| LegComm: Accepted Charter Amendment |
|
I'm also more comfortable with putting this power in the hands of the CSS rather than the Courts, though if an appeal were to occur, should it still be to the Assembly? Or should it be to the Courts?
The "You can always appeal to the Assembly" on overturning cabinet desicions is a myth. Currently you need 75% of the Assembly to overturn he cabinet. Having a usual voting turnout of 20 something and the cabinet being 6 of those (30%) the ONLY way it becomes "fair" is the cabinet is not allowed to vote in the Assembly and that's not really "fair" either. And with a voting majority of the CSS on the cabinet, it's further stacked that 6 people have more powers than everyone else. Welcome to history repeating itself.
On one hand, in an ideal situation, the Cabinet should not interfere with the CSS. In reality, due to the small amount of Citizens we have, it is impossible.
When has the Cabinet ever interfered with the CSS?
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
(02-23-2015, 11:40 AM)QuietDad Wrote: The "You can always appeal to the Assembly" on overturning cabinet desicions is a myth. Currently you need 75% of the Assembly to overturn he cabinet. Having a usual voting turnout of 20 something and the cabinet being 6 of those (30%) the ONLY way it becomes "fair" is the cabinet is not allowed to vote in the Assembly and that's not really "fair" either. And with a voting majority of the CSS on the cabinet, it's further stacked that 6 people have more powers than everyone else. Welcome to history repeating itself. QD, I have to agree with Awe here, we just don't have enough consistently active people to not have some overlap. We also have it written so that the VD is also chair of the CSS.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
My proposal is that the CSS can take away citizenship for a 2 week period. It is then the role of the cabinet and CSS to address the security threat.
After a period of 2 weeks the CSS can either let it the ban lapse or suggest to the assembly to extend it for another 2 weeks. With a 50% vote confirming extension. This allows the region to address security threats in a reasonable manner. If a crime was committed, a case can be organized in this time. A month is a lot of time to be able to address a direct security threat, and the potential for abuse is way less than an indefinite citizenship ban.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
Sounds reasonable to me. Though I'd up the threshold to perhaps 60%?
Against. Security threats don't go away just because you wait two weeks. The system is fine as it already is. I might support moving the power to the CSS, but will full citizenship removal intact.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
I agree with Kris - Security threats don't go away in a few weeks.
One of things I had brought up with the Cabinet was the potential use of parole as a means to allow people back in. I know we've had spirited discussions on parole, but as it stands, we have a whole system set up for very, very, very rare instances. If we give the parole board some input here, it would give them more to do and allow a means for people to become "not security threats," regardless of the legality of their actions.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |