View Full Version : Amending Article D


Strider
Feb 29, 2004, 10:35 AM
Article D of the constitution
Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by thePresident who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of 4 leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread.
1. The Minister of Internal Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic and cultural
initiatives, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade and Technology shall be
responsible for all tech acquisition and trade
initiatives, as prescribed by law.

Proposed Changes to Article D
Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by thePresident who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of 4 leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread.
1. The Minister of Internal Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic
initiatives, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be
responsible for trade initiatives, as prescribed by law.
5. The Minister of Research shall be responsible for all Science initiatives, as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture Activites shall be responsible for all culture initiatives, as prescribed by law.

This poll will run for 48 hours. These changes will take place at the start of the new term.

Civanator
Feb 29, 2004, 10:42 AM
ok, so is the REAL Seperating the departments poll?

Also, you forgot Culture and Science's responsibilities ;)

ravensfire
Feb 29, 2004, 10:55 AM
NOTE - This is informational only.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

Civanator
Feb 29, 2004, 10:59 AM
How is it informational? it's like the 4th poll

ravensfire
Feb 29, 2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Civanator
How is it informational? it's like the 4th poll

As I've posted once already:

The process for changing the Constitution is found in Article I, while Section J covers the Code of Laws. A brief summary of the process can be found here (and in the following post). (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1607529#post1607529)

-- Ravensfire

Bootstoots
Feb 29, 2004, 11:30 AM
Even if this poll is legal, it's never a good idea to try to amend the constitution without a large amount of discussion beforehand. The constitution shouldn't be changed on a whim, and I hope the other citizens will support this viewpoint.

I voted No.

EDIT: I do know that you had this planned out (privately) for a while, but we really should have ample public discussion; a couple of days of informational polling where there was a heated debate is not enough; we need to allow time for cooler heads to prevail.

CivGeneral
Feb 29, 2004, 11:31 AM
Oh god :rolleyes:. Why not just make this a regular poll.

I voted Yes to this poll since I beleve it is time to change the consitution.

Civanator
Feb 29, 2004, 11:36 AM
We had a 4 page discussion (well, 2 if you use 40 posts per page), and 3 other informational polls showing a majority was for it. I don't think this is 'out on a whim'

CivGeneral
Feb 29, 2004, 11:43 AM
Delete me

Bootstoots
Feb 29, 2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Civanator
We had a 4 page discussion (well, 2 if you use 40 posts per page), and 3 other informational polls showing a majority was for it. I don't think this is 'out on a whim' Given that this is an amendment of the highest book of the law, and we've had somewhere between 72 and 96 hours to discuss it, including some polls that were supposed to be official posted before that, I'd say this is "out on a whim," especially when you consider that we spent weeks discussing the four-member cabinent plan, and that wasn't even while a DG was going on.

Because of this haste, some things haven't been thought of. They include:

If a constitutional amendment passes in mid-term, it will take effect immediately unless there is a clause stating that it will not take effect until a certain time. Even the proposers of this plan recognize that it would not be a good idea to have this amendment take effect until the start of Term 4.

We need to have supporting laws under the CoL and CoS made to take effect at the same time that this amendment would. Otherwise there will be a huge legal problem over the fact that two of the positions would be undefined by law (except for the extremely vague wording of this constitutional amendment), the CoC wouldn't include them, and a host of other problems.

I don't support this amendment, but if the people vote to amend the constitution after a long, reasoned discussion and careful attention to detail like what was mentioned above, I would accept the splitting of the offices, despite disliking it.

I strongly encourage all citizens, including those who would support the division of offices, to vote no to this amendment and related ones in official polls, until we have followed proper procedure and have taken care to make sure we have done everything we need to do to avoid more legal mayhem over this if it gets ratified.

Strider
Feb 29, 2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by ravensfire


As I've posted once already:



-- Ravensfire

Wrong, amending the Code of Laws has to go through a judicial review, amending the constitution does NOT. This poll is perfectly legal.


Amending the Constitution:

Article I. Census, and Amending the Constitution
1. The census shall be defined as the average number
of votes cast, dropping fractions, in each of the
contested elections in the most recent general
election.
2. Ratification of Amendments to the Constitution
shall require each of the following:
a. A poll which is open for at least 48 hours, which
states the text of the proposed new section(s),
the text of the section(s) being replaced, and
posing the question in the form of yes / no /
abstain.
b. A majority of yes votes.
c. A number of yes votes greater than or equal to
2/3 the census current at the start of voting on
the amendment, dropping any fraction therein.

Amending the Code of Laws:

. Amending the Code of Laws
1. Polls to amend the Code of Laws shall be posted by the
Judiciary upon succesful completion of a Judicial Review.

2. Polls are to be in anonymous responder format (standard
Forum poll option).
a. Proposal must be in Yes/No/Abstain format.
b. Polls will stay open until:
1. All votes have been cast, or;
2. A quorum has responded and further votes cannot
affect the outcome of the vote, or;
3. The posted poll closing time has been reached.
1. Minimum duration to run a poll is 48 hours.
c. The quorum for changes in the Code of Laws is 1/2 of
the census.
d. A simple majority of support is required to adopt or
alter a law.

ravensfire
Feb 29, 2004, 02:08 PM
Interesting - looks like a JR for the new court. I feel that M.2 must be followed, even for the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire

Bootstoots
Feb 29, 2004, 02:14 PM
Regardless of whether this poll is legal or not, I don't think it has followed proper procedure (fairly lengthy discussion tending toward an agreement on what to change and how to change it) and it would be foolish to amend the constitution without paying attention to the issues displayed in my above post.

ravensfire
Feb 29, 2004, 02:19 PM
Well, should it pass, we will have three vacant office to fill (Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Research and Ministry of Culture), and no supporting legislation on supporting those offices. The CoC is toast. Section B of the CoL is seriously flawed. Section F of the CoL has issues - why these new office have no term limits!

Whatever - Strider is determine to plow this through regardless. Let him reap the chaos of which he soes.

-- Ravensfire

Peri
Feb 29, 2004, 02:23 PM
Rik loses his office mid term and we have to have 3 new elections immediately. Also we have to pass a lot more laws before the new officials can start executing their office.
It will be a very dificult time for the game.

Strider
Feb 29, 2004, 02:32 PM
Please note that it says "These change's will take place at the start of Term 4." Also, As far as I see the Consitution and Code of Laws must be amended seperatly, and I haven't got around to posting a judicial review over the Code of Laws part.

Strider
Feb 29, 2004, 02:36 PM
On a second though, Article D of the Constitution MUST be changed before Article B.2 and Article G.3 of the Code of Laws can be, otherwise it can not pass the judicial review of it's legality.

Peri
Feb 29, 2004, 02:45 PM
I think one problem that needs addressing is that even though you want it to start next term it will start immediately because there is no clause to prevent it.
I understand that this may seem silly but riders have to be part of the proposal rather than noted separately. This is to stop people tagging on whatever they want after the event. Same rule for everyone and all that. :)

Strider
Feb 29, 2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by ravensfire
Interesting - looks like a JR for the new court. I feel that M.2 must be followed, even for the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire

Well, what you feel is not what the constitution says. It specifically lists the process's for both amending the Constitution and Code of Laws. Also, for some strange reason it is lack in the process for the Code of Standards.

Strider
Feb 29, 2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Bootstoots
Regardless of whether this poll is legal or not, I don't think it has followed proper procedure (fairly lengthy discussion tending toward an agreement on what to change and how to change it) and it would be foolish to amend the constitution without paying attention to the issues displayed in my above post.

It has followed proper precedure, as there is no set time limit for discussion. Also, this is not a threat as it seems putting this into effect is going to take around a week, which should allow plenty of discussion.

Strider
Feb 29, 2004, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Peri
I think one problem that needs addressing is that even though you want it to start next term it will start immediately because there is no clause to prevent it.
I understand that this may seem silly but riders have to be part of the proposal rather than noted separately. This is to stop people tagging on whatever they want after the event. Same rule for everyone and all that. :)

Depends on your outlook really, if the people accept this proposal, than they also accepted the part about "These changes will take place at the start of Term 4." In my view, it doesn't need to "tag-along."

Peri
Feb 29, 2004, 04:42 PM
Well the citizens are only voting on the proposal. Any rider you put in not part of the codified proposal is irrelevant. If it is passed it goes into effect immediately. Sorry.

Sarevok
Feb 29, 2004, 05:47 PM
It is a good solution, yes.

Strider
Feb 29, 2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Peri
Well the citizens are only voting on the proposal. Any rider you put in not part of the codified proposal is irrelevant. If it is passed it goes into effect immediately. Sorry.

I still disagree with you on this. Nonetheless, watch this get the majority it needs to pass anyway :lol::lol:

Still, this won't come into effect immediantly, sense we would still have a conflict between the Constitution and Code of Laws that will need to be fixed.

Bootstoots
Feb 29, 2004, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Strider
Still, this won't come into effect immediantly, sense we would still have a conflict between the Constitution and Code of Laws that will need to be fixed. His point is that it will come into effect immediately upon being passed (if it is passed that is), rule conflicts or not.

Octavian X
Feb 29, 2004, 10:53 PM
I urge all citiznes to vote NO on this proposal. This is all way too much, way too sudden. Any such amendment would decimate the CoL, as most of it would conflict with this new amendment, effectively throwing this game into more chaos than we've ever seen before.

While I'm glad, yes, that someone is expressing his or her opinion and trying to change things for what they view as better, this is NOT the right step to take. Any change of this magnitude should be carefully coordinated, not made in some rash decision.

Besides, the way the rider stating when the amendment is to take effect, if even legal, would specify that this amendment would take place at the beginning of term 3. No specification for Term 4 was made, and this attempt to amend the constitution was started in Term 2.

Sarevok
Feb 29, 2004, 11:21 PM
This measure is very close. It may cause chaos because it is such a close race.

Sarevok
Mar 01, 2004, 09:57 PM
This might end up winning...

Peri
Mar 02, 2004, 10:38 AM
Even though this Amendment did not pass I do hope you will continue to put the same amount of enthusiasm and time into this game. You clearly worked hard on this proposal. You can always try again later. :)