Time For Change

We all know it is true, some of us are just unwilling to accept it. This constitution's time is upon us, it is no longer able to function in what TNP has become. This is why I urge this amendment to the constitution:

Article VIII: Termination

This Constitution and all associated documents will be rendered null and void as of xx/xx/xxxx

Click to expand...

The first thing to do is to decide when we want to get rid of the constitution, because at some point it will ahve to go away

This idea does have two major hurdles in its path though. The first is getting enough approval and an agreement on the date. The second is the quorum requirement of 15 people to vote. This cannot begin to be dealt with until the Speaker goes through and updates the roster and we get at minimum 15 RA members.

Article VIII: Duty

Only those who would recognize the legitimacy of this constitution anyway must recognize the legitimacy of this constitution.

There. There we go.

Actually, the most efficient way to transition to a new constitution is to amend it so that what is there to function is to be left in place until the new constitution is ratified and charge the RA to convene a constitutional convention.

I don't see anything wrong with the Constitution.

I do see that we have an inactive executive government and an inactive speaker which needs fixing.

The power of recall by the RA is already there. The gap was the inability to have anyone who could preside over the RA. I've already posted an idea to fix that issue by a RA rule. There is supposed to be a Vice Delegate who should have stepped up, but that's an issue that I'm not sure was raised.

And finally if you want to change to yet another Constitution, put what you want as a replacement on the table. Short of that, the issue won't get anywhere.

Hell yeah, abolishing the Constitution is at the top of my to-do list!(item two is making a new zetaboard called "The North Pacific $Noun" and item three is going on a banning spree.)

I agree with Roman, Gross and Govindia. I don't see that wiping it out like that will do anything productive. In practice, it is currently largely inactive because the government it mandates is defunct. Formally declaring this won't speed up the transition to a new one; making a new one and ratifying it is the only thing that can do that.

I am simply proposing this idea now so we can start the process.

Gov: Saying there is nothing wrong with this Constitution is like saying we should put Blue Wolf in charge of the FRA.

Grosse: I plan on introducing my idea, which has already been somewhat proposed, shortly and I have already posted my thoughts on possibles changes to the current constitution elsewhere on the forum. Again, I'm proposing this to get things moving so that when we have decided on a new system we can give this one a dignified exit and let it fade away rather than tossing it out the door.

I'm also in favor of not letting the momentum to streamline a few things fade out.

Some things to keep in mind.

The Delegate, under the current Constitution, is the head of state and government, and can fashion the executive nranch in any form and with whatever titles the Delegate wants to use.

the RA functions when the Speaker has it function. The dislike some had for procedure in the last Constitution led to a system in this Constitution where the Speaker has total discretion. Net result, far less legislative activity under this Constitution than under the last one, especially after various amendments and laws were passed to fix as many of the gaps that were apparent once this current Constitution was adopted. What we've seen lately, to me, points more to fixing the number of small problems rather than yet another huge overhaul that will instead lead to numerous fixes that are created by starting yet again from a blank page. I've been through it enough times now to understand this is what yet another constitutional convention, or its equivalent would lead to; and so I'd really prefer seeing if a set of small, identifiable fixes can be tried first. The other observation I want to make is this -- most of the amendments since this Constitution came in has been to re-introduce ideas that were blindly swept away in the name of "simplification" and that fact alone should be enough to caution against yet another bid for even more "simplification."
Adjustments need to be made, yes, but from what I can see a relative handful of specific fixes is more likely to be effective than a wholesale bonfire.

I don't think we need to have a bonfire but we need to look seriously at the whole of the current Constitution in order to simplify it, structurally and functionally speaking.

How about this for a starting point - get a few volunteers and assign them to look at specific divisions of the Constitution with the aim of simplifying the structure and reducing the number of bureaucrats and layers in mind.

We could also do non-binding 'beta tests' of specific changes in the Constitution. That is, we can, for all intents and purposes, conduct experiments in government structure and Constitution to see how something works before actually committing to it.

Given the misconception about the scope of the Court's authority, and the feeling some have that the CLO is exercising a function that ought to belong to the Court, I'm willing to consider a transfer so that the CLO would consist of the three Justice and the Speaker as chair, and would essentially issue a temporary halt on an executive action where an executive action raises issues of constitutionality, and to allow the CLO to present motions for immediate vote in the RA or to permit votes on a specific motion under special terms.

Couple that with the right sort of Speaker Pro Temp rule and we might in fact address a lot of the concerns that exist.

We also need to take a look at tweaking the rules about the Security Council membership. I we wounder if we've made it to difficult to get the old timers to join?

In my experience, the problem with getting inactive old timers on the Security Council is that they aren't in the RA and don't want to rejoin it as they would then feel obligated to keep up with RA matters.

The CLO needs to be killed in my opinion.

HEM:

The CLO needs to be killed in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Or at least examined for it's effectiveness and purpose.

If we really wanted to keep it simple and keep the size of the government down to a dull roar all we need is an Executive, Legislative, and Judicial in terms of branches of government. And then allow the Delegate to appoint his own cabinet of ministers who would function as the CLO. This keeps the organizational 'tree' simple yet flexible to meet changing needs.

[edit: that's better. ]