+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: At Vote: Separation of Powers (/thread-4818.html)
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Belschaft - 02-23-2017
I'm aware of that, but I honestly can't think of a better place to put it. The LC possess some limited form of legislative power in in the in-game region, though this remains vague, and also controls a block vote in the Assembly.
The consensus was that people wanted the LC covered by separation of powers (a view I oppose) and as such I put it in there, in the branch of government that seemed most appropriate.
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Omega - 02-23-2017
I'm just making sure we are okay with that. Because that could place them under the jurisdiction of the CoA by some interpretations. And it also diminishes the independence they have from this government.
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Belschaft - 02-23-2017
I'm not sure it does either of thus things Omega; being defined as in the same branch of government doesn't make an office in the jurisdiction of another also in that branch.
As for the "independence" of the Local Council, defining it as part of the legislative branch has no effect aside from in relation to separation of powers. It doesn't change it's powers or duties in any way.
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - sandaoguo - 02-23-2017
Quote:7. Separation of Powers
(1) Offices of the Coalition are the Delegate, the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers, the Chair of the Assembly, Local Councillors, the Permanent Justice, and any of their appointed deputies.
(2) It is not permitted for any individual to hold more than one office within the Coalition's government.
(3) It is permitted to seek election or appointment to new office while holding an existing office.
(4) Election or appointment to a new office constitutes explicit resignation of an existing office.
(5) No person holding a Cabinet office or the office of the Delegate may hold any equivalent office in a foreign region or organisation.
This seems like a way to sidestep the debate about "branches" altogether.
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Belschaft - 02-23-2017
I'm fine with that version of the wording.
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Seraph - 02-23-2017
(02-23-2017, 02:02 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I'm fine with that version of the wording.
Is that a formal retraction of your wording, and does it require a new motion to vote? (If it does, consider this it: motion to vote).
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Rebeltopia - 02-23-2017
Second the new wording
Sent from my phone using Tapatalk. So typos may be a'plenty...
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Belschaft - 02-23-2017
(02-23-2017, 02:13 PM)Seraph Wrote:(02-23-2017, 02:02 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I'm fine with that version of the wording.
Is that a formal retraction of your wording, and does it require a new motion to vote? (If it does, consider this it: motion to vote).
Sure, why not; I subtract my version of the wording and second Glen's amended version. Formal enough for you?
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Seraph - 02-23-2017
(02-23-2017, 02:30 PM)Belschaft Wrote:(02-23-2017, 02:13 PM)Seraph Wrote:(02-23-2017, 02:02 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I'm fine with that version of the wording.
Is that a formal retraction of your wording, and does it require a new motion to vote? (If it does, consider this it: motion to vote).
Sure, why not; I subtract my version of the wording and second Glen's amended version. Formal enough for you?
Auch, it'll do.
