| Meaningful progress on Constitutional Reform |
I suggest the process of constitutional amendment is already becoming a mess, with different drafts in unrelated different places.
Can we please get some principles straight in advance? In particular, are we considering amendment or a completely new document? If the document is to be amended, then the starting point is the old Charter, and proposed amendments need to be marked up on it. Amendments from several sources should marked up on duplicates of the sections being amended. Amendments of amendments should be marked on the amendments. In that case, there is at least some possibility of seeing where the issues are, and what people want changed. If we are starting afresh, then a charter template is needed to compare proposals. This would include, in this (provisional) order: 1. Charter Preamble: set out main aspirations of the Region. In this case: a few words about the history of the Region, the abuses sought to be remedied by the Charter, Its guiding aims and principles. Residence and citizenship. Institutions and separation of powers. Legislature, its chair. Court. Executive. Domestic Affairs, including prosecutions etc. Foreign Affairs. Army. Counter-intelligence. Delegate. Bill of Rights (separate) Laws.(separate) Supremacy, amendment and revocation. (Any others?) 2. Terms and conditions for Administrators. 3. Rules applicable to moderation. I've divided them like this as I see a (sensible, if belated) consensus that the real-life role of Admins should be separately dealt with.I note that other large Regions seem to manage quite well on this basis. Moderation also has real-life implications, and requires real-life rules, at least in skeleton form. The reason for setting out the above categories is, quite simply, to enable meaningful comparison to be made between drafts. Note that I say nothing about the final 'look' of a particular draft - its provisions can be in any order that people choose. But they will all broadly have to cover the same ground, and it's more convenient for readers to be able to compare like with like.
I agree that it's very sensible to have a list of issues Charter proposals need to address.
Though I imagine some of our more moderate members will prefer amendments, I think it's safe to say most of us are preparing entirely new documents. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(02-09-2016, 10:21 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: I agree that it's very sensible to have a list of issues Charter proposals need to address. I think your post on another thread makes the point very well. Everyone produces their drafts and people then have specific points to talk about. But the discussion can only become meaningful if, within reason, it's possible to compare like with like. The problem with looking at drafts 'as a whole' is that personality becomes an issue. I've seen this in real-life drafting on many occasions. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |