A mean old man for Speaker of the RA

A mean old man

A mean old man

TNPer
Well, it seems I'm running unopposed, but I'll make a campaign thread nonetheless.

Off and on for the past year and a half I've been working with TNP's Regional Assembly. I'm generally active and can take care of the administrative duties that come with this position with ease, so that won't be an issue.

Lately the activity in the RA has been impressive. To be general regarding my particular vision when it comes to TNP, I'd like to see the RA lead the region in a direction which brings about heightened security measures and a more comprehensive and organized legal code. This won't be easy, and I could be thinking idealistically, but there's always an ultimate goal to work towards and we have to start somewhere.

Also, I'll remind Fel again to propose the edits I wrote for him if he hasn't already.
 
"Organizing" it is a step I don't see taken very often around here, a step that involves elucidation of certain points (an example of this being Gross's latest amendment to Law 22) and possibly the reordering of the legal code so that it appears on the page simply in a more visually coherent fashion.

Personal experience (plus the grievances of others) has taught me that TNP's legal code is unbelievably difficult (and nearly impossible on the first try) to read through and comprehend because of two key issues: It is too long/verbose, and it is too scattered. If this region's government is to gain a number of new, dedicated members (which it needs in order to survive and thrive in the future), its legal code can't be a horrendous mess of text staring them down. They have to be able to figure it out, which means the existing legal code must be divided into sections, clearly portrayed with all the fluff cut out, and properly organized. Either that or it needs to be entirely redone.
 
Also, as Speaker, and I'm sure this will be good news for some and bad news for others - I will stick to the rules established for my position and for this government, and I will stick to them religiously. I think Fel has, overall, done a good job as Speaker, though I strongly disagree with his general leniency when it comes to removing RA members for inactivity and for other violations.

Violations are violations. Rules are rules. The law is the law. For those who don't know me well: I'm very concerned with following the established procedures and with attempting to change them in the conventional fashion if I find them unsatisfactory. If something is set in stone, it must be obeyed. Don't expect me to give anything the slip during my time in office.

EDIT: However, as much as I might like to, I will not act on anything retroactively. The free passes which Fel gave during his term I cannot undo; my term doesn't overlap Fel's and I can't go back in time to correct his mistakes. Once my term begins I will begin acting on whatever happens to come up precisely during my time in office.
 
Another thought on the whole "organization" thing which I was discussing with Elu not too long ago via IRC (...and I have his permission to mention that!):

TNP's legislation needs to be redesigned to give each governmental position its own section to outline all of its details and duties which could be edited easily. The current legislation's details/duties of governmental officers are "spread out like mayonnaise across the entire legal code and therefore fucking impossible to do anything with." Right now the legal code is a web, "with everything being interconnected and really, really annoying to read and edit."

Also, the Court desperately needs to be redesigned. It can't have its own rules. The Court's rules could counter existing legislation if they referred to multiple justices while in the legal code and/or Constitution the Court's setup was changed and referred to as having only one justice. In fact, incongruousness between the Court rules and the legal code/Constitution could cause confusion in many different areas. The fact that the RA has control over one document and the Court over the other only makes room for unsolvable internal dispute. The Court's rules or the Constitution/Legal Code? It's obvious which one has to go.
 
Since the scope of the request was the election, I would hazard a guess that the 'injunction' ends when the election ends.
 
...I've looked through the Constitution and through the Legal Code. Nowhere in either document is a Court Justice given the ability to make this action. As far as I am concerned it has no legal basis and I will not allow it to impede me in the carrying out of my duties as Speaker of the RA.

FALCONKATS made no indication that this was an act of judicial review, nor was it an issue brought before the entire three-man judiciary body and subsequently judged by this entire body. As far as I am concerned it is illegitimate and I will ignore it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top