Amending Article D

[Strider]

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]

ok, so is the REAL Seperating the departments poll?

Also, you forgot Culture and Science's responsibilities

[ravensfire]

NOTE - This is informational only.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

[Civanator]

How is it informational? it's like the 4th poll

[ravensfire]

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).

-- Ravensfire

[Bootstoots]

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]

Oh god . 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]

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]

Delete me

[Bootstoots]

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]

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]

Interesting - looks like a JR for the new court. I feel that M.2 must be followed, even for the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire

[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.

[ravensfire]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.