this is alive honk honk
I donât understand the necessity of defining Order types for Conclave action.
Let me summarize the 6 different Orders that are allowed by the Conclave Act:
- Order an individual to perform a duty required of them
- Order an individual to appear as witness
- Order an individual on trial to appear in trial
- Order an individual to stop intefering in Conclaveâs functions
- Order the suspension of a governmental function during the hearing of that function
- Order a ban/ejection on any nation.
Out of these 6 Order types, 1 and 4 are covered implicitly by Conclaveâs interpretation powers, 2, 3, and 6 involve trial processes well established, and 5 should just be standard tbh
Let me explain my analysis in more detail.
One of Conclaveâs most foundational roles is to interpret the Concordat; as per Article C, Section 1 of the Concordat:
This Concordat does hereby invest judicial power in the Conclave, which shall be the interpreter of this Concordat and the judge and jury of Residents.
In other words, Conclave works under the assumption of Concordat supremacy: when the chips are down, the concordat remains supreme. We can therefore conclude that in any trial/hearing process, the Conclave will focus on interpreting the Concordat on what must be done in this scenario. This is the definition behind the rule of law: Every process or action must draw from the Concordat and statutory law (which acts as extensions of the Concordat, elaborating on different matters).
So then, what happens if a person violates the Concordat? Conclave therefore may execute Sections 6, 7, or 9:
Section 6
The Conclave may rule on the actions of the Delegate or the Praesidium and nullify any which are contrary to this Concordat or statutory law. Furthermore, the Conclave may nullify any law passed by the Magisterium that is contrary to this Concordat. The Conclave is empowered to compel a legally required action by Order with an indictable penalty, as limited by law. The Conclave cannot overturn any part of the Concordat.
Section 7
The Conclave may rule on the actions of any Resident to be in violation of this Concordat or of the indicted offences as prescribed by the laws of the Region and sentence those found guilty pursuant to statutory limits. Trials in the Conclave shall be in open session.
(âŚ)
Section 9The Conclave may, via a 2/3 vote, temporarily suspend any government official who is being tried for an indictable offense from exercising some or all of their governmental powers during trial. This temporary suspension shall be lifted at the end of said trial or lifted early by a 2/3 vote of the Conclave.
From here, we can see that Order 1 is unnecessary: Should a person not perform a duty that is given to them by law, that is by definition, violating the concordat, as not executing the duty means not following what the Concordat tells them to do. Therefore, Conclave may invoke Section 7 and try this person. In fact, this reasoning has a name: âdereliction of dutyâ. We may not explicitly say it, but I think we can agree that not doing your job counts as not doing your duties.
Order 4 also falls under this reasoning: interfering with Conclave duties means violating the Conclaveâs ability to interpret the Concordat, which falls under Section 7.
My final point is something like this. âViolating the Concordatâ and âNot upholding the Concordatâ are the same thing. Due to the Concordat as the final contract between government and resident, any governmental position failing to execute their duties, or any resident intefering with government processes, are violating that contract, a promise made for each other. Therefore, these Orders are unnecessary, and serve only to make what is obvious explicit.
Now for 3, 4, and 6, this is a little bit more tricky. The Conclave is remarkably silent on issues of a trial, perhaps too silent: The only mention of a trial is that every resident has a right to one, which strikes me as a bit lacking. Regardless, it, through its silence, gives Conclave the ability to create their own trial procedures, which it has.
Drawing back from my previous arguments, the issue here as well is necessity: the Conclave has the right and duty to interpret the Concordat, and to be the judge and jury of all residents. From that, alongside my previous conclusion of Concordat supremacy, it is clear that Conclave is required to hold a fair trial for all Residents, and must therefore take action to do so. Once again, these orders make what is obvious explicit.
I think that the issue here stems from the lack of treating the Concordat as supreme. If we take the opposite conclusion, that the Concordat is merely one among many laws, it makes sense to require defining Orders. But because it is meant to be the final contract, Conclaveâs role solely focuses on upholding that contract, which means ensuring that
every process must follow, on some level, the Concordat.
I think instead of defining Orders, we need to have a long and hard talk of what the Concordat actually means. I am sure that there are many who would disagree with me with Concordat supremacy, and I invite them to share their thoughts. To me, though, the Concordat represents the agreement between the government and the resident. What are the
roles of the Resident in TEP? What are their duties, and rights? Similarly, what are the roles of the Government in TEP? What do we do for the Resident, in order to earn their acceptance of us as Government? What does the TEP government actually do, in order to earn the consent of the Resident?
I realize of course that this is outside of our current discussion, so I wonât yap on any longer. Allow me to conclude, for now.
At their core, the Conclave must follow the Concordat, and judge any violations against it. It does this because that is how they protect and serve the Resident: when the chips are down, and stakes are raised, what does the founding document of our region have to say about the issue? This question is key to Conclave processes, and is what guides it. Defining what these Orders are, at best, simply says things that Conclave already does, at worse, limits Conclave action.
Despite this, however, I am not opposed to the other sections of the Conclave Act, nor am I opposed to the seeming sentiment of checking the Conclave. In fact, I think there are many ways of doing so: Passing laws that override Conclave precedent is a pretty built in check, I think. Removal from office is also a good check, too. Hell, I think Section 12 of
the amendment is actually a good thing. So in that sense, my vote as it stands is this: For on the Concordat Amendment, Against on the Conclave Act.
Therefore, these Orders are unnecessary, and serve only to make what is obvious explicit.
Once again, these orders make what is obvious explicit.
Defining what these Orders are, at best, simply says things that Conclave already doesâŚ
From my understanding, this is serving at the general crux of your argument.
Given that, what you find obvious now may not be obvious to others at the present nor obvious in future times. I think being more explicit will protect this interpretation when it comes to the Conclave exercising its power to enforce Orders; leaving it as an unofficial interpretation (which is what it is) could lead to legal challenges and issues down the line if someone unhappy with the Conclave using those Orders decides to challenge them on it. Iâm personally not a fan of allowing that to happen.
Case in point, a lot of people stated their opinion that this Order was illegal, although it is the 5th type of Order which you say the Conclave should be able to enact through its own procedures (if Iâm misinterpreting what youâre saying here, I apologize).
If we want this power to safely exist without a question of whether the power itself is allowable every time it is used, then it needs to be explicitly stated somewhere.
at worse, limits Conclave action.
And yes, that is the point. The power proposed in Section 12 is exceedingly broad - the Conclave could very well order a nation to have a red flag via an Order and then put them on trial for not doing so. When weâre giving a branch such a broad, abusable power, then it must follow we put as many reasonable limits as we can. Hence, the white list as stated in the Conclave Act - which, as youâve implied, is generally a list of functions the court would need in its day to day basis. Any further type of Order, which would most likely be exceedingly rare, can still be made though via the Magisterium mechanism, so it isnât strongly limiting the Conclave.