitution and see what I could do to make it a little less sprawling, and how to do that without changing our method of governance. That has led me to keep fairly close to the original document in terms of wording and structure to make sure changes don't slip in unawares. I feel that this would help make later, substantive changes by drawing attention to the wording bit by bit and hopefully making the document easier to work with.

Most of the members here will freely admit that they've never read the Constitution in its entirety, so it would clearly be a pipe dream to try to get them to comment on edits for the entire constitution at once. To Sniffles's point, I feel that in some respects it was never in touch with many of our citizens (but founding documents aren't the reason they play NS, so the point may be moot).

I chose to start out at the beginning (which may not have been the best idea, but oh well), so see how people felt about changes, hoping to progress through the rest of the document and presumably vote on changes to the entire document at once.
 
Okay, crapamolee this is confusing. This is certainly not a final draft, but I feel it begins to address Schnauzer's concerns about what is at the front of the document, and also separates Article I into two interrelated concepts. The idea here is that all rights and restrictions are in one place, and are strong enough to merit deleting mention of these restrictions later in the Constitution. See the bottom of this post for information on how I'm increasing the scope to Article I and Article II section 3.

COLOR KEY:
Blue means additions
Red means deletions
Green strikethru means text is copied verbatim to Plain Green
Click to expand...

Article I
Section 1: Rights of Nations
1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection , adding or withdrawing endorsements and UN membership.
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.
3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the United Nations shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.
4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding UN member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a UN member.
5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the impeachment of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with this Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.
6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.
7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer, represented by counsel of choice. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven   to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution or the Legal Code.
8'. If, as a matter of security, any nation should be ejected or banned from the region or forums, that 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, the ejected or banned Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The UN 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.
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.

Section 2: Limits of Power
In order to uphold the aforementioned rights of nations, the government of The North Pacific shall be subject to these limitations:
1. Any nation holding office in the Regional Government of The North Pacific shall act only in the best interests of the Region.
2. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution.
3. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
4. As regional security is also a right of resident nations, in the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.
5. If a nation submits a petition co-signed by a fellow nation taking issue with Regional governance, the Cabinet shall be required to review and issue a statement addressing the petition.
6. No government official shall have the authority to change the designated off-site forum for regional governance without approval of a majority of the members of the Regional Assembly.
7. The UN Delegate and Vice Delegate for the Region shall have no authority to act in any other manner with respect to the Regional Government, unless such authority is expressly granted to the Delegate or Vice Delegate through process of Amendment of this Constitution, and not by implication.
8. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code
Click to expand...

Here I am also taking Article II, Section 3 to lump in its curbs on governmental power to the front of the document. I would take part 2 and basically make it into Article I section 2 parts 1 and 5. Article II section 3 part 3 would become I.2.6. Article II section 3 part 1 is addressed in Article II Section 1 Part 1, and I believe should be deleted, but that should be dealt with later (Eventually I feel the entirety of Article II section 3 can be transferred or deleted). Quoted below for good measure:

Art.II:
Section 3. Jurisdiction, Review of Regional Government Action.

1) Nations who register to vote in this Region are subject to all the provisions of this Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, or other laws including but not limited to the provisions of Article III; Section 1, Clause 5 of this Constitution. Each Nation entitled to a vote in the manner prescribed under this Constitution or The North Pacific Legal Code, is entitled to the equal treatment of that Nation's right to vote.
2) The UN Delegate for The North Pacific, the Prime Minister, any Cabinet Minister, any deputy Cabinet minister, and the Attorney General shall act only in the best interests of the Region. Should any Regional Assembly member believe that the actions of the Delegate, the Prime Minister, or any other official in the Regional Government are inappropriate, or would serve the Region better if enacted as permanent law, that Nation may draft a petition, describing the action taken, to be signed by at least one other member, and then posted in a appropriate thread in the Regional off-site forum for the Prime Minister's office. The Cabinet shall review all such petitions. After deciding on the proper action to be taken, whether it is to overturn that action or to adopt that action as permanent law, the Cabinet shall put its decision up for a referendum of the Regional Assembly. If a majority vote is cast by the Regional Assembly (with a quorum of voters participating) in favor of ratification of the Cabinet's decision is approved by the Regional Assembly, it shall be carried out immediately.
3) No government official shall have the authority to change the designated off-site forum for regional governance without approval of a majority of the members of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
 
It is good to see people stepping forward to trim the Constitution to make it less verbose and more in-tune with the community!!

It is unsurprising to see the usual suspects fighting off even the thought of amending the Constitution for no other reason than they wrote it!!

The Constitution is supposed to be a living document, hence the sections outlining how the document can be altered!! The changes Unterwasserseestaat has proposed do not detract from the meaning of the Constitution but remove redundant and reword overly verbose sections!!

I like the changes proposed and hope the vocal minority do not howl down this discussion and a subsequent vote should it progess that far!!

It is time this vocal few put the region before their own egos!!
 
Okay, I wanted to give it a bit to see what people thought. I'll put up a separate thread on article 2 later tonight.

Edit: maybe not. I'm heading off for the weekend.
 
I'm in te midst of preparing a move cross-country next week probably will take three-four days) so I haven't had a lot of time to go over the draft with a fine tooth comb.

However, I am concerned about deleting numbered clause three in Article II Section 3. That is a specific restriction on the ability of any official to change the location of the official regional forum without approval of the region, and in fact, was used last December to move to our current location from s2. It is specifically designed to prevent such moves being taken without express consent of the region's participating voters (now in the regional assembly) and should be retained to prevent such abuses in the future.

This should not be taken to mean I agree with this, just that it may be a week or two before I can review it with a fine tooth comb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top