I propose the following (green represents things being added):

I. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS

Defining the supreme laws of our community.

1. Laws that form the foundation of our community, are considered fundamental to governance, or otherwise are considered of great importance by the Assembly, are to be known as “constitutional laws” and marked as such.

2. Constitutional laws hold precedence and supremacy over all other laws, regulations, and policies of all branches of government.

3. This Charter is a constitutional law holding supremacy over all others, and defines the purpose of our government and its framework.

4. Should a Legislator make a motion that an Amendment to a Constitutional Law needs to be voted on by the in-game community, and said motion receives two seconds, the Chair of the Assembly shall rule if the matter requires the consent of the in-game.

XIII. AMENDMENT PROCESS

Setting a procedure for amendment the Charter

1. The Assembly may amend any provision of the Charter by a three-fifths supermajority. Amendments must be constitutional in nature, addressing the structure or framework of government. Bills that may exist as general laws, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, should not be placed in the Charter.

2. Any amendment to the Charter that directly affects the game-side community or its home governance, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, must also be debated and voted upon by the game-side community. Additionally, the Local Council may originate amendments to its constitutional structure, which must be debated and voted upon in the Assembly.

The reasoning behind the first amendment is that by giving the Chair that much authority, without any legislators calling for the measure to be put to an in-game vote, the Chair would have the unchecked ability to just move anything to the in-game. I'm not saying I would abuse this, but by instituting simple checks we can prevent any future abuses of that. I would ask these amendments be voted on separately should we decide to vote on them.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

(This post was last modified: 01-20-2017, 12:11 AM by Omega. Edit Reason: A few minor grammatical errors that needed to be fixed. )

Reply

I'm fairly opposed to allowing any old malcontent to force in-game votes on any piece of legislation, just by motioning for it. This violates the constitutional structure we passed, which prevents the Assembly from meddling in in-game matters in the first place.

The second amendment is superfluous, but doesn't change the meaning anyways. So I'm indifferent. It should be obvious that "amendment" means Charter amendment when it's used under an article solely about Charter amendments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

I'm with Glen on both parts here. Neither of these are necessary. The second as mentioned is in the section on Charter amendments and the first is an attempt to clarify something that was already unambiguous in the first place.

Reply

Well, should I revoke this proposal I will only have the power to allow Charter amendments to go to a game side vote. If we are fine with that I see no reason as to why any of this is needed. If no one objects in 24 hours this proposal will be revoked.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

I mean, if you don't believe that you're capable of doing it fairly, then that's an issue...

But the Charter intends for the Chair to be a reasonable person capable of making these types of decisions, rather than having to codify every possibility of the universe into our laws so we never have to rely on personal judgement.

Reply