Hopolis Wrote:How is that different from our judicial review proposal that was heavily criticised?!?!

The proposal that was given said that a judicial review could strike an executive decision if it was found "contrary to the Charter or the Code of Laws;" Awe's more recent proposal has just said "contrary to the Bill of Rights;" I would argue both of these are too big of scope and we need to parse it down a bit:

"An executive decision may be reversed if the decision was made unlawfully and inconsistent with the relevant provisions and procedure of the law."

My reasoning here is, as I said, saying "all of the Charter or the Code of Laws" is too wide, and gives too much latitude and Awe's "BoR" draws the focus away from the actual relevant clauses. I think there may have been some confusion as to why and what I was criticizing with your draft; if so, I apologize. 

Glen-Rhodes Wrote:Recently some people got confused about what they were voting on with the Elections Act. What do you think happened there, and how do you propose we prevent that kind of confusion in the future?

Escade Wrote:2. There have been some issues about voting periods, and confusion about when votes occur. What improvements would you make so that it was simple and easy for citizens to track what proposal was being brought up for vote and where?

I'm just going to conflate these two questions if you don't mind.

I think there are a few issues here:
- Knowing what one is voting on.
- Knowing when voting occurs.

I've already brought up the idea of returning to using bolded and striked markup up in the final voting stage to help relieve issues with voter confusion. I think questions of when voting occurs are a bit more difficult to challenge; one solution would be to harmonise voting periods so that both constitutional and general legal changes are either a three or five day decision (assuming that using both is confusing) and another idea would be as was suggested by a few Americans to start votes on only Fridays, so that voting is done across weekends - this would, presumably, increase voter participation, procedural consistency and practice - in addition to reducing the issues with "race-to-the-queue" mentalities. 

Darkstrait Wrote:What is your opinion on the Statute of Limitations issue?

I think it's necessary. We need a better legal understanding of when that line is drawn between 'too old' and 'not too old,' because otherwise we're bound to see inconsistencies start popping up in court cases and inconsistencies can start chipping away at the court's legitimacy and the confidence of others in the courts. Another pressing factor with regards to the statute of limitations is that a number of incidents of regional vulnerability are getting old basically; Sedgistan was four years ago, Frak was four years ago and even the Milograd coup and all of the people associated with it, was two years ago. 

I kind of like the Europeian Statue of Limitations that was suggested by Sopo, but I think it'll need to be modify to fit TSP context; we're in the middle of strengthening our courts and that might mean that we may want to try people who had gone untried previously for things like blackmail and corruption which were grey areas in our law previously. 

Quote:What was the greatest challenge of your tenure as Chair of Assembly?

Managing the Great Council when passions ran high was a real challenge but we got through it and I think The South Pacific is better for it. Along the way as Chair you start to learn new skills of how to mediate discussions and probe it when discussions hit a standstill. Eventually it became clear at one point to me that we would have to extend the Great Council's discussions for more time to discuss.