What needs changing?

punk d

punk d

TNPer
-
-
I've spent 3 hours reviewing the Constituion and Legal Code, making various notes.

The constitution is actually a simple, yet verbose, document once you trim down it's parts....

The Legal Code....hmmm...not so much.

But if anyone has any thoughts onwhat they feel needs changing please post them here. I plan to introduce some pretty significant changes once i'm able to peruse most of the changes that have occurred over the past year.

Yes, I am a nerd and Yes, this is fun!
 
You stated previously that in the Constitutional Convention that you yourself wrote a draft constitution. Do you still have that with you?
 
Also, somewhat unrelated to the topic at hand, are we sorta tabling all legislative activity until after the elections? (*cough* I'd love to have some more feedback on my last two bills. >_>)
 
Dalimbar,

I posted that in another topic, but i can post that again.

If we're tabling legislation than this is the perfect time to discuss legislation so that when elections are over we're ready to rock.
 
The interm speaker, Grosseschnauzer, will be able to best answer that question I suppose.

Punk, what's the link to that thread? No need to post the con more than necessary.
 
From what I can tell, there were no proposals in formal discussion awaiting a vote, so I don't anticipate trying to being bills in preliminary discussion forward at this point; I'd rather let the next Speaker make those decisions. However, in the event something comes up that requires action before then, they we'll deal with those if and when they arise.

The only thing I plan to do, and I'm pretty sure Dalimbar will agree, is that we ask the RA to grant an extension of time to the regional task force to continue past the end of the current term. The whole idea behind tat was to explore and experiment with things, and if there are ideas that work, then the task force can recommend legislation to make the changes.
 
One person's claim of "bureaucracy" is another person's protection under the law from oppression and abuse.

'Tis not as simple as some of you think. Beware of the law of unintended consequences. The bigger the changes, the bigger the unintended consequences.
 
Fulhead Land:
I think this constitution is hardly noteworthy for its protection against abuse
Click to expand...
Yeah, criminals running rampant, and when they are brought to trial, it collapses!

:D

Sorry FL, I don't mean it of course... :shifty:

As to what needs changing, strip out the legalase, trim down to constitution, clear up the legal code, hunt down the redundancies and contradictions. And when you're done, you'll then have a decent template on which to write a new one.
 
But you are right Nam. The idea that the current Constitution provides protection from abuse is a total fallacy. It's length is what leaves it open to abuse.

I find the whole "shortening the constitution = OMG! Dictatorshipz!!" arguement stupid to be quite frank. For those who haven't seen it, go look at TWP's Constitution and laws. Are they not a successful democracy too?
 
The constitution is fairly simple in the abstract but seems to try to deal with every and all circumstances.

I think, and this is only my opinion, that it misses the spirit of TNP on some parts while trying to legislate too much in others.

I have not been able to attend to this as I would have liked this week, but I hope that this is a discussion that continues throughout the next term.
 
Zemnaya Svoboda:
Upper Kirby:
Haor Chall:
But you are right Nam. The idea that the current Constitution provides protection from abuse is a total fallacy.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah? How so? Regale me with your insights.
Click to expand...
Tell me your rights.

Yeah, you heard me. What are they?
Click to expand...
Not sure how that answers my question. Haor Chall made some very firm statements with nothing to support them either than opinion phrases ("I find", "quite frankly") or around the verb is by stating them as concrete fact. How is it a fallacy? Cuz you're you and we should believe what you say, cuz you're you? I can string words together and say this document or that idea is a fallacy or whatever I want to label it just as much as you can, but stating it as a truth doesn't make it so, nor should I believe it.
 
I've yet to see the constitution upheld at court. I'd also point out that most people ignore sections of the constitution anyway.

Examples:
the SC/NPA thing that has only recently come into play
MoEA's organising treaties and offering embassies without putting them to vote (this has changed with an update though)
 
Government Structure

One of the things that confuses me about the constitution is the lengths it goes to disrupt any kind of natural power distribution throughout the government.

The Delegate is relegated to a UN Issue answerer, not even retaining a figure head status in reality.

The Prime Minister is a largely undefined role.

Virtually all the ministers are rendered powerless by the endless check on their roles. For example the MoEA is unable to do any more than open consulates without a vote from the RA or cabinet, or SC or combinations of all three. The MoD can't send the NPA without permission. Most ministerial positions are glorified admin jobs.

The only group with any real power is the SC. By and large the region could probably run with just the SC here, if the rest of the government disappeared.

I'm not saying the entire government is useless no matter who is office because of the constitution. But I would say that the individuals who have excelled in government positions have done so despite the constitution not because of it. The government officials I've seen who have done excellent jobs have by and large done so because they have pushed themselves beyond what the constitution prescribes them.

I understand why the constitution does so, history has taught this region to guard against those who wield too much power. But have we not reached a point whereby there is enough trust to allow ministers a certain amount of individual freedom in their role?

Any thoughts? Is that a reasonable point, or I'm I seeing problems where they don't exist?
 
My foremost concern personally is the the incredibly and unnecessarily lengthy nature of the Constitution, to make no mention of the mind numbing and indecipherable legalese it's been written in. I consider myself a fairly intelligent individual, and I have difficulty making heads and tails of it. Not to mention it defines many things which I don't think ought to be left for simpler legislation other than a founding Constitution.

There are other issues in terms of the structure of government itself which absolutely perplex me, but I'll hold my tongue on those matters of the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top