The AGORA Hotfix Act

Cretox

Cretox

Somehow, Palpatine has returned
TNP Nation
Cretox State
Discord
Cretox#0125
The AGORA Act, debated in 2019 and voted on in 2020, eliminated the elected position of Attorney General. However, by what seems to be an accident/oversight, the amendment also defined members of the Security Council as constitutionally-mandated elected officials in addition to government officials. Beyond the fact that SCers clearly don't get elected to their position, and the unintentionally funny language of having a government official be "the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, members of the Security Council, and Justices, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council" [emphasis mine], the current post-AGORA Act Constitution also contains a provision stating that "[n]o person may simultaneously serve in more than one elected office." If the Constitution defines SCer as an elected position, and says that no person may hold more than one elected office... well, you see the issue. Now, I don't believe that this means that SCers are barred from holding an elected position while being on the SC. Clause 1 defines "Constitutionally-mandated elected officials"- clause 9, on the other hand, applies to "elected office" [emphasis mine]. An official is not the same wording as an office, and SCers are not elected to their position in any practical sense. However, there is a level of ambiguity that could create difficulties in the future, and should therefore be addressed ASAP. Additionally, it's simply silly for our Constitution to say that SCers are elected officials and that government officials include SCers and SCers. Therefore, I present the AGORA Hotfix Act (AGORAHA, I guess).

Article 6 of the Constitution of The North Pacific shall be amended as follows:

Article 6. General Provisions

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, and Justices.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, and government officials appointed by the Delegate or Vice Delegate.
4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by the Speaker.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by Justices.
6. Any temporary replacement for a government official in the case of an absence or vacancy will be considered a government official in the branch of the official being replaced, regardless of the method of their selection.
7. All government officials must maintain citizenship while in office.
8. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
9. No person may simultaneously serve in more than one constitutionally-mandated elected office.
10. No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law.
11. Candidates in any election must maintain citizenship for the fifteen days before the opening of candidacy declarations and throughout the election.
12. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
13. Procedures to fill vacancies and absences in constitutionally-mandated elected offices and the Security Council may be established by law.
14. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Article 6. General Provisions

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, members of the Security Council, and Justices.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, and government officials appointed by the Delegate or Vice Delegate.
4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by the Speaker.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by Justices.
6. Any temporary replacement for a government official in the case of an absence or vacancy will be considered a government official in the branch of the official being replaced, regardless of the method of their selection.
7. All government officials must maintain citizenship while in office.
8. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
9. No person may simultaneously serve in more than one constitutionally-mandated elected office.
10. No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law.
11. Candidates in any election must maintain citizenship for the fifteen days before the opening of candidacy declarations and throughout the election.
12. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
13. Procedures to fill vacancies and absences in constitutionally-mandated elected offices and the Security Council may be established by law.
14. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.

Quick and dirty. I hope to pass this quickly.
 
Last edited:
What's interesting is that when the AGORA act had its final draft written, while the text of the amendment that wasn't spoilered didn't strike the error that we're fixing, the markup of the bill that was in the spoiler did strike the part about the SC being Constitutionally-mandated elected officials. What this amendment does is correct the AGORA act to be in line with what Pallaith intended.

Look at the markup here, and you'll see what the bill was supposed to be: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9190382/3#post-10302366

I also think it's funny that I actually first noticed this when we were debating the resolution on Boston Castle and nobody, myself included, thought to go "Hey, wait a minute..."

Sil Dorsett:
For the record, I suppose I've been using the wrong terminology, but the effect is the same. I've been referring to "constitutionally mandated officers" when the correct term is "constitutionally mandated elected officers", meaning I was only referring to Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Security Councilor (Yes, that's included too...), and Justice...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is what we thought we were getting. This wasn’t even the significant or controversial part of the bill. It’s a simple mistake and this isn’t actually changing anything, we’ve been operating under this assumption since the law was passed.

I think you should submit it tomorrow if not tonight. Don’t see the point in waiting.
 
Praetor:
While I'm fine with this bill as is, does it really need to be rushed?
Click to expand...
What’s your concern exactly regarding a bill that corrects the law to match what this assembly assumed it had already put into law, and does not change status quo? I just don’t understand the virtue in wasting time on something like this.

If your concern is letting more people be aware of it, there’s the entire period of voting, where this thread will still be open, there’s the ability to quickly answer questions on it in Discord. Heck there’s even simply waiving formal debate and having the time between then and it when it goes to vote.

If your concern is that this isn’t that big a deal so we don’t need to hurry it to vote, I would then say why does it need more time at all if it’s not a big deal?

If you think there’s value in going further and making more changes, I would submit that that can be done with subsequent, different legislation that can take as long as it needs. It doesn’t have to piggyback on this bill.

Some stuff is a slam dunk. Fixing something we didn’t know was messed up shouldn’t take two weeks.
 
I request that formal debate be shortened such that this goes to vote as soon as possible.
 
Last edited:
Cretox State:
I request that formal debate be shortened such that this goes to vote as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
In line with this request, I am shortening the Formal Debate period to one day. A vote will be scheduled two days after the conclusion of this period and will last for 3 days.
 
East Isles:
In line with this request, I am shortening the Formal Debate period to one day. A vote will be scheduled two days after the conclusion of this period and will last for 3 days.
Click to expand...
A vote of only three days feels much too short here.
 
Pallaith:
What’s your concern exactly regarding a bill that corrects the law to match what this assembly assumed it had already put into law, and does not change status quo? I just don’t understand the virtue in wasting time on something like this.

If your concern is letting more people be aware of it, there’s the entire period of voting, where this thread will still be open, there’s the ability to quickly answer questions on it in Discord. Heck there’s even simply waiving formal debate and having the time between then and it when it goes to vote.

If your concern is that this isn’t that big a deal so we don’t need to hurry it to vote, I would then say why does it need more time at all if it’s not a big deal?

If you think there’s value in going further and making more changes, I would submit that that can be done with subsequent, different legislation that can take as long as it needs. It doesn’t have to piggyback on this bill.

Some stuff is a slam dunk. Fixing something we didn’t know was messed up shouldn’t take two weeks.
Click to expand...
I would be cautious of unintentionally creating errors in the legislation. Wouldn't want to have more legislation needed to be proposed to correct errors. ;)

There is also no need to rush, it's not as if the status quo is tearing TNP apart.
 
Praetor:
I would be cautious of unintentionally creating errors in the legislation. Wouldn't want to have more legislation needed to be proposed to correct errors. ;)

There is also no need to rush, it's not as if the status quo is tearing TNP apart.
Click to expand...
Well I’m a lot more comfortable assuming there aren’t any since this passed muster with you.

I suspect the Speaker was unclear with language, and might have intended to say this was going to vote in theee days (shortened formal debate and the two days between the end of formal debate and when the vote starts). I know that isn’t what he said, but that’s the first thing I thought he was going for. Otherwise the time frame simply doesn’t make a lot of sense. Can @East Isles clarify on this point?
 
Cretox State:
Thank you. Does this mean that formal debate ends in 3 hours (1 day after this post)?
Click to expand...

That is correct.

Pallaith:
Well I’m a lot more comfortable assuming there aren’t any since this passed muster with you.

I suspect the Speaker was unclear with language, and might have intended to say this was going to vote in theee days (shortened formal debate and the two days between the end of formal debate and when the vote starts). I know that isn’t what he said, but that’s the first thing I thought he was going for. Otherwise the time frame simply doesn’t make a lot of sense. Can @East Isles clarify on this point?
Click to expand...

My original thinking was to set the timeframe as short as possible, given the simple nature of the bill and the desire to move quickly. As such, I set the vote at the shortest time allowed by law.

Given the expressed desire to see a longer voting period, I will increase the length of the vote to 5 days.
 
East Isles:
That is correct.



My original thinking was to set the timeframe as short as possible, given the simple nature of the bill and the desire to move quickly. As such, I set the vote at the shortest time allowed by law.

Given the expressed desire to see a longer voting period, I will increase the length of the vote to 5 days.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected and also in agreement at this change in plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top