This is adding two new clauses to Article D.
The first clause is meant to legalize prohibition whilst regulating it via law. This will ensure the Viziers can’t go wild with the banhammer since our prohibition law is already pretty solid IMO.
Comments appreciated.
I don’t see the necessity of either clause. I don’t see how prohibition can be argued illegal. I also don’t see the necessity of stating the Praesidium is authorised to help the Delegate since the Delegate has the prerogative to assign their own duties to anyone, within statutory limits. This includes the execution of laws. Both of it is just unnecessary to me.
By which you mean that it is currently illegal?
Regarding the second clause. One can imo assume from the fact that RO positions with BC are appointed to certain persons by the Delegate, that it is obvious that those persons have the right to swing the ban hammer when needed. Also, the Conk states that 4 of the 12 positions are to be held by the Praesidium, 2 for specific Viziers and 2 of their own choice. If I’m not mistaken, Conk mandates that those 4 RO’s have BC as a minimum. So it is obvious, imho, that the Praesidium is allowed to swing the ban hammer. Where does the Conk state that this is reserved for the Executive?
I can’t multiquote >_>
But fair enough, I’ll remove the second clause
Regarding the first though, I maintain that in its present state, prohibition is illegal when used against current citizens. There are only three categories of reasons someone can be banned: indictable offenses, summary offenses, and administration ban.
The closest prohibition gets is a summary offense, however I firmly don’t believe prohibition is a summary offense, nor do I think it would really make sense being a summary offense. Simply because prohibition by the Praesidium is done when the Praesidium assesses an individual for being a security threat and determines that said individual cannot be within the community.
A summary offense is when someone commits a crime against our region - a specified action or kind of action - and gets punished without trial. Prohibition is a ban based on any variety of action that indicates someone is a threat, but not a specified crime. In other words, it is a specific and unique type of ban that only the Praesidium can wield, which means IMO that it should be included in the Concordat seeing as it is a fundamental power of the Praesidium.
still seeking comments
Is there a check on this power?
Magisterium can regulate the processes by how this power is utilized. I.e it’s up to the Magisterium to determine what methods must be used to exercise this power.
And like anything in this Concordat, the Conclave can overturn a prohibition per Article C.6. I can add it in more explicitly to this amendment, but people mostly seem to like me not being so explicit :y
Changed “process” to “power” to be a bit more eplixict. Not a major difference though I suppose
Do you have any regulations immediately planned for this? Like an amendment to VRA or a new act or smth?
No, probably more likely just loosening the power in tje VRA to apply prohibition to voters as well.
Reason being that the now repealed regional sceurity act allowed the praesidium to ban anyone for being a security threat and IMO thats an important power to have. This is meant to replace said power.
But i wouldnt be opposed to having the Magi be able to reslverse such a ban, or specify the conclave’s ability to do so.
I think the Conclave would be the proper venue, but is it an an/or situation?
and/or, yeah
for now I’ve made it more explicit that the conclave can reverse a prohibition. between that, and the magi’s ability to determine how the power is used exactly, I think it should be sufficiently limited enough.
I motion this to a vote.
Seconded.
Acknowledged.
Vote here; [CA-2023-38] Proposal for Amendment to Article D of the Concordat - Prohibition