So I’m realizing that the Conclave needs Orders to be carefully reworded. Right now, from my understanding the Conclave can compel any action with legal force and then put people on trial for not doing it. That seems stupid. Unless we take the logical reasoning that Orders can’t contravene laws; then they’re mostly useless.
Thus, the Conclave Act is back. The Orders section is simplified to what I think is the most important, particularly 3.3. The problem with Orders is they’re a really broad power, but unfortunately I see little way to properly limit Orders without also limiting the discretion the Conclave needs to utilize Orders. 3.3. is the best way I can see to mitigate this. Legally, there isn’t much one can do if the Conclave is releasing dumb Orders besides removal, but I think listing some abstract standards and what to do if such standards fail could serve as a guide for removal if an abusive Conclave ever emerges.
As for Trial Orders, it’s a little weird but ultimately it’s important the Conclave has the ability to take certain actions that need to wait for or happen during a trial without worrying about the nooks and crannies of statutory law. Example one is banning Fedele and co. during pre-trial in 2019 so they stopped gaining endorsements; example two is suspending GE’s recent cit audit so we could see if it must continue or not. In both cases, the Conclave potentially had to act outside of statutory law but those actions were nessecary to either protect the region or ensure a fair trial.
I’ll welcome any feedback on this, of course.
ew.
don’t say plus.
“and” pls.
or just define Orders to include verdicts?
The Conclave is empowered to compel an action, reversal, or suspension of action by Order with an indictable penalty as a part of a trial verdict. Orders can be limited in any way by statutory law. Orders can nevershall not conflict with the Concordat, and may only supersede statutory law when a compelled action or reversal or suspension of such is necessary to maintain the status quo until an on-going trial concludes, (upon which the relevant Order shall no longer be enforced).
ill use and
i think it’s worth splitting hairs on verdict vs order since an order has an indictable penalty whereas verdicts dont
read my edits. an order would be a part of a verdict under that wording, and we could just say verdicts instead of orders and verdicts in that case?
there may be times where an Order can/should be made outside of trial too, which would mean it wouldn’t be a verdict
an example could be if GE had done a JR instead or smth. its difficult to know how the conclave needs to use orders in the future since it’s had various uses of them in the past (subponeas, failure to appear for trial) so i’d prefer to keep Orders open outside of verdicts as nessecary
it should be noted an Order can absolutely accompany a verdict, if that’s found to be nessecary
arguably a JR result is a verdict of sorts. just remove “trial”
i mean it is but the subpoeanas and failure to appear were not verdicts
I believe you are mistaken here.
The Conclave is empowered to compel a legally required action by Order with an indictable penalty, as limited by law.
The correct reading as I understand is that the Conclave can only compel an action that must take place such as the Viceory being required to close elections, the Delegate using UTC time, and so on.
maybe just say conclave action
Wat about Conclave decrees
Could be. Tbf which interpretation I see depends on my mood cuz its that finicky, but if we go for the reasonable one as you state then I firmly think we need to expand the scope of orders beyond that
Exactly how would it be expanded? The only issue we have had is the Conclave not being able to halt an action during a trial. This doesn’t need an entire act, it can be added with a few words to the Concordat.
By allowing the Conclave to mandate a general action, so long as it follows the Concordat. This is a general power the Conclave has seen some historical use (a subpoena, some “Failure to Appears”, banning Fedele and co in 2019 during the pre-trial) for as well as modern use (GE), so I think it’s time we actually made it an explicit power so its legality isnt in doubt. The issue here isn’t just actions during trial, but going beyond that to give the Conclave power to mandate actions even if they aren’t already legal duties or halting during a trial. The Conclave’s shown it has shifting needs for Orders over time, so I think just expanding their scope a teensy bit only shoves this problem (the Conclave using dubious legal powers) down the road.
The act’s also necessary to regulate some aspects of the power, as a result of the suggested expansion being super broad.
What is there to stop just an Act? Can’t an Act be passed that lists the specific circumstances the Conclave can compel an action?
I’m very strongly against a broad allowance and then having every instance we don’t want being restricted. I would rather we have a whitelist instead of a blacklist.
White list makes sense, yeah. And it’d be safer for us.
My only problem is - what do we do if the Conclave very clearly needs an Order to compel an action not in the white list? Trials do take a while but Orders themselves are pretty time-sensitive, and there may not be time to add stuff to the white list.
The only thing I can think of is in such a case, the moment the Conclave springs the Order, the Magisterium is mandated to hold a confirmation vote ASAP to get it done with the Order standing temporarily in the meantime. This wouldn’t be for Orders that are on the white-list, but only on Orders not on the white-list.
Sounds good to me. Either Magisterium or Praesidium could work.
ill fix up stuff in a few days