CLO slot

Tresville

Tresville

TNPer
We have an open CLO slot. Should we start a new election for that position or do we just throw it to the next member who had the highest votes in the previous election?
 
I'll run for the Open CLO slot if still available. Served on it once before.
 
Should we start a new election for that position or do we just throw it to the next member who had the highest votes in the previous election?
 
Chowda Head:
What exactly is the CLO and what does it do?
Click to expand...
Constitution:
Article IV: Council of Lower Officers

Section 1: Membership and Powers

1. The Council of Lower Officers (CLO) is to be comprised of the Speaker of the Assembly and three specially-elected members of the Assembly.
2. The CLO is to be given access and speaking privileges within the private Cabinet areas but are not allowed to take part in votes of the Cabinet.
3. The CLO may, with the approval of at least three of the four members, place an emergency temporary halt on any specific action undertaken by the Executive branch.
4. The CLO may vote to immediately bring any piece of legislation to an emergency vote before the Assembly.
Click to expand...
 
What exactly is the point of the CLO? I understand the constitutional definitions but I am curious as to the reason for it ever being implemented.

Is it so that there is some level of transparency in the government? Doesn't the Judiciary, since they observe the workings of the government and determine their constitutionality, serve the same purpose? (With the notible exception of the overriding vote clause - although Court action could do the same thing.)
 
Gracius Maximus:
What exactly is the point of the CLO? I understand the constitutional definitions but I am curious as to the reason for it ever being implemented.

Is it so that there is some level of transparency in the government? Doesn't the Judiciary, since they observe the workings of the government and determine their constitutionality, serve the same purpose? (With the notible exception of the overriding vote clause - although Court action could do the same thing.)
Click to expand...
They question and investigate the executive with an extra eye on cabinet discussions. They also have the power to halt and legislatively stop any executive action. I wouldn't think it'd be your cup of tea GM.
 
mr_sniffles:
Gracius Maximus:
What exactly is the point of the CLO?  I understand the constitutional definitions but I am curious as to the reason for it ever being implemented.

Is it so that there is some level of transparency in the government?  Doesn't the Judiciary, since they observe the workings of the government and determine their constitutionality, serve the same purpose?  (With the notible exception of the overriding vote clause - although Court action could do the same thing.)
Click to expand...
They question and investigate the executive with an extra eye on cabinet discussions. They also have the power to halt and legislatively stop any executive action. I wouldn't think it'd be your cup of tea GM.
Click to expand...
I am not seeking the spot.

But what you clarify is essentially what the Constitution also states the Judiciary is to take care of:

Article V: Judicial Branch

The Judicial Branch is invested with the powers and obligation to investigate the constitutionality of Government policies, actions, and laws. It is also tasked to provide an impartial platform by which suspects of crimes against the region or against others are tried.
Click to expand...

The Judges evaluate the constitutionality of governmental acts. If an act is deemed to be unconstitutional then the Judges would voice that belief in the form of an official opinion. This opinion can be expressed directly to the Cabinet in their forum or on the open Court.
 
You answered your own question as the CLO deals with actions seen as against the wishes of the RA or key democratic principles with the judiciary handling the legality of it. Whatever overlap is due to the slow pace of the judiciary and also due to the fact that the judges aren't privilleged to on-going cabinet discussions.
 
mr_sniffles:
You answered your own question as the CLO deals with actions seen as against the wishes of the RA or key democratic principles with the judiciary handling the legality of it. Whatever overlap is due to the slow pace of the judiciary and also due to the fact that the judges aren't privilleged to on-going cabinet discussions.
Click to expand...
Really?

How can the Judiciary be expected to hold up their constitutional obligation if they are not privy to the Cabinet?

If that is indeed the case and there is no room for compromise then I will put my name forward as a candidate for the CLO, simply because I believe members of the Judiciary should be privy to those discussions.

Note: This isn't a matter of any type of "powerplay" or some such nonsense, I turned down a position in the Cabinet earlier today, but the rationale that the Court is meant, by law, to monitor and interpret governmental actions and decisions but is not privy to those decisions until after the fact is lost on me.
 
I have suggested privately that merging the CLO and Judiciary seems a sensible option. My understanding of the two is that the CLO can pre-emptively stop the Executive from doing something stupid, whereas the Judiciary has to wait for someone to go and file a formal, legal suit against the Executive in response to something they've done. Certainly they are complementary bodies, at the least. The argument against it (a merger) probably involves the potential of a merged body being too powerful, but I tend to view both the current bodies as not powerfl enough, so creating one with sufficient heft (...yea....) would be a good idea.
 
The Judicial Branch is invested with the powers and obligation to investigate the constitutionality of Government policies, actions, and laws.
Click to expand...
With that I don't see a problem with a judge having viewing access in the cabinet forum.
 
Heft:
I have suggested privately that merging the CLO and Judiciary seems a sensible option. My understanding of the two is that the CLO can pre-emptively stop the Executive from doing something stupid, whereas the Judiciary has to wait for someone to go and file a formal, legal suit against the Executive in response to something they've done. Certainly they are complementary bodies, at the least. The argument against it (a merger) probably involves the potential of a merged body being too powerful, but I tend to view both the current bodies as not powerfl enough, so creating one with sufficient heft (...yea....) would be a good idea.
Click to expand...
According to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, no such action from a third party must take place prior to legal action from the Court.

That may be precedent and acceptable policy but it is not legally binding.

There are a great many things that need to be clarified and reworked in the current Legal Code (the references to a UN Delegate and the Attorney General need to be reworked along with a great many semantic issues that will take some effort on the part of an active Judiciary) and it is my hope to get some of these processes that have been around through several Constitutions readdressed in order to streamline the effectiveness of the Court system.
 
It`s not that they`re not privy, it`s just that they need to be supeonaed. The judges acts AFTER the fact, then looks into the reasonings while the CLO works with the cabinet all the way along.

While I agree that the powers of the judiciary need to be expanded, the CLO and the judges do very different work.
 
mr_sniffles:
It`s not that they`re not privy, it`s just that they need to be supeonaed. The judges acts AFTER the fact, then looks into the reasonings while the CLO works with the cabinet all the way along.

While I agree that the powers of the judiciary need to be expanded, the CLO and the judges do very different work.
Click to expand...
Based on the Constitution that isn't necessarily the way it should be handled. There is no provision in the Constitution that outlines any process by which a Judge would be supeoned, in fact a supeona would traditionally work in the reverse fashion.

The Court is obligated by the Constitution to speak to the legality of governmental acts and decisions. It only makes sense that the Court be available to provide that opinion prior to an erroneous act taking place, thus saving the region time and headache.

Regardless, the Delegate, who controls the Cabinet, has expressed his agreement that the Court (Judges) have access to view ongoing discussions. No provision is provided for the Court to vote on or stop actions from taking place, but the allowance for opinion of the Court to be heard during discussion seems dictated by the Constitution.
 
Heft:
I have suggested privately that merging the CLO and Judiciary seems a sensible option. My understanding of the two is that the CLO can pre-emptively stop the Executive from doing something stupid, whereas the Judiciary has to wait for someone to go and file a formal, legal suit against the Executive in response to something they've done. Certainly they are complementary bodies, at the least. The argument against it (a merger) probably involves the potential of a merged body being too powerful, but I tend to view both the current bodies as not powerfl enough, so creating one with sufficient heft (...yea....) would be a good idea.
Click to expand...
This should explain everything.


However your attempt to strong arm more powers before you`re elected is just what we`d expect from you GM.
 
His interpretation is at least as correct as that which the judiciary has previously been working under. Given that the previous Court refused to even offer an official opinion on whether something would be legal, and insisted on being hamstrung by policies, his interpretation seems much more in-line with what the Judiciary should actually be expected to do.
 
mr_sniffles:
Heft:
I have suggested privately that merging the CLO and Judiciary seems a sensible option. My understanding of the two is that the CLO can pre-emptively stop the Executive from doing something stupid, whereas the Judiciary has to wait for someone to go and file a formal, legal suit against the Executive in response to something they've done. Certainly they are complementary bodies, at the least. The argument against it (a merger) probably involves the potential of a merged body being too powerful, but I tend to view both the current bodies as not powerfl enough, so creating one with sufficient heft (...yea....) would be a good idea.
Click to expand...
This should explain everything.


However your attempt to strong arm more powers before you`re elected is just what we`d expect from you GM.
Click to expand...
This is laughable.

I turned down a Cabinet position. There is no stipulation under the Constitution that restricts holding more than one office. If I were looking for personal power then I would accept the EA Minister position and maintain a position on the Court at the same time and would probably seek to have my name on this ballot as well.

I know how to play the power game and currently I am not doing so, if I wanted to then I simply would.

You have been one of the strongest advocates against the lack of action on the part of the Court, I am simply supporting what you and others have postulated for months and seeking to put it into action.

If you feel that I have spoken against any part of the Constitution please point it out to me.
 
Your haste to apply for every available position is remarkable.

As such, I provide you with this link her. I have already nominated you, so you only have to accept or decline. :lol:
 
Outer Kharkistania:
Your haste to apply for every available position is remarkable.

As such, I provide you with this link her. I have already nominated you, so you only have to accept or decline. :lol:
Click to expand...
Reading posts helps.

I didn't say I was applying, I said that if I was seeking to make a power play that I would, but I'm not, so I fail to see your point.

Of course, you are the one that called me a hasbeen. I believe I told you that my status was merely a byproduct of my choosing not to log in to the game. I hope my point has been proven.
 
Yes its ok. Just be active.

I have already had problems with the CLO. I will be looking for someone to propose activity clauses in a few areas. Stagnation in government is a plague that trickles down to the community. I believe we have felt that before and for some time.
 
Excellent! We have a good slate of candidates which is a good sign that activity is on the upswing.

In re to merging the CLO with the judiciary - A very interesting proposition but the CLO tends to serve an executive function (regional defense) as opposed to a judicial one. However it might be argued that it also covers a judicial function in making decisions of a legal nature (expelling a nation that poses a threat).

Point being, perhaps defining the rule of the CLO more narrowly might help eliminate duplication of services, as it were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top