Our current Article E based upon the DG2 Constitution:


E. The Legislative Branch will be formed of two houses. The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors, each of whom are responsible for the care, management and use of the cities and lands of a province in addition to legislative responsibilities. The Congress will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry.

This will need some discussing on whether we want to give the Senate the power of the purse and/or any other responsibilities in addition to amendment ratification. I do think that we need to give the Senate more power or abolish it altogether and move the governors to the Executive Branch (where they should probably go anyway).

Keep this one, I like it :D

I don't see the purpose of having 2 legislative houses when one of those houses is the full citizenry - why have a check and balance to that? I do like the idea of pulling the power of the purse away from Domestic, and it makes sense to give it to the Senate. However, I am not sure that the Senate needs to be comprised of the Governors and a Senate whose only function is the purse seems a bit "lacking in substance". We could give the Senate other responsibilities such as defining permanent provincial borders, wonder locations, etc. Also, perhaps we could make the senate more like the US, 1 elected Senator from each province with a minimum of X. That would really work well if we had "local" elections whereby only the citizens in the province voted. Otherwise, just elect them like we do any other currently.

Originally posted by zorven
I don't see the purpose of having 2 legislative houses when one of those houses is the full citizenry - why have a check and balance to that?

One reason : because it gives the constitutional right to the citizenry to take part in the legislative process. This means that polls are valid, basically.

This topic will likely require two polls to resolve: the structure of the legislature (one house, two houses, and who comprises those houses) and the general responsibilities of the legislature.

Structure

Possible structures include:
Status Quo - Two houses: Upper House consisting of Governors; Lower House consisting of entire Citizenry.
Mayors - Two houses: Upper House consisting of Governors; Lower House consisting of all the Mayors.
Govs Only - One house, consisting of provincial governors.
Strictly Senate - Two houses: Upper House consisting of a proportionate number of Senators (not provincial governors) to the census; Lower House consisting of the Mayors.


Responsibilities

Responsibilities may include:
Status Quo - The improvement, development and maintenance of the lands within our nation.
Fiscal Only - The distribution of funds (ie. controlling the sliders) within the empire.
Fiscal and Farming - Both the improvement, development and maintenance of the lands within the empire and the distribution of funds (ie. controlling the sliders) within the empire.

There surely are several other suggestions worthy of merit (and quite possibly some of these are unworthy), but I thought I'd try to kick start this discussion with some of the suggestions brought up in other threads.

Originally posted by Fier Canadien
One reason : because it gives the constitutional right to the citizenry to take part in the legislative process. This means that polls are valid, basically. Yes and no. Polling is legal because we are guaranteed the right to participate in polls elsewhere in the Con. However, it does seem logical that the exclusion of the citizenry from the leglislature would likewise exclude them from participating in the legislative process.

Of course, it would still be possible for lay citizens to participate in the process by promoting a bill and seeking a senator/governor/mayor or whatever to sponsor his/her bill.

Anyway, I think the legislative branch is effective enough for us as it was in DG2.

Originally posted by Fier Canadien

One reason : because it gives the constitutional right to the citizenry to take part in the legislative process. This means that polls are valid, basically.

I think you misunderstood me. I meant why have a Senate as a check and balance to the Congress. The Congress is made up of the full citizenry. Why do we need another vote after the full citizenry already approved it?

zorven:

I believe, and I may be mistaken, that this second vote was written into the law for 2 reasons:

1. Since the governors are more directly involved in the game, they may have a better understanding of the actual consequences resulting from passage of a proposed ammendment. What may seem like a good idea to the general public, may actually have disastrous results if implemented and the Senate could prevent that mistake from occuring.

2. There are also times in which someone discovers a flaw in the proposal midway through the vote and most everyone has already voted in the poll. The senate vote could serve as a means of negating the proposal without having to start the entire ammendment process over again simply to undo the flawed ammendment.

Just my thoughts, but it also seems to make sense that for something as monumental as a Constitutional Ammendment, we don't really want to leave it up to a single poll.

I find it a bad omen when we basically say in the Constitution that we don't trust the citizens to vote on legislation, that we need a second, smaller group of citizens to "supervise" the full citizenry.

Originally posted by zorven
I find it a bad omen when we basically say in the Constitution that we don't trust the citizens to vote on legislation, that we need a second, smaller group of citizens to "supervise" the full citizenry.
Anyway, because of article J (Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.), the senate must vote in the same way as the people. Now, that sounds a bit futile :)

I believe the entire citizenry should remain as the Congress. As far as the Senate, I like the idea of the Governors having this governmental entity to gather in and discuss the matters relevant to their provinces. If the Senate is given others powers, such as the purse strings, etc., then the Senate thread would be the place to discuss this also, before a decision was then posted in the budget thread, or elswhere.

As far as the Senate ratifying a law or amendment, I've moved away from that idea, and think rubber-stamping a Congressional vote is time-consuming and redundant.

I actually see nothing wrong with the wording of Article E because the issue of "legislative responsibilities" is not defined and can become what we wish in the CoL.

Originally posted by zorven
I find it a bad omen when we basically say in the Constitution that we don't trust the citizens to vote on legislation, that we need a second, smaller group of citizens to "supervise" the full citizenry. I agree, but considering that there have been a number of votes in which people rush to judgement only to regret casting their votes when all is said and done. Personally, I'd like to see only one vote for ratification of all laws as well as a little better consideration of the potential consequences by all those participating in that vote.

Originally posted by Fier Canadien
Anyway, because of article J (Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.), the senate must vote in the same way as the people. Now, that sounds a bit futile :) :lol:
That is an excellent interpretation of the law. It's amazing nobody has noticed that in the previous three games. Remind me to nominate you for the bench.

As I said above, I personally see no reason for two votes, but then again, I really fail to see the reasons for dividing the rules into a Constitution and Code of Laws.

Originally posted by Cyc

As far as the Senate ratifying a law or amendment, I've moved away from that idea, and think rubber-stamping a Congressional vote is time-consuming and redundant.

I actually see nothing wrong with the wording of Article E because the issue of "legislative responsibilities" is not defined and can become what we wish in the CoL.

I agree with Cyc in principle. I would point out that by releiving the Senate of all legislative duties and giving them the power of the purse, etc., we are giving them executive authority. But now we can't go and place them in the executive branch because we're already polling article C and in that world governors / senators are not in the executive branch. But who cares about such technicalities. We're only writing the constitution here, not any of the real rules. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by donsig
I would point out that by releiving the Senate of all legislative duties and giving them the power of the purse, etc., we are giving them executive authority.Only because that responsibility has traditionally been assigned to the executive branch. Just because we're trying to assign the legislature with some real, in-game, responsibilities doesn't mean we're trying to merge them into the executive branch.

Originally posted by FortyJ
Only because that responsibility has traditionally been assigned to the executive branch. Just because we're trying to assign the legislature with some real, in-game, responsibilities doesn't mean we're trying to merge them into the executive branch.

*nods*

We giving form to the branches, but not assigning them duties yet. Heck, we could make the DP come from the Senate on a rotating basis!

We all have ideas on the duties of each branch based on personal preference and past experience. These concepts influence our decisions and views here. We need to recognize them for what they are, and realize that, although we are basing this game on DG2, we can, and probably will alter the balance of power to something new.

The definition of what power below to what branch won't be known until the process is done, not before.

-- Ravensfire

For crying out loud people, legislative has to do with the function of making laws while the executive pertains to or is charged with the execution of laws and policies or the administration of public affairs.

If we are to draft an article of our constitution dealing with the legislative branch, is it too much to ask that we include in such article only those subjects pertitnent to making laws (i.e., legislating)?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I think that we should move the Senate over to the executive branch, and change Article C after this passes.

Originally posted by donsig
For crying out loud people, legislative has to do with the function of making laws while the executive pertains to or is charged with the execution of laws and policies or the administration of public affairs.

If we are to draft an article of our constitution dealing with the legislative branch, is it too much to ask that we include in such article only those subjects pertitnent to making laws (i.e., legislating)?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


And of course thats exactly the roles the two branches have been performing in the past three games.

Oh wait, you mean the members of the Legislative branch were executing laws and policies? They were administering the affairs of the public? Heaven forbid!

Well, looks like we've been dumb for three games. Thanks for the education, our foolish minds have now been set straight on the path of righteousness.


So we move the Governors to the Executive Branch, keep the People as a collective whole as the Legislature. Does that fall within the Government 101 definition?

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire



And of course thats exactly the roles the two branches have been performing in the past three games.

Oh wait, you mean the members of the Legislative branch were executing laws and policies? They were administering the affairs of the public? Heaven forbid!

Well, looks like we've been dumb for three games. Thanks for the education, our foolish minds have now been set straight on the path of righteousness.


So we move the Governors to the Executive Branch, keep the People as a collective whole as the Legislature. Does that fall within the Government 101 definition?

-- Ravensfire

I'm glad someone has finally admitted how dumb some of our rules have been. Yes, your final paragraph falls within the GOV 101 definition.

And then we can all move to Florida....wake me when yer done...

Originally posted by donsig


I'm glad someone has finally admitted how dumb some of our rules have been. Yes, your final paragraph falls within the GOV 101 definition.

Or maybe, just maybe, we look at the Government 101 book, shrug our shoulder and toss the thing out the window. We then go on to use the terms as we see fit.

OR, we could point out that, in addition to their role as Governors, we have, in the past, given legislative roles to the Governors. Essentially, they have dual roles. Moving the slider control to the Legislature matches, to some extant, the format the US uses where Congress passes the budget each year, using requests from the other branches and citizens/citizen groups as sources of information. The Executive branch then functions within that budget.

Interesting diversion though - thanks for the break from work!

-- Ravensfire

Yes. ravensfires, I know that in the past we have given governors legislative duties. But if we take those tudies away it makes no sense what-so-ever to talk about governors / senators as being in the legislative branch. This comes into bearing in another article being debated (the one concerning the number of positions a citizen can hold). Are we going to leave governors / senators in the legislative branch simply so we can have a loophole allowing someone to be governor and foreign leader at the same time (as an example)?

GOV 101 would also say, *keep the government branches seperate*. If we choose to shrug and toss that idea out, so be it, but let's not redefine terms in the process. The words executive and legislative have agreed upon meanings (as in dicitonaries). Sticking to the agreed meanings will facilitate communication. ;)

donsig

I wish you'd go to DC and explain to the boys and girls on the hill that the legislature has no business controlling where and how our money is spent. After all, as an executive function, that responsibility should belong to the President and assembly of governors within our nation, right?

If we are going to nitpick about the titles of our branches, then perhaps we should change to a 4 branch system of government with the Executive Branch (Pres, VP, Advisors) executing the game, the Legislative Branch (citizens) writing laws, the Judiciary Branch (judges) adjudicating those laws, and a Gubernatorial/Financial Branch (governors) governing their provinces and allocating government funds.

Originally posted by FortyJ
donsig

I wish you'd go to DC and explain to the boys and girls on the hill that the legislature has no business controlling where and how our money is spent. After all, as an executive function, that responsibility should belong to the President and assembly of governors within our nation, right?


:mad: :mad: :mad: Are we trying to turn the demogame into a mini United States? Let's play America this time, guys! Since we're talking about the past, anyone remember when the domestic leader (in the EXECUTIVE branch) had the power of the purse? No one in this game ever claimed the domestic leader had anything to do with legislating. I don't care what we do in the US system, in the demogame system the power of the purse has always resided with the executive branch. Having the senators / governors spend our gold is no excuse for leaving them in the legislative branch.

We still have a three branch division of duties FortyJ: one body makes laws, one body ajudicates the laws the the other administers the laws. You're fourth division is only a division of the executive branch.

I couldn't care less if the Governors/Senators were moved to the Executive Branch or not. Since lawmaking has never been our strong point, I always looked at the division of branches as a division of duties. Governors were kept separate from Council members for clerical purposes. ;)

Technically, Ravensfire has it right. The entire citizenry is the Legislative Branch. Anyone can write a law in this town. But why not keep the Senators over here, and the Council over there for organizations sake?

If it means renaming the Legislative Branch to fit an exact definition, then why not? Renaming one of the three branches(we didn't come up with those branch names ourselves, ya know) would be a nice way to distance ourselves from the "mini-US" establishment that hasn't really been an issue up to this point. :rolleyes:

Donovan Zoi, governors were not kept seperate from the executive department leaders in the beginnning *for clerical reasons*. Way back in DG1 the council of leaders/advisors (which did not include governors) had certain powers they no longer have. One of these powers was the confirmation of constitutional amendments after said amendments were approved by the citizens in general. Governors were turned into Senators / governors when this legislative duty was taken from the council of advisors / leaders and passed to the Senators / governors. Admittedly, Senators / governors had both legislative and executive functions. If we take away all their legislative duties it makes no sense to leave them in the legislative branch. Simply renaming things as you suggest won't change anything (but the names). A rose by anyother name would smell as sweet and governors lumped in with the Congress in a branch (whatever you want to name it) stinks.

I do not see what all the fuss is about. Are you all opposed to having governors in the executive branch and if so, why?

donsig,

You're thinking something like this:

The Legislative Branch will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry.

Interesting - I can definitely live with it.

I know there is still the ongoing discussion about assigning slider control to the legislature, so as an alternate:

The Legislative Branch will be formed of two houses. The Senate will be formed of the Governors, and establish fiscal policy by setting the slider values. The Congress will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry who may propose, discuss, and vote on proposed legislation.

-- Ravensfire

@Ravensfire: Governors / senators can set the sliders and still be in the executive branch. The US Congress retains the power of the purse because they control the raising of taxes and the setting of import / export duties, etc. Sure, we could argue that that is similar to setting the sliders in Civ III, but as I pointed out earlier the setting of the sliders has always resided in the executive branch in the demogames.

What is the purpose of having the Senator / governors in the legislative branch? What do we accomplish here? There is talk of defining the term *leaders* in the executive branch article. Does it not make more sense to have our Senators / governors in the executive branch so as to be covered by any definition in that article? Does it not also just plain make more sense to have them there?

donsig,

I'm fine with that. There are two sources of inertia here - slider control in Executive, Governors in Legislature.

Personally, I'm fine with first version of Article E above.

Folks - is this an acceptable approach?

-- Ravensfire

OK, discussion here died so let's pick it up again, shall we?

I somewhat like Ravensfire's proposal, and after further consideration feel that Governors/Senators should remain in the Legislative Branch. We should still allow the possibility that they may have Legislative powers. As of yet, we have not written the CoL, so we may see a need for that power.

For reference, here is the current wording of Article E:

E. The Legislative Branch will be formed of two houses. The Senate will be formed of the
Provincial Governors, each of whom are responsible for the care, management and use of
the cities and lands of a province in addition to legislative responsibilities. The Congress
will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry.

To repeat my proposal:

E. The Legislative Branch will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Cyc
I believe the entire citizenry should remain as the Congress. As far as the Senate, I like the idea of the Governors having this governmental entity to gather in and discuss the matters relevant to their provinces. If the Senate is given others powers, such as the purse strings, etc., then the Senate thread would be the place to discuss this also, before a decision was then posted in the budget thread, or elswhere.

As far as the Senate ratifying a law or amendment, I've moved away from that idea, and think rubber-stamping a Congressional vote is time-consuming and redundant.

I actually see nothing wrong with the wording of Article E because the issue of "legislative responsibilities" is not defined and can become what we wish in the CoL.

Just to reiterate, I think we can leave it as it is.

tweo houses... good idea!

i agree with some here. it doesn't make sense to have legislative govenors. govenorship and legislation doesn't have anything to do with eachother.
if legislation should be made by the entire citizenary, however, we need to define what should be considered a passed law. does it need to have a simple majority (51%) or a qualified majority? should we have a lower limit of # of participating votes needed to consider the poll representive?

one thing i would like to see is that a city should be able to govern itself independently from the govenor. this decentralized and managable political form has often proven to create enthusiasm and creativity, and often outmatch the monthly elected govenor.
yet there are no laws that guarantee the cities' independency (mayors and residents are just a custom). it is always up to the good will of the govenor. plus, because local instructions should pass through the govenor to make it to the TC thread, a political "bottleneck" often appears when the govenor is absent and the mayors/residents are not.
i suggest that we leave it to the residents of the city to decide their own policy on how the city should be managed, and that the cities themselves post their BQ's and worker instructions in the TC thread.

Originally posted by ravensfire
To repeat my proposal:

E. The Legislative Branch will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

-- Ravensfire

That sounds good to me.

You raised some good questions D'yer Mak'er, I'll try to answer a few from my viewpoint.

Originally posted by D'yer Mak'er
if legislation should be made by the entire citizenary, however, we need to define what should be considered a passed law. does it need to have a simple majority (51%) or a qualified majority? should we have a lower limit of # of participating votes needed to consider the poll representive?

You are exactly correct about this. The current plan is that we will have three books of Law, each one being more specific and easier to change. The Constitution is our broad statement of rights and principles. All other laws must exist within that framework.

Each book will have a clause stating what is needed to pass a law for that book. I think the current discussion for the Constitution is Article I.


one thing i would like to see is that a city should be able to govern itself independently from the govenor. this decentralized and managable political form has often proven to create enthusiasm and creativity, and often outmatch the monthly elected govenor.
yet there are no laws that guarantee the cities' independency (mayors and residents are just a custom). it is always up to the good will of the govenor. plus, because local instructions should pass through the govenor to make it to the TC thread, a political "bottleneck" often appears when the govenor is absent and the mayors/residents are not.
i suggest that we leave it to the residents of the city to decide their own policy on how the city should be managed, and that the cities themselves post their BQ's and worker instructions in the TC thread.

Personally - I don't think the idea would work. Too many problems, too much confusion. It has been proposed before - look back a few pages I think. It might have been in another thread - can't remember.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
To repeat my proposal:

E. The Legislative Branch will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

-- Ravensfire

I vote for this one. Where's the poll?

I vote for this one. Where's the poll?

Here is the poll. For the clarification of where our Governors should go, that is. ;) I am not sending Ravensfire's proposal for ratification until that is determined that people wish to change the long-standing placement of Governors in the Legislative Branch.

Here's the poll:

Article D/E Clarification Poll: Governors (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71621)

Pending the poll DZ posted, here is the verbage I suggest we poll for ratification.

Governors in Executive Branch
E. The Legislative Branch will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

Governors in Legislature (straight from DG2)
E. The Legislative Branch will be formed of two houses. The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors, each of whom are responsible for the care, management and use of the cities and lands of a province in addition to legislative responsibilities. The Congress will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry.

Either way, we do still have two significant decisions that I can see - slider and budget control. I would strongly prefer that these be expressed in the Constitution.

It has been proposed that the Governors (working together as either the Senate or as a Governor's Council) control the budget. Thoughts? Comments? Who controls the slider?

-- Ravensfire

I believe slider and budget control belong in the CoL with standards written in the CoS. Things like this do not go in the Constitution. What if we get a situation that requires us to change who deals with these items. It would be too difficult to write an amendment to the Constitution. It would be more suitable for a change in the CoL. Heh. It may even be closer to a Standard than an Article. :)

I agree with ravensfire that something as general as who controls the sliders and the gold should be specified in the constitution.

It's not general donsig. It's very specific. It's a job description. If you were applying for a position in a government and they said ok, you're going to be a Governor, that would be a general statement. If you wanted to know what you were going to do as a Governor, then the Government could get very specific with its job description. These type of things go in the CoL. But of course we want to tie up this discussion as much as possible until someone just stops trying and you win, so let's continue this pointless debate.

We specify what the governors do, don't we? We specify what the leaders do don't we? Slider control and budget control are sufficiently general and sufficiently import to warrant being in the constitution.

Why is it so hard for you to make a decision about things? Is it really so difficult to say I thing the domestic advisor should control the slider or I think the governors should control the slider and go on and rwrite that into the constitution?

Why do you want to put everything in the Constitution, donsig? The CoL and CoS will be easier to change when we find out that because we had no time to do this properly ('cause some people are tieing up (or setting up roadblocks), we made mistakes.

Since the begining you have advocated the use of the DG3 Constitution, which tried to float the nation on a detailed Constitution alone (with no supporting books). Since the begining of this process you have tried to hold everything up with useless debates on what is what, depending on how well you combed your hair that morning. Now it's almost a third of the way through December and you're still nitpicking Articles of the Constitution and changing ones that have already been decided on. Congratulations, donsig. You have achieved your goal of screwing up the Rules writing process and you will get you wish of only having a detailed Constitution to work with.

I once stood with you, donsig while the others called you a tyrant. But no more. I have now been pushed to the other side. Look to me no more as an ally.

Originally posted by Cyc
It's not general donsig. It's very specific. It's a job description. If you were applying for a position in a government and they said ok, you're going to be a Governor, that would be a general statement. If you wanted to know what you were going to do as a Governor, then the Government could get very specific with its job description. These type of things go in the CoL. But of course we want to tie up this discussion as much as possible until someone just stops trying and you win, so let's continue this pointless debate.

Cyc,

I agree with donsig on this for one reason. The slider is a major factor in the game, as is the budget. We are stating in the Constitution the broad areas that each leaders oversee. As a major area, I feel it is appropriate to place them in the Constitution.

It is a personal preference for me, and I do understand where you are coming from. I just think that since these two areas have such an impact on the entire game, placing them in Con is appropriate.

-- Ravensfire

Sounds like a power grab to me Ravensfire.

No offense, but I'm not quite sure what you mean.

(seriously - no offense - it's been a long day at work with no end in sight, and I'm just not catching your meaning)
-- Ravensfire

EDIT: Edited for clarity

Originally posted by Cyc
Why do you want to put everything in the Constitution, donsig? The CoL and CoS will be easier to change when we find out that because we had no time to do this properly ('cause some people are tieing up (or setting up roadblocks), we made mistakes.


Control of the sliders and the budget is not everything Cyc. What does it take to do this properly? You seem to have no faith in us being able to do it properly now or later so you're trying to slide everything in the CoL or CoS so we can fix the rules as we go. Give it up Cyc, it ain't gonna happen. Only a few of us (including you) care about the rules. They're not going to rewrite rules midgame. Let's do our best to make the decisions collectively and write rules according to those decisions. Why don't you quit crying about roadblocks and join the discussion.

Where would you place the authority to change the sliders and control the budget?

Originally posted by donsig

Only a few of us (including you) care about the rules. They're not going to rewrite rules midgame. Let's do our best to make the decisions collectively and write rules according to those decisions.


Regretably, that is very accurate, and an excellent challenge.

It does, however, make the viewpoints of each of us that much more important. We all see the same thing, but find different problems and solutions, sometimes completely contrary to what another person believes.

Sometimes we miss a significant issue early on, and try to catch it later. Sometimes we do things in the wrong order. But we have always acted within our perception of the best interests of this game and those that play it. Always. Note that perception word though - nasty one that is.

We have all taken this too personally at times. I was about to put seriously in there, but we should and are serious about this. We do get caught up in the discussions and the nature of the Internet, and forget that there is a person behind that name that cares just as much.

Let's stay with the constructive stuff, please?

donsig, to the question you raised, I would put something like this:
The Governor's, functioning as a group, shall determine prior to each turn chat, the slider settings and the allocation of the budget.

As a further question, how should we handle pop-rushing? An interesting idea would be to leave that up to each Governor/Mayor.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire

I don't understand some of the back and forth. If the constitution is silent on an issue like who controls the budget, that does not prevent us from defining it at a lower level. It is entirely possible that an important aspect gets left out of all levels of the law. If that were to happen, and there was a disagreement on the point, a simple poll would be enough to legally determine the outcome for the specific incident. A law could prevent future incidents from happening by codifying the answer, but lack of a law can only cause a problem if two or more want to fight about it.

On the subject at point, I say leave wiggle room in the constitution for lower laws to define specific responsibilities. That way if it doesn't work out and they need to be changed we don't have to amend the constitution. See my post in the executive branch (article D?) thread. I'll probably add a link later, gotta do some work now...

Good post, DaveShack, and I must agree.

donsig and Ravensfire, with all due respect, you guys are trying to put way too much into the Constitution for fear of a repeat of DG3. However, it is precisely these actions that are keeping us from closing the book on this process and writing the laws where your suggestions actually belong. So, now we find ourselves in the precarious position of once again entering Creation Day with only our Constitution in hand.

However, we should not let that prospect sway us into adding more than is needed into the Constitution. As early as right now, we can begin building our CoL in areas that fall under Constitutional articles that have been ratified. We will also begin to discuss our Code of Standards, which should fall into place much more quickly.

I am determined to make a sizeable dent in the last two books by January 1st, and will continue to lead(??) :hmm: the process into Term 1. I will soon be selecting topics from both DG2 Lower Books, and if I can post them sooner than next Monday, I will. :)

(scuffs foot on ground) Okayyyyyyyyy...

As I said, we all get pretty passionate - good thing we've got DZ (and DaveShack) to remind us.

To keep this on the plate, as the Gov. poll will complete Saturday (?)

Governors in Executive Branch
E. The Legislative Branch will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

Governors in Legislature (straight from DG2)
E. The Legislative Branch will be formed of two houses. The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors, each of whom are responsible for the care, management and use of the cities and lands of a province in addition to legislative responsibilities. The Congress will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry.

My only suggestion would be, on the second version, to add "and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws." to the end of the last sentance.

The Governor poll will close on Saturday, with any luck we'll have the verbage nailed down and get the ratification poll up immediately.

-- Ravensfire

-- Ravensfire

(scuffs foot on ground) Okayyyyyyyyy...

As I said, we all get pretty passionate - good thing we've got DZ (and DaveShack) to remind us.

What, my post was constructive..... :mischief: :D

Great pre-thinking there though, Ravensfire. I want to hit the ground running on Sunday. :)

By a 10-9 vote, we have decided to keep Governors in the Legislative Branch.

While this a hotly-debated topic, I believe we must move on. So here is the proposal presnted by Ravensfire:

Article E: The Legislative Branch will be formed of two houses. The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors, each of whom are responsible for the care, management and use of the cities and lands of a province in addition to legislative responsibilities. The Congress will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

The last clause in italics is up for debate, but please let me know what you think of this proposal. If all goes well, I would like to put this up for ratification in 48 hours. :)

As for myself I've pretty much given up on this process. I see what was a very good DG3 constitution being hacked up before my eyes am I am unable to stop the carnage. As I've stated elsewhere I'm just going to run for a post on the judiciary and do my best to

1) Make sure that the laws and standards you all write do not conflict with what you write in the constitution

and

2) that you actually live by the rules as you write them in the constitution.

In other words, you are making your bed and I intend to see that you lie in it. ;)

In other words, you are making your bed and I intend to see that you lie in it.

Fine with me. Controversy builds up participation. Although for your sake, I do hope that your election campaign fares better than some of the issues you have championed recently. ;) For reference, I may even provide links(especially to the threats) so that the voters know what to expect. :lol:

If there are no constructive objections to the above proposal, I will post a ratification poll for Article E Wednesday afternoon EST.

Ratification poll has been posted. Please vote here:

Ratification Poll for Constitutional Article E (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72326)