hell, if the region was destroyed, i’d still be around 
Hmm, I thought it was a mutual agreement thing, as there was no surrender terms in teh armistice,
it does give me an angle for Stratha and his successor.
I believe the discussion on what facade the government might have and thereby how it would get to that point have been moved to the other active thread in this forum. Any more thoughts on the document Codex has proposed?
Well, we were discussing a few things, before we got off on this tangent.
First off, the “Assembly of Lords.” Suggest renaming as “House of Representatives,” “EP Congress,” “Confederational Comitee,” or “Confederational Assembly.” The names aren’t original, or that cool, but their all I got. If anyone else has suggestions…
Secondly, the EP High Court. Suggest renaming as “EP Supreme Court,” or “EP Regional Court.” Neither are more original, but I don’t like the use of the word “High” in a courts name…thats more of something to be used in an endictment’s name (High Treason, etc.).
Next, we had the Appeals Process, which, to my knowledge, needs to be added in.
Additionally, we need to decide how long Senator’s serve for, how their re-elected, etc.
And finally, despite being flamed about it, I still feel we need something about Defendant’s Rights. Something that bluntly states that they must be taken to court, and must be given certain rights. If we can just circumvent the court, or conveniently “forget,” to give the defendant a lawyer, or a fair trail, then the point of the court is lost, and frankly, so is the point of calling ourselves anything but a dictatorship.
The names are of little consequence to me personally. Japanese sounding names might be nice but not necessary.
I think we do need to be clear on what we’re working on here. This, I don’t think, will outline all the laws of the region right? This is a charter that shapes vision, which seperate laws and legislations will flesh out right?
Obviously, we’re not going to be on target for a December 1 introduction of this to the Senate but how close are we?
The Wachovia Coalition wrote:The names are of little consequence to me personally. Japanese sounding names might be nice but not necessary.
I think we do need to be clear on what we’re working on here. This, I don’t think, will outline all the laws of the region right? This is a charter that shapes vision, which seperate laws and legislations will flesh out right?
Obviously, we’re not going to be on target for a December 1 introduction of this to the Senate but how close are we?
Point taken. The appeals process…court process in all, actually, and defendant’s rights could be put into a court document of some sort, not in the actual charter.
But, I do believe finalizing the names of positions, and finalizing term length/way of election for senators need be done.
I’m in favour of putting appeals process in, but not necessarily defendent’s rights. Especially since really the only one is right to representation. Although that could be put in.
Other things I’m inclined to keep out. I mention this particularly with regard to a number of the things that loop mentions, although I shall deal with them more thoroughly when I have time. Term ends this weekend, so I should be somewhat more in position to play about with this stuff then.
Codex, I can’t help but agree with you (About time we started agreeing in earnest here). The appeal’s process is going to be a major part of the court system, no matter how large the courts get, and needs to be included in the Charer. On the other hand, I see your point with defendant’s rights…there aren’t that many of them, and frankly, even if we do make some good looking ones up, the charter is not the place for them (Let me emphasize, however, that I reserve the right to badger you guys into including them in a judiciary document or senate ammendment).
Moving on to the next easily agreed on topic…names. We need to finalize them, bad. I’ve given my suggestions, now its up to you guys to either pick one for each thing necesary and run with it, or make up your own to replace mine. I know mine aren’t that great, and I know this isn’t the funnest of topics to discuss, but it needs to be done.
Next, the thing that might cause real debate. Senators. Now, to this point, we have been discussing senator term length. Thus far, suggestions have ranged from an overall election every year, to an election for each candidate after three months, etc.
Frankly, I don’t think a set election date for all, or a certain term length per candidate is required. We simply don’t have the people, or the organization, for such a thing. I mean, in order to do so, we would need to have a set number of representatives positions, for people to run for. To do that, we would need to divide the region up into districts, and have ppl only running for certain positions against one another…and it would simply become greatly confusing, and buerocratic, for no reason.
I’m more inclined to continue with an altered version of our current plan. I’d suggest that anyone, with, say, one month of experience in the EP, and a certain number of posts, along with some experience in EP government should simply be allowed in. For the time being, I think it would work, allowing an easily constructed and usefull senate, whilst still giving the right for those who wish to join up, to join up (so long as they can be trusted to join up).
And, if best comes to best, and the charter gives us many new people, and that system stops working, the senate can simply pass an amendment, and we can deal with it at that time. I’m simply reccomending that we take care of the here and now, and then worry about the future.
Oh, and one final thing. I realize that were all busy, and that we don’t have as much time as usual. I understand that, and, being in the same situation, know what your going through. But please, even if its only a post every couple days, try to keep these things going…this constitutional prediscussion (which I’d suggest be turned into the simple Constitutional Convention) has been going on for months, with no end…if were gonna get it finished, we need to, soon.
We will FPS. I know Codex has been especially busy and I expect when he has a bit more time we’ll make the final progress we need.
I realize after you comment about senators that I must have been missing that part of the conversation. Personally, I think that any nation should have the ability to join the senate following a basic background check by Packilvania or an appointee. This is already done on an informal basis to make sure we know roughly who people are.
As to names, here are the choices we have so far:
Assembly of Lords / House of Representatives / EP Congress / Confederational Comitee / Confederational Assembly
EP High Court / EP Supreme Court / EP Regional Court
Names we use currently are Delegate, Minister, Comissaar, President of the Senate and UN Liaison. I’ll think more about this one.
I agree about the senator thing, as well until we get to say, 200 senators we allow anyone with perhaps 1 month here on the forum commitment in and they stay perminantly, I say the 200 limit will take a while to fill anywho,
however if we allow all to pariticiapte, then we are giving more freedom to our constituents and being kinda greek which is groovy.
titles, Im not too worried , as they will fall into place, I really dont see us using British terms as they are a bit stuffy and elitist sounding, so perhaps we should go for Roman titles, although some of themare a bit odd as they dont quite fit in.but we can always have a guide to the government thing tellingwhat all the duties of each are.
I’m now back from university, so I’ll try and run up a (hopefully) final draft tomorrow.
Well, unless we have other opinions on the senator position, we should work out a specific time and post limit for senate, and put it in the charter.
As for names…a lot of choices and topics here. First off, I’m for using the Confederational Assembly…it simply sounds good, which brings it into good standing with me. I’d suggest we have senators renamed representatives though…I mean, without the senate being called the senate, I think that another term would work better, and thus far, representative seems to be the only other one mentioned.
Next, for positions of power. The President of the Senate, no doubt, needs to have his name changed…without the senate being called the senate, the name doesn’t work…and frankly, I don’t like the use of the term “President,” in any case…it just doesn’t sound right. Delegate wise…I’d suggest just keeping him as the delegate…thats clear, concise, and truthfull. But if you guys think we should use another official name, I’d suggest having him deemed the “General Secretary,” a term we ditched awhile back.
Court wise…I’m not sure. Regional and Supreme Court both appeal to me…might I suggest that the original court (with one judge) be called the “Regional Court”, and the appeals court be called the Supreme Court?
As for secretary/minister/comissarr…really, I think thats loop choice, seeing as those holding these positions would fall under the delegate’s personal deputies. But, if he does defer to us…then I’m clueless, except to say that I don’t thinik comissarr would be a good idea.
Finally, the EP Supreme General…seeing as were remaining a confederacy, I’d suggest we remain with the East Pacific Defense Initiative. In other words, we’d have no military, excepting the Director of the EPDI (The old Supreme General), but we’d be able to set up some defensive plans in that forum, just in case of an invasion, and be able to have a coordinated command center in the case of a crises.
To summarize, FPS is proposing:
Delegate
____________ (Pack had the role of the Senate’s president not Loop)
Confederational Assembly
Representative (to the Assembly)
East Pacific Defense Force
Director of the EPDI
Regional Court (with appeal to Supreme Court)
I’d suggest these changes:
Delegate
Head of the Assembly*
Assembly of the Confederation
Representative (to the Assembly)
East Pacific Defense Force
Commander of the EPDI *
Regional Court (with appeal to Supreme Court)
*I’m willing to flex with Pack on this as he currently holds the titles. I thought commander would sound a bit more impressive.
Actually, am inclined to just throw a random bunch in here: Academic titles of Oxford University:
Chancellor (Delegate)
Vice-Chancellor (Senate President)
Fellows (Members of the College- e.g. Senate)
Proctors (Judges. Should be divided into a Senior Proctor, and some Junior Proctors. Court would be ‘The Proctors’ Office’)
Dean (Head of the East Pacific Defense… whatever)
Matriculati (Ratified nations)
i like Codex’s idea
… well it could work. I’m not excited about it because it does sound like school terminology.
Maybe that’s my US culture showing.
I want you guys to be happy with the titles as you wil be the ones wearing them,
so pick what you like, personally Im happy with anything,
Can I be titled “Psuedo Delegate” ?
Or “Insanely Powerful War Inspiring Semi-Evil Ruler of the East Pacific Minion Assembly”
IPWISEREPMA, it just rolls off the tounge. 
Changes List
Titles Amended (Although we still haven’t reached a decision)
1.2.3 Voting majority changed to 70% as per Loop’s comment, and seeing no reason to do otherwise
1.3.9 Added appeals process
2.1.3 Modified - Right to a fair and unbiased trial
1.2.7 Added senate re-election procedure. I know this one has been thrown around a bit, but I’m afraid that, in this case, FPS, you convinced me before you changed your own mind. I don’t think that it’s necessary to have voting districts, etc, but I’m inclined to think that having some kind of reelection procedure is necessary, just to weed out the people who’ve applied to be in the senate and then don’t do anything. It should also allow for more dynamism of roles if we force people to reconsider stuff every 6 months. But this is purely a suggestion, here, so I’d appreciate comments on it.
Things that have not been changed:
Loop’s comment wrt 2.1.1: Section 1.1.4 gives power for making regional alliances to the delegate. 2.1.1 is strictly national alliances, and as such has not been changed.
Loop’s comment wrt 2.1.2. 2.1.2 generally refers to IC military forces.
Taking a chunk of points to deal with at once:
Loop wrote: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.
- A charter is not the place to define foreign relations, especially negative ones. It’s a document saying who we are, not a place to start being nasty to other people. In any case, whilst I appreciate you not liking the ADN, writing a specific prescription against them into law is, frankly, petty. I mean, 1.1.4 appoints you as ambassador to foreign regions, organisations etc. This gives you authority to set relations against the ADN in any case.
- Military in terms of invader-style is largely undefined. I see your point here; however, there’s not a great deal of point putting a specific thing in there against having a military. I mean, it’s like saying ‘The East Pacific shall form no band of Carol singers’. Well, chances are we don’t want the region to have an official band of carol singers, but I think we can trust the delegate not to mandate one, and the assembly not to pass laws requiring one. As such, why bother saying we don’t want one?
- I don’t think keeping old laws is a good idea. Frankly, there isn’t that much in there we want to keep; most of it is messy, or contradictory, or reflects the peculiarities of the Articles of Confederation. Rather, we should sort out all the old laws we have, read through, extract the few things we might want to transfer, and then propose them as new bills under the new assembly.
- Endorsement cap set in charter: I’ve said this before, and will say it again; you do not use a charter to set peculiarities of law. For one thing, it makes no sense to stick something in there that may be subject to change on short notice. If your endorsements suddenly dropped by 200, and it became necessary to lower the limit, then we don’t want to have to go through the process of amending the charter to do it. 1.1.8 requires the legislative house to pass laws to prevent, effectively, anybody running for the delegacy. These can include endorsement caps, illegality of swapping, etc. and will be far easier to change than were the limit set in the charter.
OK, I think that’s everything, for now. Somebody care to open the next batch of discussions?