Formal Constitutional Draft

15 days membership to vote in an election would be a new rule. I don't expect there to be much enthusiasm behind it.
 
Eluvatar:
15 days membership to vote in an election would be a new rule. I don't expect there to be much enthusiasm behind it.
Click to expand...
Gulliver's draft originally includes this provision:

1. No person who has not been a member of the Regional Assembly for at least fifteen days may hold government office.
Click to expand...
.

That can be read all sorts of ways, as in applying to all appointed slots and not just elected offices listed in the Constitution. That also makes it a new requirement.

We do need to discuss these things. My suggestion about voters is in response to the change that eliminates the wating period of r RA admission, which effectively removed a wating period as to voters who as things are now written might be able to register for the RA and be admitted while elctions are going on. It creates the potential for ballot stuffing.

Gulliver's proposed provision is a slightly different issue but it is a different element about how quickly new members should be voting and holding positions especially when they are new to TNP and or new to the game. It's a legitimate question. And it does tie into how we prevent concerted outside efforts to unduly influence TNP elections (a copu d'etat at the ballot box, if you like.)
 
How about adding an 'age' clause so to speak for RA membership/government positions to simplify things.

For instance, any nation that wishes to apply to the RA must have obtained and 'age' of X amount of days continuous residence in TNP before being admitted to the RA; and must have attained and 'age' of X+15 days (just as an arbitrary number) before holding a government position, elected or otherwise?
 
I think it would be simpler to just put 30 days into the draft as per the current Constitution, which I'll do if no one objects.

If people want "afforded" can be changed to "guaranteed". It makes no real legal difference. As for keeping the Bill of Right separate or not, that was partially implicitly already decided by the decision to require a separate threshold to amend it.

On the issue of SC exemptions, since it's never been used before, I think the current vote will provide something of a test case on whether it is necessary or not.
Grossechnauzer:
I fail to see the reason for removing rulemaking authority from the Court as a body and requiring R.A. legislation on each and every procedure in the Court.
Click to expand...
But the Court doesn't require the RA to lay down every procedure for it, you quoted the very text I quoted explicitly granting the Chief Justice the power to make procedural calls when there is no procedure.

In general, I do not like the thought of giving just three people complete and total power overs the laws and rules which guarantee that the right of due process is actually meaningful. It merits public discussion and consensus. Also, under the current legal code we recently adopted, we do in fact now have procedure for court cases legislated by the Regional Assembly.

All that said, your point about the scourge of hyperliteralists is valid, and I can live the rules clause so long as the Regional Assembly can set important rules of the judicial process when necessary.

As a final thought, just what "rules" or "procedures" constitute is somewhat vague; one could interpret the ability to make internal rules as separate from, say, a law on rules of evidence. If that's the case then the rules clause would definitely be fine.

As to the issue of admissions into the SC and how to structure the Court and any appeals system, those probably warrant a poll by this point.

As a final thought, some stylistic reorganizing of the breakup of the articles is probably called for at some point. Obviously not the most important point here.
 
Gulliver:
Grossechnauzer:
I fail to see the reason for removing rulemaking authority from the Court as a body and requiring R.A. legislation on each and every procedure in the Court.
Click to expand...
But the Court doesn't require the RA to lay down every procedure for it, you quoted the very text I quoted explicitly granting the Chief Justice the power to make procedural calls when there is no procedure.

In general, I do not like the thought of giving just three people complete and total power overs the laws and rules which guarantee that the right of due process is actually meaningful. It merits public discussion and consensus. Also, under the current legal code we recently adopted, we do in fact now have procedure for court cases legislated by the Regional Assembly.

All that said, your point about the scourge of hyperliteralists is valid, and I can live the rules clause so long as the Regional Assembly can set important rules of the judicial process when necessary.

As a final thought, just what "rules" or "procedures" constitute is somewhat vague; one could interpret the ability to make internal rules as separate from, say, a law on rules of evidence. If that's the case then the rules clause would definitely be fine.
Click to expand...
From my earlier post:
I'll consider some sort of R.A. "veto" over specific proposed court rules (within a set amount of time), but the first level of making rules for the Court should come from the Court that has to operate under them,
Click to expand...

This is my effort to suggest a middle ground. In any event, the RA can simply amend the Legal Code and supercede a Court rule, if need be. (Not to mention that in the Legal Code revision, the R.A. has in fact superseded some of the current Court rules on the time frame for proceedings.
 
I would very much like to see 15 days of membership be sufficient to stand in an election.

I am fine with allowing nations to vote the day after they register, but don't feel strongly on that subject.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
This is my effort to suggest a middle ground. In any event, the RA can simply amend the Legal Code and supercede a Court rule, if need be. (Not to mention that in the Legal Code revision, the R.A. has in fact superseded some of the current Court rules on the time frame for proceedings
Click to expand...
Well, if the legal code can supersede rules as necessary, then I'm fine with the rules clause. If no one objects I will add it back in the next update and remove any redundant text about rule-making elsewhere
Eluvatar:
I would very much like to see 15 days of membership be sufficient to stand in an election.
Click to expand...
Then it's probably time for another poll.
 
I would suggest the general autonomous rule-making clause we have now (or its reworded variant) be subject to any provision in the Legal Code; doing it that way will reduce arguments in the future.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I would suggest the general autonomous rule-making clause we have now (or its reworded variant) be subject to any provision in the Legal Code; doing it that way will reduce arguments in the future.
Click to expand...
That works.
Eluvatar:
On the upside you can then get rid of the explicit power of the RA to set its own procedures.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
I've not commented on this, mostly because I like the looks of it so far and I've not had time to work through the detail.

However, thought I should at least say that, I like how its going so far. Nice work Gulliver.
 
peoples empire:
Gulliver:
Eluvatar:
On the upside you can then get rid of the explicit power of the RA to set its own procedures.
Gulliver:
yep
Click to expand...

Yes Heaven Forbid :tb1:
Click to expand...
peoples empire, i think you're missing the fact that what Elu was referring to was the separate explicit power for the R.A. to adopt its own rules. What we're doing to bringing forward the current concept but just adding a clause that permits changes to the legal code to supercede a rule adopted by any of the different parts of the government, whether the Court, the R.A., the Delegate, or the S.C.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Grosseschnauzer:
peoples empire:
Gulliver:
Eluvatar:
On the upside you can then get rid of the explicit power of the RA to set its own procedures.
Gulliver:
yep
Click to expand...

Yes Heaven Forbid :tb1:
Click to expand...
peoples empire, i think you're missing the fact that what Elu was referring to was the separate explicit power for the R.A. to adopt its own rules. What we're doing to bringing forward the current concept but just adding a clause that permits changes to the legal code to supercede a rule adopted by any of the different parts of the government, whether the Court, the R.A., the Delegate, or the S.C.
Click to expand...
OK if that's what you believe she meant that's fine with me.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Well FEC's exemption from RA requirements has passed, so I'm going to take that as a sign that that should be included in the draft unless anyone objects.

Also, is everyone fine with the current admissions process for the SC? If no one says anything I'm just going to skip the hassle of a poll and put it back in.
 
Time for another update. This time I've:
  • Restored a provision allowing government bodies to establish procedures for their own governance;
  • Restored a clause about the forum terms of service being the responsibility of the admins;
  • Added a clause requiring government officials to maintain RA membership;
  • Rewritten the separation of powers article according to the recent amendment.
The debate on requirements for SC membership and what sort of exemptions to give has, however, continued, so I might not to make a call on that yet, though it's still likely. I'm having a moment of posting before I had collected all my thoughts >_<

If there's something else we discussed which I've forgotten point it out so I can put it in.

EDIT: Yes, I am going to put back in the exemption clause, and restore the current admission procedures for now. They can be changed if the current discussion does go somewhere.
 
I am almost 100% pleased with this. I still believe it would be easier to just make all 3 Justices preside over trials and just have one of them as a moderating Justice.
 
The JAL trial was a disaster because there were 3 Justices presiding and moderating. The method I stated would not have that problem. You will be able to see this method as it will be what I use when the current trial begins.
 
The JAL trial was a disaster because the entire legal system, with the exception of the AG but to include the RA Speaker, went inactive. When the AG attempted to take control of the case, he found he was legally unable to do so because he was not the acting AG when the case started, thus allowing the mockery that was the JAL show trial to continue. When when said AG became delegate and attempted to end the trial the new court, elected by emergency election, ruled that Delegates can't grant pardons.
 
My intention was that in any hearing involving the full court the Chief Justice would precide as the moderating justice.

When you get down to it Court procedures like this are a largely extra-constitutional issue anyway.
 
Gulliver:
My intention was that in any hearing involving the full court the Chief Justice would precide as the moderating justice.

When you get down to it Court procedures like this are a largely extra-constitutional issue anyway.
Click to expand...
But when it is in the Constitution it has to be done that way. I would just drop that requirement from the Constitution then.
 
Nothing in the draft says that there can be no single moderating justice. In fact it specifically tasks the Chief Justice with administering the Court's procedures.
 
Article 4.6:
6. New cases will be tried by a single justice. If they rule for the prosecution, the defendant may appeal the case to a trial before all three justices.
Click to expand...

That was what I would ask be removed.
 
It is my understanding that this constitution would not invalidate Chapter 3 clauses 10-12 of the new legal code.
 
We could leave out any mention of the appeals system or how many justices try what cases in what capacities, and leave it entirely to the legal code and convention.
 
Gulliver:
We could leave out any mention of the appeals system or how many justices try what cases in what capacities, and leave it entirely to the legal code and convention.
Click to expand...
That would be great.
 
I also would prefer the actual number of justices not be in the Constitution. Since there's at least two models floating around as to when to use a single justice versus a three-justice panel, it would be better left to the Legal Code.
As to the Chief Justice determining procedure, that can be quite independent of which single justice might preside at a trial, but with the retained ability of the Court to adopt its own rules that gives them some flexibility in deciding procedures on the one hand and still allows the R.A. to adopt a law if there's a procedure that isn't approved of.
 
Well I think it's about high time to finalize all of this by the end of the week if possible. Other than organization, which legally doesn't change anything, the SC and the judicial system still seem to the the two things up for discussion. I suppose I could begin one final set of polls at the risk of making people feel like I'm dragging this out.
 
That he has. May as well go ahead and start the others even if they're a bit silly since we'll have the time.
 
Some thought ought to be given to transitional clauses (or Legal Code additions); especially with the Article VI issues, and anything else that might cause a hiccup. (Just sayin'.)
 
In light of the current SC order of succession votes, I'd like to suggest the following changes from the current constitution:

When a new member joins the SC, they are simply automatically appended at the end of the current line of succession.

When a member leaves the SC, they are simply removed from the current line of succession.

The Regional Assembly may set the line of succession by a majority vote at any point.

Thoughts? Is this something people would like to see, do people have alternative suggestions, should I hold a poll?
 
I'd also like to note that the poll about exemptions was quite clear. The assembly needs to have the authority to exempt any requirement.

The application process of current system vs confirmation vote process was fairly even. I suggest keeping the current system for now, and further changes can be pursued at a later date.
 
Well I think it's time to get to finalizing this proposal. The recent motion to include a regional anthem will delay things but no reason to wait. I need to go do the actual writing after this, but I'll summarize the intended changes as of now and give people an opportunity give their input.

No objections have been made so far about the proposal on the order of succession system, so that's going in.

The recent set of polls that closed will also be included. There will be a constitutional minimum of two associate justices, but a higher number may be set by law, and the entire structure of how trials proceed and appeals and such will be left to the legal code. Also shorten judicial term lengths to 4 months if that wasn't included already, I can't recall right now.

Also I'm going to just go ahead and revert the parts where I placed plurality votes with majority votes back to plurality votes for now, and leave my crusade against the evils of first-past-the-post for another day rather then risk everything. Unless everyone really did just agree with me and didn't just not notice the part where I did that, which strikes me as unlikely.

Which brings us to the polls held on the every controversial Security Council. While a plurality in one case and a majority in the other voted for exemptions for all requirements and to include RA approval in the application process, in both cases it was by very slim margins, definitely not the 2/3's majority required to pass a constitutional amendment. I do not want the question of the SC sink all the other widely popular reforms and simplifications included in this proposal, so I'd prefer to severe the question of the SC from everything else if possible, whether in a vote held if the overall draft passes or in a simultaneous vote of some kind.

Finally, basic cleanup and a whole lot of reorganizing is in order, which may unfortunately make it difficult to mark every change that's being made between versions I have before. Also checking to make sure nothing has been missed.

EDIT: Also am going to revert to what the current constitution says about the SC, simply saying that endorsement and influence requirements can be set by law, not constitutionally saying vassal influence and allowing any requirements, since that change was introduced because of carelessness on my part, not an actual desire to change that. Also put back in the time-limit within which the SC can act on an application to prevent pocket vetoes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top