Initial Draft for a New Constitution

Gulliver

Gulliver

TNPer
As promised, it's time to vote on an initial draft for a constitution so we'll all be on the same page throughout this process.

Since a I posted my legislative agenda for constitutional reform, two proposals have been made, and will be the choices in this poll. The first and initial discussion of it can be found here, and the other and discussion about it can be found here.

Again, this is merely to select an initial draft, so don't feel that whatever proposal you pick has to be perfect. Any kinks can be ironed out in the coming weeks leading up to a final vote.

I'm opening this a day later than I said I was going to, so it'll probably run a day later than I said as well. That is, this poll will be open for a week.
 
Actually, I like both of the proposals. I'm going to make a comparison to see where they 'overlap' (commonality) and where they don't, and think about how the elements unique to each can be combined and kept simple enough to be effective.
 
I voted for the second Proposal because I favored it slightly more than the first, However I do like the security council provisions in the first proposal.
 
I see more problems with the first option than with the second. (One problem, and we've faced this before, is that using the phraseology of the RL U.S. Constitution can be problematic when the context is outside the history and common law tradition that infused the drafting of that document.)
But even the second version has some flaws that need to be addressed and haven't been, so far.
Due to both RL and NS responsibilities, I don't have time to pull a draft together that I think would shift as much as possible into the Legal Code. But as was discussed with Gulliver's draft, certain procedural elements are unavoidable in order to have consistency. Even the RL US Constitution was very specific about some procedures (enacting laws, constitutional amendments, and elections and apportionment, for instance) so our need for similar specificity on some topics isn't a bad thing.
 
It is unfortunately true that the occasional detail has to be constitutional.

It may be good to try to minimize that.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I see more problems with the first option than with the second. (One problem, and we've faced this before, is that using the phraseology of the RL U.S. Constitution can be problematic when the context is outside the history and common law tradition that infused the drafting of that document.)
But even the second version has some flaws that need to be addressed and haven't been, so far.
Due to both RL and NS responsibilities, I don't have time to pull a draft together that I think would shift as much as possible into the Legal Code. But as was discussed with Gulliver's draft, certain procedural elements are unavoidable in order to have consistency. Even the RL US Constitution was very specific about some procedures (enacting laws, constitutional amendments, and elections and apportionment, for instance) so our need for similar specificity on some topics isn't a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Actually, it wasn't based on the RL US Constitution - it was actually based upon elements of the CSA constitution.

That said, I actually do prefer the second draught constitution, and agree with PE concerning the security council provisions in the first proposal.
 
Good splitting choice.

At any rate, I do think the second draft, overall, is a fits our region better as a whole document.
 
I believe it has been a week now. Proposal 2 seems to be the popular choice, so it's time to get to work for real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top