Keep in mind that offsite cannot generally legislate on gameside-exclusive matters, so your scenario would hardly happen. If I understand correctly, the point is to keep the LC from attempting to legislate non-gameside issues by issuing a law that contradicts an offsite rule and claiming that because it's "constitutional" it should rank higher.

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

Reply

Keep in mind that offsite cannot generally legislate on gameside-exclusive matters, so your scenario would hardly happen. If I understand correctly, the point is to keep the LC from attempting to legislate non-gameside issues by issuing a law that contradicts an offsite rule and claiming that because it's "constitutional" it should rank higher.

Which is why I'm still in favour of the Assembly retaining the final word on designating something constitutional.
The LC could propose something asking the Assembly to consider it, but it's still the Assembly's vote that determines constitutional status.

---

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

---

Reply

The problem we've gotten ourselves into stems from trying to create a parallel legislative process. How about the Local Council goes back to functioning like a local council?

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

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

The problem we've gotten ourselves into stems from trying to create a parallel legislative process. How about the Local Council goes back to functioning like a local council?

Well, it's trying to...  but it's running into issues with being constitutionally able to do so.

The LC passed exactly one Law governing its own elections.  unfortunately, since it isn't a constructional law, we've found ourselves in weird territory.  Having the LC propose something to the Assembly for passage would resolve that and retain the Assembly as the Legislative body.

If elected to the LC nothing would please me more than never having to appear in the forums again (outside of role as a legislator:  I'd be happy to just go on showing up to vote when I'm pinged and move on.)  

Feel free to speak with the CRS and volunteer to be the EC and settle this steaming pile of an election.

---

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

---

(This post was last modified: 08-13-2020, 04:17 PM by Volaworand.)

Reply

The problem we've gotten ourselves into stems from trying to create a parallel legislative process. How about the Local Council goes back to functioning like a local council?

The LC decided it wanted to write down its laws. I’m not sure what your suggestion means, if it’s not “stop writing laws.” So not sure that’s the most productive road to go down.

The alternatives to allowing the LC to write local constitutional laws are:
1. We go back to the Assembly controlling how the LC is elected.
2. We add a very specific section to the Charter outlining how LC elections work. This would be ineloquent arguably against the directive that amendments to the Charter not be better suited as separate laws.
3. We remove the clause in the Charter that guarantees the right to vote, or remove the part that limits the kinds of laws that can limit that right (ie allowing regular laws to do so).

I prefer the solution I’ve offered in this series of Charter amendments because it basically renders moot any future issues that arise due the LC not being allowed to pass laws with constitutional status. My goal here is to maintain the separation between the LC and the Assembly as much as possible.

Reply

The alternatives to allowing the LC to write local constitutional laws are:
1. We go back to the Assembly controlling how the LC is elected.
2. We add a very specific section to the Charter outlining how LC elections work. This would be ineloquent arguably against the directive that amendments to the Charter not be better suited as separate laws.
3. We remove the clause in the Charter that guarantees the right to vote, or remove the part that limits the kinds of laws that can limit that right (ie allowing regular laws to do so).

I prefer the solution I’ve offered in this series of Charter amendments because it basically renders moot any future issues that arise due the LC not being allowed to pass laws with constitutional status. My goal here is to maintain the separation between the LC and the Assembly as much as possible. 

Or there is the option to retain the process we have now.  Allow the LC to propose amendments to its own structure to the Assembly by presenting the LC Election Act to the assembly for designation as a consitutional law.  Follow all the same processes we already have to pass a constitutional law affecting gameside (supermajority in the Assembly, and passage on site).  This retains the supremacy of the Assembly while allowing autonomy on day-to-day issues specific to the onsite portion of the region.  Any contradictions between the Charter and the LCEA are addressed the same way the contradictions in the EA and the charter are handled.  No new processes.  No new Laws.  One existing law changes designation.  

The problem under this amendment is that the exact voting issue will still exist.  It will not resolve the LC's ability to say... run an election poll of Native WA nations as we have always done. The current LC method for electing Local Councilors is the exact same as it was when it was an Assembly authored Constitutional Law.  The LC just put the same framework back in place as a local law when the Assembly devolved the regulation of their own elections to them.

Turns out, that process of restricting polls to Native World Assembly members was allowed to violate some portions of the Charter when it was contained in the Election Act because it is a constitutional law.  Since the identical process is no longer contained in such a designated law, it's out, and now the LC election grinds to halt and future elections will need to develop some new and likely insecure process.  This amendment doesn't accually solve that problem.   How would such a conflict be read in a on site passed "gameside constitutional" law that "may not contradict this Charter or any law, regulation, or policy of the Assembly, Cabinet, or Council on Regional Security."  So the Courts would likely read that as, it's a constitutional law, but clearly designated as not being allowed to conflict so the guarantee to member voting rights in the Charter still  applies and we will be in the exact same spot we are now.  The Forum's elections can restrict the member voting right protections, but any restriction on site restriction would continue to fail to pass, so this would all have been for nothing.

We will have the same issues again if and when the clauses on term limits face a legal challenge and any number of other terms.  And we are back here again.  And then let's assume the amendment clause explicitly naming Native, WA status is challenged... it's gone... and we are back here again.

The LC has adopted a sum total of exactly one law since it was established, and only after the Assembly devolved governing the LC elections to the LC.  It has not once ever seen the need to pass other laws, constitutional or otherwise.   The primary reason the LC adopted it as law was to restrict future LC's from suspending elections, which, in the absence of Assembly laws, it had the power to do.  The other three policies the LC has passed and readopted over the years are just that... policies, that any future LC can adopt, amend or discard as it chooses, no assembly intervention required, and they all already have to "not contradict this Charter or any law, regulation, or policy of the Assembly, Cabinet, or Council on Regional Security."  and that is perfectly fine.

I'm not supportive of creating a process for the LC to adopt quasi-constitutional laws that will not accually the solve the problem we as a region now face, so I can't support this amendment.

(This post was last modified: 08-14-2020, 01:24 AM by Volaworand.)

Reply

Or there is the option to retain the process we have now.  Allow the LC to propose amendments to its own structure to the Assembly by presenting the LC Election Act to the assembly for designation as a consitutional law.  Follow all the same processes we already have to pass a constitutional law affecting gameside (supermajority in the Assembly, and passage on site).  This retains the supremacy of the Assembly while allowing autonomy on day-to-day issues specific to the onsite portion of the region.  Any contradictions between the Charter and the LCEA are addressed the same way the contradictions in the EA and the charter are handled.  No new processes.  No new Laws.  One existing law changes designation.

I explained in your thread why the LC cannot propose laws in the Assembly. How an election is run isn't a structural aspect of the Local Council. It's a procedural aspect. The Local Council, as outlined in the current Charter, can only originate in the Assembly amendments to its structure. For an example, a structural change would be if the Local Council wanted to change the "three or more" clause of Article V to allow only 1 or 2 Councillors. That actually changes the structure of the body, rather than simply the procedure or process within that structure.

What the Assembly could do is debate on our own how the Local Council should be elected. We would have to pass the law first, then the gameside would vote on it. Any future changes would need to be initiated by the Assembly, not the Local Council. How your elections are run would be entirely up to us, until we choose to change that. That's the situation that existed prior to mid 2017, before we amended the Charter to give the Local Council full control over its own affairs.

The problem under this amendment is that the exact voting issue will still exist.  It will not resolve the LC's ability to say... run an election poll of Native WA nations as we have always done. The current LC method for electing Local Councilors is the exact same as it was when it was an Assembly authored Constitutional Law.  The LC just put the same framework back in place as a local law when the Assembly devolved the regulation of their own elections to them.

This is not true in the slightest. If the LC is capable of passing its own local constitutional laws, then they could pass a law stating that only Native World Assembly members of TSP can vote in their elections, without flouting the Charter's requirement that any law restricting the right to vote have constitutional status.

How would such a conflict be read in a on site passed "gameside constitutional" law that "may not contradict this Charter or any law, regulation, or policy of the Assembly, Cabinet, or Council on Regional Security."  So the Courts would likely read that as, it's a constitutional law, but clearly designated as not being allowed to conflict so the guarantee to member voting rights in the Charter still  applies and we will be in the exact same spot we are now.

Again, this is very wrong. The Charter allows constitutional laws to restrict who is allowed to vote and run for office. That's explicit within the wording of the right in the Charter. The LC passing a constitutional law to restrict who can vote in their elections is, by definition, not going to conflict with the Charter that allows constitutional laws to do just that.

We will have the same issues again if and when the clauses on term limits face a legal challenge and any number of other terms.  And we are back here again.  And then let's assume the amendment clause explicitly naming Native, WA status is challenged... it's gone... and we are back here again.

This is also incorrect. In fact, this is the only bill on the floor right now that would allow the Local Council to enforce term limits on its own. As I pointed out earlier, if the Assembly subsumes this under our jurisdiction, it becomes the Assembly's interests and opinions that dictate how the LC is elected, how many terms they can serve, etc.

I think you'll find that when the Assembly has to debate how the LC should be run, the LC isn't going to get exactly what it wants-- there are plenty of people in the Assembly who don't think the LC should be able to write laws at all, let alone exist in the first place. Indeed, part of the point of my effort in 2017 to ensure the LC has the right to manage all of its own affairs is to prevent regular debates about its whole existence.

I'm not supportive of creating a process for the LC to adopt quasi-constitutional laws that will not accually the solve the problem we as a region now face, so I can't support this amendment. 

"Qausi-constitutional?" I don't think how you reach that conclusion in an amendment that grants the LC the ability to write their own local constitutional laws that have the same status in kind as the Assembly's.

(This post was last modified: 08-14-2020, 09:56 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Are there any further questions or edits suggested? I will be motioning this to vote as soon as it is eligible.

(This post was last modified: 08-15-2020, 07:13 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I feel that there are several diffirent threads active (which there are) all trying to change small parts of the law. Perhaps we could turn this into an omnibus bill, whereas all the changes are part of one amendment process (to reduce the voting load and to ensure we don't step on the other proposed amendments after the fact if they contradict one another).

-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

Reply

This bill is not compatible with any of the others. These amendments seek to provide the Local Council the power to pass their own local constitutional laws, which would allow them to address the High Court's ruling themselves. I specifically oppose the Assembly taking it upon ourselves to say when or how or under what terms the LC selects its own members.

Reply