DG4 Discussion - Const: Article D

[Cyc]

Right! What crap are going to do next. A poll was run to determine the structure of Article D. It ran for 7 days. Now that it has concluded, you people want to ignore the results and add another option. Tell you what...after we debate this for a couple of freakin' weeks and run another week long poll, let's hold up discussion on the wording of D (including Governors) so we can discuss whether we wnat deputies to be included in D. Then maybe we can change that and think of someone else to put in the Executive Branch, HEY! Maybe we could put the citizens in there too! Why don't we discuss that? we could tie this thing up untill summer!

I came back to help work on these Articles because when I left, the threads died. Now I'm sorry I came back.

 

[donsig]

I think governors should be included in this article. It makes sense and causes no harm whatever.

I'm not sure I like the term *advises*. Could lead to some unexpectedly interesting judicial reviews...

 

[ravensfire]

Poll will go up tonight on which branch of Government to place the Governors. Poll will run for 3 days.

OTHER THAN THAT SINGLE ISSUE ...

Does anyone object to the wording:
D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining and implimenting the will of the People. It is headed by the President who shall be the primary Designated Player. The President shall be advised by a council of 4 leaders and by the Provincial Governors.
I. The Minister of Internal Affairs shall be responsible for Domestic and Cultural activites.
II. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible for matters with Foreign nations, excepting trades of any nature.
III. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all Military troop activities.
IV. The Minister of Trade and Technology shall be responsible for all Trade and Technology activities.


Based on poll:
V. V. The Provincial Govenors shall be responsible for the care and maintenance of the land and cities within their Province.


@donsig, I had to think about this a bit. Barring a Court that goes fairly wild and completely ignores the intent of the authors (surprisingly, nobody has brought that up in a JR that I am aware of ...), the Will of the People clause and (hopefully) the CoL that details what the leaders to and what is a Legal Instruction, we should be okay. Actually, after thinking about it, I am not concerned. Reasoning: DP must follow Legal Instructions. Only leader (or deputy) may post instructions for area. The phrase says the Council may advise the President, not the DP. The DP is a role seperate from any position and has it's own set of restrictions. It's all about parsing a sentance very, very carefully.

-- Ravensfire

 

[zorven]

looks fine Ravensfire.

 

[Sarevok]

alright with me.

 

[donsig]

@ravensfire: suit yourself. I'm running for Chief Justice. Can't wait to void whole sections of the silly CoL as being unconstitutional.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Poll has been posted on the placement of Governors:

Article D/E Clarification Poll: Governors

 

[ravensfire]

DZ - Thanks for the poll.

donsig,

We should have an excellent election then! I am quite distressed that you would think about declaring large parts of a document that hasn't even been written as unconstitutional. Not every decision will go your way, I certainly have seen several issue go in a different part (turn chats anyone?). Once the decision has been made, I put my effort behind it, making sure it is well written. I try not to hold on to ideas that have been rejected.

The past 3-4 days have seen a fair amount of progress, mostly from people starting to compromise and work together, rather than the acrimonious debates earlier. I hope your post is not a return to such times. As one of the major participants in this Constitutional Convention, your input is both desired, and needed.

By definition, the CoL should not go against any parts of the Constitution, but fill in the details the Constitution avoids. It MUST work within the Constitution. Your apparent predisposition regarding the CoL is disheartening.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

No, ravensfire my post is not meant to be a return to such times. I am not holding onto my own personal choices here. It was decided that we would use appointments to fill vacancies. That is not a decision I agree with. But read what I've been writing. I seem to be the only one willing to draft wording for this article to make it absolutely clear that we will use appointments to fill vacancies. It seems everyone else either wants to leave appointments out of the constitution or say we *may* use appointments. You all decided what you wanted so let's write it that way and move on. I am saying that I will run for Chief Justice and I will uphold what is written in the constitution irregardless of what was intended. Whether I sit on the bench or not I will use the wording of the constitution to fight for what I think is right. If you all want to avoid such fights then make your decisions now and leave no doubt about them when writing the constitution. Always remember that whatever you add into the CoL or CoS must adhere to what you write in the constitution.

 

[Cyc]

quoting donsig:
You all decided what you wanted so let's write it that way and move on.

You mean like the poll for the structure of Article D, where we chose to have the Executive branch consist of the President and four Council Members? or the poll that proclaimed we would use Civ3 Vanilla?

I have supported putting the word appointment in this Article donsig. You are the one changing the direction of your drive in these discussions, so you have no room to talk. These days most people are trying to appease you, just to get some progress here.

 

[ravensfire]

donsig,

Vacancies and appointments to them are covered in Article G. For your convenience, here is the currently proposed text:

All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All vacant elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

Your most recent comment in that thread regarding this was the use of the word "may" vs "shall" or "will". As you will note, "may" does not appear, in fact most people agreed with you about that point.

Now, does that answer your concerns? As far as I can tell, Article G covers *ALL* elected positions, regardless of branch. I would challenge someone to find to NOT appoint a replacement.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Well, ravensfire, as someone else pointed out, the wording above seriously complicates the use of deputies. According to what you have written, then when a leader position is vacant we'd have to appoint someone to fill the spot and deputies could not move up the ladder automatically.

I am sorry for confusing articles and threads. As I stated earlier, the only thing I don't like about the proposal is the word *advised*. It allows a president to ignore the instructions of a leader - since the leaders can only *advise*. Replace *advise* with *directed by* or cut that while sentence out.

Also, as stated earlier, I am in favor of adding governors to this article.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig
I am sorry for confusing articles and threads. As I stated earlier, the only thing I don't like about the proposal is the word *advised*. It allows a president to ignore the instructions of a leader - since the leaders can only *advise*. Replace *advise* with *directed by* or cut that while sentence out.

Also, as stated earlier, I am in favor of adding governors to this article.

Something like this?
D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining and implimenting the will of the People. It is headed by the President who shall be the primary Designated Player. The President shall be directed by a council of 4 leaders and by the Provincial Governors.
I. The Minister of Internal Affairs shall be responsible for Domestic and Cultural activites.
II. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible for matters with Foreign nations, excepting trades of any nature.
III. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all Military troop activities.
IV. The Minister of Trade and Technology shall be responsible for all Trade and Technology activities.


Hmmm, I can live with that. C'mon people! More comments!

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Associating leaders with general areas has gotton us into trouble in the past, and I don't want a Judicial Review of specific responsibilities to be a problem, so here is a suggestion which permits the lower law to define specific responsibilites outside the ones naturally identified with the area, in case there are still items which span across multiple departments.

Originally posted by ravensfire
Suggested Edits in green

Something like this?
D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining and implimenting the will of the People. It is headed by the President who shall be the primary Designated Player. The President shall be directed by a council of 4 leaders and by the Provincial Governors.
I. The Minister of Internal Affairs shall be generally responsible for Domestic and Cultural activites.
II. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be generally responsible for matters with Foreign nations, excepting trades of any nature.
III. The Minister of Defense shall be generally responsible for all Military troop activities.
IV. The Minister of Trade and Technology shall be generally responsible for all Trade and Technology activities.
V. Notwithstanding the general areas each Minister is associated with in this Article, specific duties and responsibilities for each Minister shall be prescribed by law.

 

[ravensfire]

<ahem>

So, may I assume that this is generally accepted and ready for polling?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I would like to further define the Artricle D header as follows, so that the President is not obligated to take direction from said leaders in the chat.

D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining and implimenting the will of the People. It is headed by the President who shall be the primary Designated Player. The President shall take direction from a council of 4 leaders and from the Provincial Governors via the turnchat instruction thread.

Secondly, I have numbered the balance of this proposal to match the numbering of our Code of Laws. I also removed all unneccesary capital letters. Also, I am not really fond of the word "generally" in our Constitution, and am hoping that my wording will allow us to pare the subsections to four items. So what do you think?

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.

 

[Cyc]

Good work on both parts, DZ. The wording in the Header will save lots of headaches.

 

[ravensfire]

My only suggestion would be as follows:

D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining and implimenting the will of the People. It is headed by the President who shall be the primary Designated Player. The President shall take direction from a council of 4 leaders and from other elected officials[/red] via the turnchat instruction thread.

The change is to allow the possibility of Judicial instructions.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

How about this then ~

D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining and implimenting the will of the People. It is headed by the President 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This would include appointed peoples too.

 

[ravensfire]

Good call, Cyc.

Now THAT'S what I call thinking ahead!

-- Ravensfire