Unibot, there are more than one source for grammarical rules, and the use of such commas is one of the things different sources differ on.
Where it is a list of items separated by commas in a sentence, most of the sources I've seen and used allow the comma with the item before the "and" that signals the last sentence.
As to your other suggestions, I don't think much of almost all of them, but here we go, seratim by seratim:
In order to guide The North Pacific in its practice of democratic governance, we, the nations of The North Pacific, establish this constitution.
Commas added.
Matter of preference I suppose, but I don't see any confusion coming either way.
1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by enumerated in the Bill of Rights "The Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific".
I preferred "enumerated", as opposed to defined, since that clearly states your guaranteeing the rights in the Bill of Rights, whereas the rights "defined by" seems more selective to only the rights that were specifically expounded.
It always appears as though the formal title of the Bill of Rights is "The Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific", if appropriate you may to say henceforth to referred to simply as The Bill of Rights.
Actually the original name was the "Declaration of Rights," as part of the first two Constitutions in which it appeared. At the time of the 2007 revision, Haor Chall proposed the name change and it being separated into a separate document, which was adopted immediately before the 2007 Revision.
However, it has always been referred to in the other governing documents as the "Bill of Rights," rather the the complete title championed by Haor Chall before the 2007 revision was ratified. This is as good a time as any to adopt the shorter name, since that is the way it is referenced everywhere else. Leaving your suggested change out will allow that shortened name to be formalized.
As to "enumerated" versus "defined," neither word is totally accurate so it makes little difference to me. (I say that because I want to leave open the possibility of expansion of the Bill of Rights as has been done in this revision to Clause 8 regarding ejection and banning. Finding a good alternate verb for that is easier said than done.)
In Article Two:
4. The quorum for any vote of the Regional Assembly except elections will be a third of its membership.
This appears to me to be ackward phrasing; particularly the lack of puncuation around the "except elections" and the weird, "any vote
of the Regional Assembly" phrasing. Perhaps,
4. The quorum for any vote of in the Regional Assembly except elections will be a third of its membership , notwithstanding elections.
Would be better?
You weren't here for the massive headache of yet another court decision on abstentions, and the wording is specifically based on the amendments of the current Constitution and the Legal Code to cure that headache and prevent the Court from further flip-flops. In sum, the wording may be "ackward"[sic] but the sentence clearly states what the R.A. overwhelming supported as a permanent resolution to the issue. The only difference is that we're not having to place it in more than one place. The current constitution has separate provisions on abstentions in the R.A. and in elections, even though, technically, all elections take place in the R.A., and will continue to do so under this revision. Bottom line, I would not support your suggestion since it would introduce the sort of ambiguity that we are trying to put a stop to with respect to abstentions and their effect.
In Article Three:
1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
Period added.
Now, that's the sort of thing we're looking for.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
Comma removed. Yes?
No. The two clauses are related but distinct. ("may" and "permitted" as contrasted with "will" and "required")
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. [bgcolor=yellow]The Regional Assembly may ratify such treaties by a two-thirds majority vote.[/bgcolor]
Not a huge fan of "may ratify such treaties", I understand the reasoning behind the may as opposed to something obligatory; but it could be read as though the ratification is unneccessary or casually.
I'd suggest:
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. Ratification of all treaties require a two-thirds majority vote by The Regional Assembly.
On a question of policy... in Article III, c. 4, I do wonder if it is wise to set no statue of limitation on the RA's ability to remove a veto of a bill. A veto could be undone years later, under this constitution.
You're worse with using passive sentences than I am. The wording Gulliver chose to use was permissive in the sense that the R.A. may choose not to ratify the treaty in which case it never takes effect. I think the active voice can be used to fix the issue with:
To take effect, the Regional Assembly may shall ratify such treaties by a two-thirds majority vote.
8. If the Delegate is removed or unable to serve, the Vice Delegate will assume the duties of the Delegate. If the Vice Delegate is also unable to serve, the first available person in on the line of succession will assume the duties of the Delegate.
I believe it's "in", not "on".
In this case, there is a
list for the line of succession that can be changed by the R.A., so
on sounds more correct to me, i.e., "on" a list and not "in" a list.
Article 4:
1. The Court will try all criminal and civil cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and try the constitutionality of laws or government policies.
Oxford Comma terminated with
-extreme- prejudge.
This is a list of the types of cases the Court will have jurisdiction so the comma should remain. The "and" without the comma would imply the two items are one item and not distinct items of a list.
Article 5:
2. The Regional Assembly may exempt a person from Regional Assembly membership or any requirements by a two-thirds majority vote, and may terminate an exemption by a two-thirds majority vote.
Oxford Comma, gone!
The granting and removal of an exemption are distinct matters for vote by the R.A. with respect to S.C. membership, so I think the comma is needed to avoid a different interpretation.
3. [bgcolor=yellow]The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote.[/bgcolor] The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, The Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
The highlighted part probably belongs in its own clause. I've also capitalized "THE" RA, for consistency.
Nope. This is one of those cases where both sentences are part of describing a process of admission where the S.C., and then the R.A., vote on admission, and the S.C.'s approval comes first. And nowhere else do you suggest capitalizing "The" before "Regional Assembly" in the middle of a sentence.
We have to capitalize "the" in "The North Pacific" since that is formally part of TNP's name; and distinguishes us from the "NP" in-game and out-of-game. So I don't agree with capitalizing "The" in mid-sentence for any part of the government, either.
4. The Security Council will monitor the region’s security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.
Bye bye Ox.
I don't agree since this is a list of two items (powers of the S.C.) and has to be separated by a comma.
Article 6:
3. No person may simultaneously hold more than one elected office [bgcolor=yellow]or simultaneously hold offices in more than one judicial, legislative or executive category.[/bgcolor]
So.. being an appointed assistant to two different executives isn't sticking two many hands in the cookie jar, but being an appointed assistant for an executive and a judge is? At least the latter is more balanced.
Both, Unibot, both. You need to read the debates and discussions more carefully. These are two distinct limitations, and they both apply. What this avoids is having someone serving in the Cabinet or as Speaker Pro Tempore, or as a Temporary Hearing Office of the Court at the same time. Note none of them are elected offices. These aren't the only such positions but illustrate where this heads.
Article 7:
2. Violation of forum Terms Of Service and [bgcolor=yellow]moderation policies will be the responsibility of forum administration[/bgcolor].
But no method for regulating moderation policies?
We keep a strict dividing line between government and forum moderation. They are distinct. Adoption and enforcement of forum moderation policies
are non-governmental. This was a hard lesson TNP learned a long time ago.
In Article 8, you may want to consider capitalizing "The" for the Bill of Rights and furthermore how to refer to The Bill of Rights, whether to use the long title or the short.
I've already responded to the Bill of Rights question.
