| Charter Structure |
|
So, Tsu mentioned the structure of the Charter, so I thought we could discuss what is in it and how it's organised. The current structure is as follows;
Article 1: Citizenship and Regulations of Citizenship Article 2: Bill of Rights. Article 3: Legislature Article 4: The High Court of the South Pacific Article 5: Executive Article 6: The Committee for State Security Article 7: The Local Council Article 8: Code of Laws Article 9: Forum and Forum Administration Article 10: Amendments Article 11: Supremacy How would people feel about something along the lines of; Article 1: Preamble and Founding Principles Article 2: Bill of Rights Article 3: The Delegate Article 4: The Executive Article 5: The Legislature Article 6: The Judiciary Article 7: Regional Security Council Article 8: Code of Laws I think we can shift a bunch of stuff over to the Code of Laws without a need to reference it in the charter, and other Articles we can just do away with; Amendments and Supremacy can both be done away with, as they can be dealt with in The Legislature. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
As far as I'm aware, we're not writing a single collective draft. I plan on writing my own full set of laws...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Since this all started from actions due to the forum, I think a section on forum administration and moderation should be there, even if it's worded it's not under the jurisdiction of the charter. Lets get it all written down so there's no guessing.
I see that you removed citizenship entirely. This seems logical, since it will be revised, and presumably your intent is to push it to the CoL. However, there are references to citizens throughout the existing charter, most notably in specifying who may partake in the assembly. Therefore, corresponding adjustments need to be made to the language in those places, and there may have to be some qualification of a member nation mentioned that is then deferred to statute law.
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
(04-17-2016, 02:48 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: As far as I'm aware, we're not writing a single collective draft. I plan on writing my own full set of laws... I'm just talking about Charter structure here Glen, as it's something Tsu brought up. You'll note the complete lack of any suggestions about what should go in the various sections. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
(04-17-2016, 03:19 PM)Belschaft Wrote:(04-17-2016, 02:48 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: As far as I'm aware, we're not writing a single collective draft. I plan on writing my own full set of laws... Part of the reason I brought this up is because — at one point — I know Glen had a suggestion for making this more real world law-like. I'm not sure having several sets of fully formed laws competing against each other for space and support is the best use of this GC. Of course, I won't stop anyone from doing that, but I'd caution against this approach.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] (04-17-2016, 03:46 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:(04-17-2016, 03:19 PM)Belschaft Wrote:(04-17-2016, 02:48 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: As far as I'm aware, we're not writing a single collective draft. I plan on writing my own full set of laws... I think trying to ape real world law is a bad idea; TSP is no where near as complicated as a real world country, and trying to organise our governing documents on such a basis is a recipe for disaster. What I'm probably going to do is put together drafts of individual articles, rather than producing an entire document and presenting it to the GC. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
My preference is ensuring the Charter is bare bones and everything else is in normal laws. But also getting rid of the monolithic "code of laws" document that becomes unwieldy and annoying to worth with.
Anyways, my plan all along has been to put forth a complete set of laws. That's kind of what the procedures say we're supposed to do... I do not like the idea of doing this article-by-article. All that means is that we're forced into a mold by whoever makes those OPs. It's also just going to result in a messy and hole-ridden set of laws, just as that method always has. When we wrote the procedures, we wrote in that people would be coming to the table with fully written sets of laws. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think that we need to have the Amendment Article (10) and the Supremacy Article (11) included in the final Charter, unless there is a part of an article in the proposed new charter that covers this. I still feel that those two deserve their own Articles.
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
(04-17-2016, 05:28 PM)griffindor13 Wrote: I think that we need to have the Amendment Article (10) and the Supremacy Article (11) included in the final Charter, unless there is a part of an article in the proposed new charter that covers this. I still feel that those two deserve their own Articles. I somewhat agree on the Supremacy statement, though I feel in Belschaft's proposed organization it could also work just as well as part of Article 1 (along with 5.2.2 "The Coalition may not be surrendered", which I think is out of place where it is). Amendment would be fine in the Legislature, I feel.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |