Separation of Powers |
(04-07-2016, 03:36 PM)Cathalea Wrote: A Ministry of Roleplay, sub-Ministey to the Ministry of Regional Affairs! Wait that's not bad! 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
When I first read the Charter, the very provision that Awe mentioned in the other thread (Charter 3.2.3, regarding the Chair being liaison to the Cabinet) struck my eye immediately (and to see the actual Chair mention it made me feel better about my understanding). I agree that this line item, as well as 5.1.2 which calls the Chair into the cabinet, are not necessary and even counter-productive.
Maybe I can offer another justification (founded in inexperience, though): The legislative must hold itself to a high standard (enforced and guided by the Chair) to write laws that are clear and unambiguous. Any ambiguities that do arise are, by definition and as defined by the Charter, cleared by the judiciary. The laws are public and should be understandable by anyone. So for that reason, a liaison shouldn't be necessary, because if the executive requires cooperation from an involved party (which is what the liaison language seems to imply), it should raise doubts on the semantics and/or syntax of the law in question. So, yeah. I say remove the Chair from the Cabinet. Seems to be a consensus here anyway ![]() ![]()
Regarding the Cabinet — what if we elected Prime Ministers and "the Cabinet" on a ticket? I'm thinking this would be akin to a party system (theoretically), but with more flexibility. The "ticket" could be:
PM, MoRA, MoFA, MoA and a LC Liaison? Or ... depending how we swing it, the LC could work closer with the CoA — depending on how we decide to break this up. (Ie. if the forums get a vote in legislation, keep LC with the Assembly. Otherwise, include with Cabinet.)
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
(04-09-2016, 09:52 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Regarding the Cabinet — what if we elected Prime Ministers and "the Cabinet" on a ticket? I'm thinking this would be akin to a party system (theoretically), but with more flexibility. The "ticket" could be: I have a few concerns with joint tickets in general:
Regarding the LC liaison's placement, I don't have arguments either way right now but intuitively it would make sense in the Assembly. ![]() ![]()
(04-09-2016, 09:52 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Regarding the Cabinet — what if we elected Prime Ministers and "the Cabinet" on a ticket? I'm thinking this would be akin to a party system (theoretically), but with more flexibility. The "ticket" could be: (04-09-2016, 03:08 PM)Roavin Wrote:I would not like to see group tickets at all, like Roavin said, they seem a bit risky just looking at it from the outside.(04-09-2016, 09:52 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Regarding the Cabinet — what if we elected Prime Ministers and "the Cabinet" on a ticket? I'm thinking this would be akin to a party system (theoretically), but with more flexibility. The "ticket" could be: I feel that the Delegate and Vice Delegate would need to be on one ticket, and (maybe) each delegate candidate chooses their running mate. The Prime Minister in real life has usually been elected through an assembly, so it makes sense to do it here, though I could support wither one. Any cabinet position I feel should be elected by the Assembly, We have to remember that the cabinet falls under the executive branch. The new delegate should be able to shape is government just a little bit.. since he did win public support for their "policies" in the election. Anything I missed? -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
(04-09-2016, 07:29 PM)griffindor13 Wrote: I would not like to see group tickets at all, like Roavin said, they seem a bit risky just looking at it from the outside. Just to be clear, the delegate would be separate. My personal preference is for all seats to be elected separately, but some people had floated the idea of appointing Cabinet minister. If *that* were the case, I'd sooner voting be done on a full ticket than not. Also — I don't know what powers "the Cabinet" would have exactly after this reconfiguration?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
(04-09-2016, 10:32 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:(04-09-2016, 07:29 PM)griffindor13 Wrote: I would not like to see group tickets at all, like Roavin said, they seem a bit risky just looking at it from the outside. I would imagine just what their department covers, and the cabinet would also not be able to make laws. -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
(04-09-2016, 10:32 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Also — I don't know what powers "the Cabinet" would have exactly after this reconfiguration? Well ... the Charter in 5.1.6 currently states: Quote:The Cabinet may adopt Executive Policy in cases where no law exists; Executive Policy may not conflict with the Charter, Bill of Rights, or Code of Law. That's quite a power, really ![]() I also think it's a good idea to leave that in for things that need to be done quickly, but it's quite a broad definition. It's probably impossible to define explicitly should or shouldn't be allowed. So my suggestion is to have executive policy (that is, anything the Cabinet decides that is not already part of its responsibilities) time-limited to a reasonable amount (maybe 2-4 weeks), upon which it expires and must be enacted into law by the assembly if it's supposed to stay in place. ![]()
(04-10-2016, 04:00 PM)Roavin Wrote:(04-09-2016, 10:32 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Also — I don't know what powers "the Cabinet" would have exactly after this reconfiguration? Agreed. But, historically, we've had issues where the Cabinet wasn't able to agree on something and there was *a lot* of infighting. Again, if we're going to keep elections for everyone — great. If not, I'd sooner know the entire slate prior to voting.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
(04-10-2016, 04:03 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Agreed. But, historically, we've had issues where the Cabinet wasn't able to agree on something and there was *a lot* of infighting. That's the kind of history I'm not really familiar with, being the complete n00b I am. Is there a place to view an archive of executive orders, to get a feeling for how often and what kind were done in the past? (04-10-2016, 04:03 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Again, if we're going to keep elections for everyone — great. If not, I'd sooner know the entire slate prior to voting. Oh yeah, I'm absolutely with you - if appointed, then I'd like to know beforehand, but I strongly prefer separate elections. ![]() |
Users browsing this thread: |
3 Guest(s) |