So where do we stand with this? It looks like we’re at the point of either another revision of the document and vote here for presentation to the region. Or are there any other thoughts we need to consider?
can we at least go a little more soviet if we go with a new document?
:chittr:
actually, I would rather go with a red China type set-up
New Revision. 2.2.0 has been removed (prohibition of war), clause has been added to reflect entering/leaving the region
Thanks Codex. I think Loop and Pack that at this point you’ll need to either suggest specific wording changes or make a proposed redraft, unless Codex has some extra time I don’t know about.
Personally, I think the communist theme is nearly as overedone as some others here in NS but I’d be happy to see some activity so I’m flexible.
Ill read it when I get home from running my errands.
Having just found the document, I have a few points of interest.
wrote:1.1.1 The delegate shall have ultimate control over membership of the region, and shall have the power to remove from the region any nation seen to be in contravention of this charter or subsequent laws passed by the legislative branch.
Isn’t that the judicary’s job? I mean, what use is there for them if their not the ones prosecuting and kicking nations?
wrote:1.1.9 In the event of the incapacitation of the delegate, power shall pass to a prior appointed successor, who shall be nominated by the delegate and approved by the legislative branch. Such appointed nations shall be exempt from clause 1.1.8.
So I guess this means were trashing the Elected General Secretary idea, and just going with an appointed succesor?
wrote:1.2.0 This charter does hereby vest legislative authority with the Assembly of Lords, and does charge them with the preservation and maintenance of this charter, and with the establishment of any laws necessary for its enforcement and as may be required for the well being of the region.
Can we go with another name besides Assembly of Lords, please?
wrote:1.2.1 The Assembly shall make laws by the popular vote of the Lords. All laws must subsequently be approved by the delegate, who shall maintain power of veto.
Again, just officially lodging my protest, not expecting anything to be done here, I’m more then ovveruled (All vs. me).
wrote:1.2.5 Membership of the Assembly shall be eligible to all ratified nations of the East Pacific, who shall signal their desire to join by formal announcement, and who must then be seconded by another ratified nation, and finally must be approved by popular vote of the ratified nations.
How long do they serve? Are they re-elected, or re-apointed, or what? How do they lose their job, besides being removed?
wrote:1.3.0 This charter does hereby appoint as Judicial Branch a High Court, and does charge them as sole interpreters of this charter, and of any subsequent laws passed by the legislative branch
Can’t we come out with something a bit more original then “High Court?”
wrote:1.3.1 The High Court is empowered to make rulings on the actions of the delegate as executor of this charter, and to support them or declare them void, in which case they may instruct the delegate to repeal such actions.
Let me get this straight…you told me we couldn’t have the legislature overule the delegate because, in truth, the delegate has all power, so he wouldn’t have to listen…pardon my saying so, but how does that apply only to the legislature, and not to the judiciary?
Now, a few other things…first off, whatever happened to the appeals process we talked about in the judiciary? One judge examines the case first, then all three (Or more, dependingly). And, what about the defendant’s rights? Shouldn’t they be put somewhere around here, or at least written in another official document?
And finally, we need more rights for the people, people! C’mon, whats the point of not just being the Soviet East Pacific, if we don’t give our people lots and lots of rights?
Can’t be bothered to multiple quote, so I’ll just deal with your points individually:
Point 1: No. Execution of the laws is in the jurisdiction of the executive; hence, funnily enough, the name executive. In any case, Loop has control of the eject button, so why bother saying otherwise? Quite clearly, if a nation has one less endorsement than loop, he’s not going to politely telegram them asking if they’d like to appear for trial; he’s going to boot them. The purpose of the judiciary in this case is, unfortunately, the somewhat diminished one of ruling on whether or not the nation should be let back in.
Point 2: Far as I’m aware, the Elected General Secretary idea was never there to be trashed. Somebody bought it up, I thought it was a silly idea, and never put it in. Obviously, people can overrule me on this, or try and persuade me that it has any kind of merit… otherwise, I’m not intending doing anything with it
Point 3: Rather than asking for a different name, why not suggest one. Just not another bloody senate…
Point 4: etc etc etc
Point 5: Good point. I hadn’t thought of a limit for them, but I suppose there could be a nominal 1 year term. Or we could summarily dismiss the entire Assembly every year, and re-elect them. Suggestions?
Point 6: See point 3: Demonstrate your imagination here
Point 7: There’s a subtle, but distinct difference between the legislative and judciary in this respect. The judicial branch has no independent power. In other words, it can’t decide to do something. Hence, it has the power to negate most other actions, but not to act on its own whim. Since it can only, then, really act in favour of the status quo, I can’t envision there being any real clashes. At worst, maybe, the judicial branch rules against a law the delegate wanted passing, or they rule that a banned nation should have the ban removed. The bill could be reintroduced in a different form, and Loop could easily boot the nation again if it suited him. Also, the delegate nominates candidates for the judiciary, which would tend to give him more power over who is in there, and thus, we would assume, have a judiciary that shares the same viewpoints as him.
Appeals process: Yeah, that should probably be added. I forgot about it, to be honest.
Defendent’s rights: Such as? OK, I suppose we can write down a bunch of gibberish about fair trials, if you wish. Personally, I don’t think there’s a great deal you can say about ‘fair’ in the context; it’s been mandated that trials are open, but since the decision comes down to the judges, you can’t really enforce any ‘fairness’. But if you want to construct some stuff about representation and advice, or self-witness, I can’t see any reason it shouldn’t go in.
Citizen’s rights: OK, I’m getting bored of saying this, and I realise that this post may have been a little short in places, for which I apologise, but it’s going to get a little shorter. THIS IS NOT A CONSTITUTION FOR A COUNTRY. The principal failing in the Articles of Confederation was that it was a document written to serve a country adapted to fall in line with the needs of a region. This charter, or constitution (And I’ve avoided that term because it does seem to make people think far too much of a singular nation) is an agreement between soverign nations. If you want, think of it like the Warsaw pact, or NATO, or any other alliance. Even the EU, though that does tend too close to becoming like a country. The EP does not have member citizens, it has member nations that are vastly different and often diametrically opposed. The rights of citizens are the province of those member nations, and have nothing to do with this charter. The word ‘citizen’ or ‘person’ should not appear once in the Charter, and if it does, then I will be somewhat annoyed with myself for slipping into that mould.
In any case, on a slightly different note, I’m not quite sure how you draw a connection between Soviets and ‘lots of rights to the people’. It is the nature of a communist society that it must be draconian, and that individual freedoms must be limited. Anyway, that’s a different issue, and this isn’t the place to discuss it.
Points 1, 7: Having had it explained, I have no objection.
Point 2: Alrighty then.
Point 4: Not much else to say.
Points 3,6: I have no imagination, but somehow, “High Court”, “Senate”, and “Assembly of Lords” don’t seem very good to me.
Point 5: I’d go for one year terms.
Appeals Process: No problem about forgetting, when will it be added in?
Defendant’s Rights: The last line of your statement in regard to it was what I meant, and, if not here, I think should be stated somewhere, officially.
Citizen’s Rights: My apologies. More rights to the nations then.
And finally, the communist thing, I was saying that we need to get more rights unless were planning on becoming stalinists. And, being a socialist, I wouldn’t mind that, but I think our current draftings are pretty good.
Im about to read Codex’s suggestion and Ill report back in a few.
Veto Power for Delegate of laws,
Basically like that of the US president, nothin more.
wrote:1.2.0 This charter does hereby vest legislative authority with the Assembly of Lords, and does charge them with the preservation and maintenance of this charter, and with the establishment of any laws necessary for its enforcement and as may be required for the well being of the region.
Perhaps either Congress, or Supreme / Confederated Congress
wrote:1.2.3 Being aware of the possibility of change, this charter does empower the Assembly to make amendments to the charter itself; such amendments must pass by a margin of 80% of the active members of the Assembly. Such amendments must be further approved by the delegate, and finally by popular vote of ratified nations.
Perhaps should be lowered to 70%
wrote:2.1.1That each nation shall have the power to make such alliances as it sees fit, so long as these alliances do not act against the East Pacific, nor against the word or will of this charter.
This opens up possible subterfuge by such invaders as the ADN or ALL.
Perhaps making it clear that any such alliance cannot extend to the regional level, cause that is part of how the ADN jsutifirs an invasion, they allways say tht a member of the alliance has called for help and therefore they are authorized by their own charter to act in the best for the member nation regardless of regional status,
they aslso attempt to claim that one member of aregion who is a member of the ADN makes the region a member,
I will not stand for the EP being listed on teh ADN roster.
wrote:2.1.2 That each nation shall have the power to form whatever armed forces as they deem necessary for their own defence, or that of the East Pacific
Part of the problem with regions like the NP and WP are their military, these nations usually as all militaries do vie for power cause they A begin to think that they are more capable of making decisions for the region, and B they dont live in the home region, they usually make a region to live in where tehy are protected by a founder and they are counter productive to a region, I cite our lack of military as part of our peace.
As if you have a militray you are too tempted to use it.
The Charter needs possinly a few things established in it that we already have,
it also needs a rules of order for such things as voting on stuff, namely state how we do UN Resolutins
and whatever our discussions bring to teh top.
So far I like it tho,
I do think we need to establish a RP name, Perhaps the Confederated Soviet East Pacific ?
as for the Legislature, I dont like senate anymore, Congress perhaps, Supreme Soviet perhaps, or we could rip off the Japanese, and Call it our Diet.
and if we are to be the Soviet, lets cast off the old views of the Soviets, and be like super supportive of the rights of the citizens of our member nations.
main points I would like to add are
forbidding any possiblity of the ADN being ere
No military, they bug me too much
we will need to as Codex stated get stuff from the old Articles translated over,
perhaps a clause keeping old laws?
perhaps an endorsement cap set in the chater, at say 20% of loops endo
and state that regardless of membership in offsite forum, all nations in the region must be treated as if they were, kinda like what I have already een doing, it would also set a precident for my enforcing an endo cap,
there is probably more I could add, just too tired to think correctly.
Also how do we want to play this up?
as a revolution?
as a friendly change of power?
as a something?
What if we played this as a return to ideals? My antional government for one is ready for a roleplay event reflecting this. Certainly Packilvania would embrace socialist if not communist principles. Fish Island already is in the motif. If FPS politics leaned that way too it would almost be a sure thing that the region would throw off a regional structure that was corrupt.
Idea for constitutional change… Its already been started in fact…
The war is now over, but the nations are still reeling from the effects.
As a measure to keep inflation down, The major military powers in the EP, all put forth an effort at revolution. Packilvania would be somewhat happy with the new social equality, but be very discomforted at the new lack of capitilist trade,
The Wachovia Coalition wrote:What if we played this as a return to ideals? My antional government for one is ready for a roleplay event reflecting this. Certainly Packilvania would embrace socialist if not communist principles. Fish Island already is in the motif. If FPS politics leaned that way too it would almost be a sure thing that the region would throw off a regional structure that was corrupt.
A couple of things I should say. First off, FPS is a Socialist Democrocy…it already has accepted the belief system the rest of you are switching to. Which really doesn’t leave me a lot of room to switch…of course, you could use prospering FPS as an example to get the region motivated, IC wise, but besides that, theres not much for me to do.
Excepting one case…the election. If anyone besides Terrus wins, theres going to be severe change in FPS. Were the Reformists or Commies to win, there would be extreme change in the direction of these socialist/communist philosophies, more so then my current nation has already done, and is still doing, but really, it shouldn’t be that necesary for me to do so much, and, before anyone suggests it, I’m not rigging the elections so that one of those parties will win, in order to further the RP.
As for Pack’s idea…I like the WWI like reeling. It would work. I just hope it doesn’t lead up to WWII, like the real WWI did.
Well, if I start demanding land, let me know. I COULD take over china though…
Actually, it would work better for Loop…not only is he in the position of RL Japan, but he lost EP War 1 (At least, in my opinion, he did). But the surrendur terms were sorta nice, which sort of kills that…
Of course, we could just have Loop’s new General Secretary be so anti-packilvanian that he decides to risk it all to take on Father…
I lost?
I thought we fought to a Draw, coming to the mutual relization that to pursue the
war any further we would olnly destroy the region?
I do like the idea that the using the war as a reason why the new form of government is instituted,
everyone realizing the old form was limited but this one can possibly do
Infinite Loop wrote:I lost?
I thought we fought to a Draw, coming to the mutual relization that to pursue the
war any further we would olnly destroy the region?I do like the idea that the using the war as a reason why the new form of government is instituted,
everyone realizing the old form was limited but this one can possibly do
Is there any way you could have won the war, even after destroying the region?