Users browsing this thread:

***Roavin*** · 05-29-2017, 10:25 AM

I have a feeling some wise guy will very soon get the stupid idea of calling a Great Council, so I want to preemptively strike this from our laws.

Great Councils don't work. They don't fix what they're supposed to fix and cause more chaos in the long-term. We work better with successive improvements (and that's better for sustained activity as well).

Amendment to the Charter Wrote:XIV. GREAT COUNCILS

Setting a procedure for constitutional conventions

1. When the Assembly wishes to debate the fundamental principles and structures of the Coalition, it may call a Great Council to rewrite all laws in their entirety, or establish a new state for The South Pacific.

2. A majority vote by both the Assembly and the game-side community is required to begin a Great Council. At least one year must pass between a Great Council before another one is called.

3. The purpose of a Great Council is to rewrite all laws from the ground up, not merely to amend existing ones. The Assembly should use the normal amendment process for basic amendments, reserving Great Councils for a time when extreme changes are necessary and proper.

4. If a Great Council fails to pass a new constitution and set of laws to replace the existing ones, then the existing laws will remain in place.

(This post was last modified: 05-29-2017, 10:26 AM by Roavin.)

***Tsunamy*** · 05-29-2017, 10:25 AM

I. Love. This.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 05-29-2017, 10:32 AM

I have no problem with this. In the rare situation where we do need something like a Great Council, the Assembly can always pass enabling legislation.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Penguin · 05-29-2017, 11:47 AM

I think that this is a good idea but I think that there should be a system in place to IF NEED BE for something like this. The Region is old as all get out and has been revamped a number of times. While I agree that the GC is a pain in the toes, we should have a system to "revamp" every few years or so.
Taking it law by law as it comes is cool and all but people's opinion change over time about things.

What if we could come up with a system that lets us review EVERYTHING every like 3 years or so? with the turnover rate there would be enough new people to warrant it I think....

This is Penguin!!
Nothing Gold Can Stay
Penguins shall one day rule the pie!
And by "pie", I mean "World"!!
Goddess Empress Queen Princess Lady of TSP
Lilium Inter Spinas // Non timebo mala
I have done a lot of things in the Region in my History.
There's a list somewhere if you wanna go looking.

~~Yuno~~ · 05-29-2017, 11:49 AM

This actually exists...?
Bad idea yeah

~~Cormac~~ · 05-29-2017, 11:50 AM

(05-29-2017, 10:32 AM)Belschaft Wrote: I have no problem with this. In the rare situation where we do need something like a Great Council, the Assembly can always pass enabling legislation.

No, it can't. The elimination of this language from the Charter will leave amendment by the Assembly as the only means to amend the Charter; there will be no legally permissible process for calling a convention of any kind to completely rewrite the Charter, and creating such a process would require a Charter amendment, not simply an Assembly resolution. We need to be crystal clear on that before proceeding further with debate.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I certainly don't want another Great Council anytime soon, if ever. I think that's true of most legislators. On the other, I can foresee situations in which a Great Council may well be desirable and there have been such situations in the past, so I think the option should maybe remain in place. I'm not sure I'm ready to say I oppose this legislation yet, but I don't think we should rush into this just because Great Councils are unpopular at the moment thanks to the results of the last one. There is a tendency here to go from one extreme to another in legislating, to throw the baby out with the bath water, and to propose solutions in search of actual problems. I think this may be a case of that. Tell me why I'm wrong.

(This post was last modified: 05-29-2017, 11:55 AM by Cormac.)

AwesomeSaucer · 05-29-2017, 02:20 PM

From someone new to the region but with previous experience in NS regional politics, a GC seems to be a good idea in principle. However, the language used in this clause of our Charter is vague, not easily understandable, and misses the point of what a GC should be - a true constitutional convention.

I support striking this language for something written better. When I have time later today I'll write a draft.

--
Phoenixea
Evan C. | AwesomeSaucer

(This post was last modified: 05-29-2017, 02:26 PM by AwesomeSaucer.)

***Roavin*** · 05-29-2017, 02:36 PM

Belschaft hit the nail on the head. And Cormac, Bel didn't say an assembly resolution, but rather enabling legislation. So, I don't see a legality issue whatsoever.

**Belschaft** · 05-29-2017, 03:54 PM

Cormac is the chair currently, but I actually disagree with his interpretation in that I think an Assembly resolution/enabling legislation could "suspend" the Charter and establish a GC, so long as it was passed by a high enough vote margin. For legal reasons we'd probably need an in-game plebiscite as well, but the basic premise of Assembly supremacy still applies. If the Assembly can change the Charter with a 60% vote, then it can declare "We're having a constitutional convention" with a 60% vote.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 05-29-2017, 05:01 PM

When I wrote that provision, I was basically saying, "Great Councils are erasing the board and starting over." They should be more like "revolutionary" events (without, y'know, the revolt), rather than symbolic events just to make an issue seem more important. At the end of the day, if most of the community agrees to start over, it doesn't matter what the Charter says. So that article is just trying to shift the Overton window back towards GCs being rare and huge things, because we'd gotten into a pattern where they weren't.