Constitutional Convention "Prediscussion"

The Plaza
21

To answer your points, FPS:

To clarify 1.1.1: The delegate is executor of the charter and laws. The judicial branch is interpreter . Thus, the delegate has the power to act to preserve the laws, but the judicial branch actually decides what those laws actually say, and whether somebody’s in breach of them. Hence the judicial power to override a decision of the delegate in chapter 3.

Point 2: I concur

Point 3: It is stated that the delegate can appoint others and designate to them any powers granted to him under the charter. Doesn’t allow any intrusion into the other branches.

Point 4: Ultimately, this is a concession to the kind of thing Wachovia’s pointing out. Whatever system of laws we put down, we have to face the fact that Loop can bloody well do whatever the hell he feels like. Better he have a veto on laws before they’re passed than we have laws on the book that are just ignored.

Pack: I have to entirely disagree. The judicial branch specifically exists to overrule, to decide whether something is legal or not. Giving somebody else the power to overrule them would be counterproductive.

Loop: I’ve read the US constitution (Which is where the preamble broadly comes from), as well as numerous other treaties and accords, but very few of them have any relevance here, since this isn’t forming a nation but a region. About the only document that might be worth looking at would be the establishing treaties of the EU, but since they’re entirely steeped in beurocracy and in stupid laws about farming subsidies and whatnot, I decided not to bother.

Suing to overturn a judicial decision would be kind of pointless, although I suppose if an individual judge has made the decision then there could be an appeal to the full High Court. Not much point appealing that, though, since there’s no higher court to appeal to.

22

I think the concern I’ve heard Pack and Loop express in regards to veto power is that an enemy will enter the region under an assumed name, the court will reject Loops ejection and a door for invasion will be left open. Any thoughts on how to respect the system and protect against such things?

23

Codex,

Point 1: Thanks for the clarification. Withdrawn.

Point 2: So…shall we edit something in about it?

Point 3: Point clarified. Objection withdrawn.

Point 4: Well, you are right. As is Wachovia. In a region such as this, the delegate is all powerful, in actual game meachanics in such. My suggestion was just a hope that, at the very least, the Assembly of Lords would have some power.

I mean, truly, if the Delegate can just veto whatever he doesn’t like out of the assembly of lords, then, in truth, all they become is a think tank. They think of a bunch of idea, scatch some, and then send their new ideas to the delegate, hoping for approval. Delegate approves, the think tank was sucessfull.

And if thats the way it’ll go, then the point of having an “Assembly of Lords”, rather then a “Comitee of Advisors” is lost.

However, I think I have an even better idea. Loop mentioned a Prime Minister. What about the PM, besides being the fallback in the case that Loop falls somehow, has to sign off on the veto? As the PM, he would be elected (I suppose), and thereby could speak for the peope, counteracting the monarchical delegate. If they don’t agree, we could have it go to the supreme court…or, if you wish, declare a mis vote, and simply put the proposal as void, making congress have to re-endorse it again, and all that.

As for the judicial branch, and the veto power… you make a good point. But there is always a chance that an invader will sneak by. Destroying the Judicial branch’s ability to find a man “Not guilty.” I mean, if we’ve made up out mind on a person’s fate before the trial…what is the point?

What about the appeals process? Only have one judge the first trial, and, on an appeal, go to all three? The appeal could be made by either side, defense or prosecuting, thereby giving a second chance for the court to make the “right” choice. I think we can trust Kellsak, East Malyasia, and Caven (who seems inactive, actually) to realize who who is what as we do. And even if they screw up, we could probably get someone from the EPIA to watch them closely until they make another mistake, at which point we cold try them again, probably with better results.

Speaking of the EPIA, I’d like to actually, in the constitution, give them some power, and describe their mission. It would also be nice to set up some actual positions, so that those inside could feel special. Speaking of, with your permission Loop, I’d like to appoint Pentastar as the EPIA Director, and the Head of operations and have myself take over as assistant-Director and the EPIA PR head. Check your TG’s please.

One final question, is the Assembly of Lords elected, or appointed? And as for the Judicial Branch?

24

Point 2: Update has been made. Will upload new version.

Point 4: Ultimately, no law’s going to get passed without the delegate’s approval, or if it does, then it could just be ignored. If we’re going to have a document, it may as well be realistic. However, if we assume that Loop will stick to the laws made here, then having a separate body to actually make those laws has merit - for example, it would be the Assembly, not Loop, that would decide on the actual level of an endorsement cap, what constitutes endorsement swapping, etc.

Wachovia: Unlikely to happen, so long as the laws are set out correctly. For example, once the Assembly passes a law saying ‘no nation may accuulate more than x endorsements’, that’s pretty clear-cut. Yes, there may be judicial overrules on things like endorsement swapping, but overall it doesn’t cause that much concern.

25

Yes, but we could have vengance over-rulings.

I propose that if a judicial ruling is challenged, a unanamous decision my the Senate/House of lords, and a popular majority in the EP <not including senators/Judges, can get the judicial ruling overruled.

26

I entirely disagree. The entire point of a judicial system is that it can’t be overruled by politics. Would be absolutely pointless if a court decision could be overturned by politicians. You just get mob justice.

27

Also, sorry, FPS, I missed the second half of your post.

I can’t see much point in a Prime Minister, as such. What would it do? And, ultimately, adding a PM and requiring sign-off on a veto doesn’t acheive anything. If the delegate doesn’t like a law, he can still ignore it with impunity. Rather he simply have the power to veto it than we make the entire idea void by having laws on the books that are ignored.

As I say before, I still stand vehemently behind the fact that there should be no veto of a judicial decision. As you point out, there is always the possibility of invasion. Having judicial veto acheives nothing with regard to that, and removes the entire point of a judicial branch in the first place.

Appeals process, I agree with you. Appeals to the full High Court, which shall be the final court of appeal. I would also imagine that we don’t carry any officers of government on de facto from the current establishment (save loop, of course), but that we reelect/appoint them formally.

I don’t see much reason to establish the EPIA in the charter. The EPIA is an office established under the auspices of the delegate, and acts as part of the executive branch, as covered under 1.1.5, as do any positions within it.

Assembly is elected, as described in 1.2.5.

Judiciary is appointed, and each appointee must be further cleared by the Assembly

28

Yes, I know. In truth, the delegate could just ignore any laws he doesn’t like. And on the other hand, if we give him forbadem veto powers, we destroy the legislative use…

So please, lets forget about that little debate, because it’ll never end, and move on. I proposed the PM thing as a sort of compromise…it would get me what I want (more power to the people), but, on the other hand, still give you what you want (more power to the delegate). PR wise, the having of the PM would be nice, as it would give people, outside of the Assembly of Lords, a feeling that they have control over their destiny. Governmental wise, it will make us look like a Constitutional Monarchy, which will get many of the liberal game regions to like us, but won’t lose us the appreciation of the conservative ones.

Finally, it would set up a clear defensive system. In the case of a fall of the delegate, rather then having Pack, Wachovia, Codex, and me all going for endorsements to try to restore the “Loop” government, we’d have a set person who is supposed to take over. No matter the cause, we would then have someone with quite a few endorsements, who could step up easily, and without any sort of fight, to take on the position.

In the case that s/he falls, we could then have the leader of the Assembly of Lords take over, and then the EP General, and then the Cheif Judge…and at that point, if were still losing, were dead.

Now, moving onto the second point…the EPIA. I was hoping to set it some broad guidelines, and set up a bit of its infostructure here, with you guys, so that you we would all agree with what we were creating with the organization. It would also give the EPIA a bit more legibility (I gotta say, right now, it seems used only as a second hand news source).

Not to mention, when I put Pentastar incharge, and when we begin recruiting for it…I’d rather it be known as an official organization, mentioned in the charter, over a backwater forum, which no one could care about, and which just serves the delegate unquestionably (not that we wouldn’t be doing that anyway, only if its on constitution, we’d look better).

Anyway, thats no bigee, just a hope/dream of mine.

29

The Vetoe issue is important, but we can come back to it. The important thing is compromise. We ALL need to agree to this as we are all going to live by it.

I like FPS idea of a defense system. I also think that all MAJOR powers in the government should be part of the UN.

Also, it is minor, but can we think of a different name than the house of Lords? It sounds… strange. Maybe because I am an American. I like the current Grand Senate styling. Maybe that is what a Prime minister could be. The leader of the Senate.

***Note: On the fact that Loop can ignore whatever he wants. Would he do that? I don’t think he would. In order for a constitution to work, we need to trust him, and he needs to abide the will of the other members of the government. I think we need to forget that he is all powerful for a minute and just try to write up something good.

30

Parts of the US constit could be used, but in general a lot of it and a lot of US laws would be useless here, I do like the idea of the use of the EU thingy,
and it would keep us a confederacy as well. which I like

as for Military I am strictly against one, forming a volunteer militia is one thing and I could agree with it, but a military like the RRA or NPA are just wrong, I personally believe as I have said before a military is part of the reason the other pacifics have problems, that and interference from outside freelance armies as well.

what I mean by sueing to overturn a judicial decision should probably be better stated as appealing the decision, considering thta if I boot someone it will be for a good reason, if I have an IP to check then I do and I usually only go after blatant invaders.

and I will tell you this now, I want to definitly hold on till at least may 25th, I am currently the longest standign delegate in the game and I knwo Lothlandermroe will probably never return, and on 5/25 it will be two years, damn, that is a time.

I will say we will have to be in total agreement about this. and whatever document we come up with.

I do think we need to officially establish the EPIA in the charter, that way they can be official and whatnot.

endorsement cap, I want set at 100 for non officials, there is no point in getting over that without aiming for the hot seat.
it also provides a place for the seconds to fall in,

I have invited people from the North, West, SOuth, and Central Pacifics to come tell us about their government. if tha thelps us.

31

For general layout perhaps we could aim to make it like the roman setup?

32

Honestly, I don’t see any point in borrowing any of the US/EU constitution unless it’s necessary, which to be frank it isn’t. That was done with the Articles of Confederation and, serve well though they have, a lot of what was in there jarred completely with the nature of the region. For example, as I pointed out in one of the RPs we have, attacking another country could not, in fact, be classed as war because of the nature of the definition of the region.

I concur, we should probably have something about the non-formation of any military force… probably have to go under executive, legislative, and charges of individual nations.

Concur re. appeal.

You don’t establish intelligence agencies under a constitution. A constitution sets out the nature of government and the high offices; it doesn’t deal with minor executive affairs. Maybe have a bill passed by the senate later, establishing it and its charter, although I would have thought that this would be unnecessary, since it’s effectively a delegation of executive power.

Again, you wouldn’t define endorsement cap in the constitution. It should set the general direction of the laws, but not the laws themselves, if only because it should be so hard to change. For example, if loop for some reason lost most of his endorsements, then it may be necessary to lower the endorsement cap, and this should be a simple matter, rather than involving the complex legislative process that is necessary to amend the constitution.

33

Well…in order to keep the topic alive, I’ll say a few things.

First off, unless anyone objects, I believe we’ve now compromised on the judicial appeals process. One judge at first, and then three, asked for by either side.

Secontly, the EPIA probably shouldn’t be in the constitution, however, an immediate ammendment once the constitution is put in place creating/recognizing/giving power to the EPIA would be nice.

Thirdly…I’m pissed because THIS KEEPS DELETING HALF MY POSTS. DAMNIT TO HELL.

Moving beyond my anger…what else can I remember…right. The military. I’d suggest a small militia force, sort of like the EPDI…just Pack, a couple others, and a group of defensive plans in case of invasion. Joining would be totally voluntary.

What else…right. The PM. Again, I think having an elected Prime Minister would give the people a feeling of greater power, would give good PR, and set up a good chain of command. No ones commented on the PM idea of yet, just in passing…what do you all think?

Finally, the constitutional veto thing. Well, frankly, I’ve been debating with you guys on this topic since the begining…but I still don’t know one thing. What does loop want in relation to the veto? Does he want the power to strike down any congressional ideas, no matter what? And if so, why? And if he doesn’t want that power, would he be willing to abide by constitutional ammendments he doesn’t necesarily agree with? Really, I think we need loop’s opinion on this before anyone else’s.

34

Loop has made statements in the senate on this. Do you have access?

Other things on the wish list for this document:
Right to have a public defender
Prevention of trials in absentia

Personally, I’d be more in favor of a civil defense force than a mililtary. That makes it clear what the goals are from the beginning and limits the scope of action.

Something to consider in terms of the EPIA. There is never any mention of the intelligecne community in the consistitution of many main gov’ts today. Perhaps this should be established in a seperate document along with other things like the workings of a civil defense force.

35

The position of Prime Minister seems somewhat pointless to me; as, indeed, it does in a number of countries that maintain a PM in addition to a President. Prime Minister does actually have a meaning; the first Minister. Since the government wouldn’t have ‘ministers’, and if it did they would be appointed rather than elected, it seems somewhat pointless to have a Prime Minister.

As a person designated to take over if loop, for whatever reason, gets booted/inactive, I approve of the position, but just don’t like the title used.

FPS: I was under the impression that Loop wanted the veto, although I could be wrong.

Loop wrote:also anyone could “sue” to overturn a judicial decision I dont want the power to do it I just wanted that veto power.

36

While I’m not a big, big fan of the idea of an elected head of state, there are other titles we can go with. Do you have any suggestions Codex? I’m thinking that something atypical of normal gov’t structures would be good.

37

Grand Poobah
or Big Bad Hodad come to mind.

Or General Secretary

38

Infinite Loop wrote:Grand Poobah
or Big Bad Hodad come to mind.

Or General Secretary

General Secretary actually sounds pretty good…most would expect it to be an appointed position, but if we have it as elected…it’ll look nice.

Although I am sorta impartial to grand poobah…

39

it is my current member title, as forum admin is inda bland

40

Coughs
Um…I guess I’ll try to put out the main points of current.

  1. Judicial Appeals Process, rather then Delegate Judicial Veto. Although I believe we’ve all agreed on this, if anyone wants to object to it, plz do.

  2. Normal Regional Laws: Stuff like endorsement count probably shouldn’t be in constitution. As stated, that would be more applicable via an amendment, or another legal document, just for the courts. I’d suggest the latter.

  3. EP Military: I believe we’ve all agreed that an actual military for the EP wouldn’t be a bad idea. However, a totally voluntary civil defense force wouldn’t be such a bad idea. Anyone for military, or against civil force, or any such thing?

  4. EPIA: I’d have to agree with ya’ll…the creation of a seperate document for it would probably be better.

  5. Elected Leader: This seems the point most in lingo. At this point, besides naming the position, should we create it, we have defined nothing about it. Would he be elected by the people, or the senate? Would he just be the senate president, renamed, and with a few more powers, or a totally new position? What powers/duties would the position hold, in either case? Clarification would be a good thing here.

  6. Senate Veto: We all know whats up with this. Excepting me, everyone thinks the delegate should have the power to veto senate (or maybe later, full congressional) amendments. Frankly, it’s four vs me on this topic, and unless someone else has a diffirent opinion, I’m just going to drop it. I mean, I’m overruled here, like it or not, and wasting time by trying to get it to go my way is a waste. If you all believe that the delegate should have the power to kill anything the senate makes that he doesn’t like, then so be it. I’m not even in the senate anyway.

  7. Renaming: New one, just being brought up now…we need new names for stuff, seriously. I mean, of current, our leadership roles, and department classifications are really bland. President of the Senate, and things like that…just don’t sound like. I’m suggesting that we pick up some new, original, cool names for our departments, and leadership positions…General Secretary was a good step in that direction, some more such moves would be nice.

Thats it. Unless theres some other issues/things we need to discuss…c’mon people, lets keep this thing from dying.