Dehulldomisation Amendment

I present this Constitutional Amendment to the Regional Assembly because it's ass and unnecessary. Gorundu pointed out in #the-agora that we've got a different path to citizenship now, which makes these clauses unnecessary. Additionally, it was done for a disgraced Former Delegate who betrayed the region not once, but twice. No need to cherish the remains of his legacy.

(btw, I've never written any type of legal stuff, so if I've done anything incorrectly, please let me know)

Article 6 of the Constitution is amended to read 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...

I agree that simplifying Article 6 has clear merit.

That said, I think it’s important that we frame this amendment around structural clarity and long-term governance, rather than the actions or legacy of any individual. Constitutions should be written to outlast people.

I support this. Four more months.

Meteturan:

I agree that simplifying Article 6 has clear merit.

That said, I think it’s important that we frame this amendment around structural clarity and long-term governance, rather than the actions or legacy of any individual. Constitutions should be written to outlast people.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

I'm against this currently just due to the name. Come up with something better please.

St George:

I'm against this currently just due to the name. Come up with something better please.

Click to expand...

Axe the Hulldom act?
Non-citizen reform act?

Ayuzh:

Axe the Hulldom act?
Non-citizen reform act?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily support any amendment that names individual people - that's probably beneath this place, to be honest (though the law that added this to the constitution was called the Boston Amendment, unfortunately). Government Official Reform Bill would work. As would any number of other titles. Hell I'd even support an acronym title, just this once.

Enacting clause should be:
"Article 6 of the Constitution is amended to read as follows:"

Absolutely petty.

St George:

I wouldn't necessarily support any amendment that names individual people - that's probably beneath this place, to be honest (though the law that added this to the constitution was called the Boston Amendment, unfortunately). Government Official Reform Bill would work. As would any number of other titles. Hell I'd even support an acronym title, just this once.

Click to expand...

I’m sure we can think of an acronym that spells Hulldom

to Hinder the Utterly Lawless Legislative act by a previous Delegate who didn't recognise Orange and Madjack Act?

Ayuzh:

Axe the Hulldom act?
Non-citizen reform act?

Click to expand...

I would definitely support this specific name. The current name for this law is pretty awkward, to be honest.

If we must name it after a specific person, an acronym could work just as well.

I’m not sure what’s sillier about this discussion, the fighting over the name or the idea that because Ruben is pushing the anti-Hulldom angle when clearly there’s broad support for this change at least partly because of the idea the original amendment was just for him, it’s somehow beneath us and an example of him being petty. It clearly wasn’t Ruben’s idea from a cursory check of the Discord. And the names of bills and amendments don’t matter because when the law is amended, the relevant areas get updated. We do not really track individual changes by name and we don’t record them officially outside of these threads where they are debated and then voted on. Personally I think it’s boring to have changes that are described in voting by what clause they amend or some generic sounding description of the change. God forbid we have any creativity and do an acronym or something. I’ll concede that this is a clunky targeted name and could be more creative if we’re going to go there, but given the original amendment’s moniker, I feel it’s not the end of the world for this one to match in some way.

As the original author of the Boston Amendment, yes obviously Hulldom’s situation inspired it, and it wouldn’t have happened without him, but the provision does technically apply to anyone in that situation. The fact no one else has made use of it does not mean it shouldn’t be there, options on the table are options on the table. Removing it should be about the merits of the concept - does the RA still believe there should be a path to cabinet for exceptional residents who don’t have citizenship for whatever reason? Some of you seem to think that because of the citizenship reforms, the path is so easy this option isn’t worth it. Okay, great. That should center this debate, not wringing hands over the title, or Ruben’s perceived pettiness. Talk about missing the point.

Ayuzh:

to Hinder the Utterly Lawless Legislative act by a previous Delegate who didn't recognise Orange and Madjack Act?

Click to expand...

Hinder Utterly Lawless Legislations by Delegates through Operating Methods Act? Just to avoid mentioning anyone at all.

Simone:

Hinder Utterly Lawless Legislations by Delegates through Operating Methods Act? Just to avoid mentioning anyone at all.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, let's just completely ignore Ghost's plea... ya?

Here's my thought about the actual content of the bill that all of you should be focusing on...
The Boston Amendment was done in a time where the Admin Check could not be ignored, mitigated, bypassed, whatever. A failure at that stage meant you were not getting citizenship. Period. Hulldom had zero access to residential internet, but was still committed to the region, and thus concessions were made. We don't need those concessions anymore, because now World Assembly membership bypasses Hulldom's internet situation at that time.