Discussion on Law 1: Regulations relating to laws

[DaveShack]

On behalf of Epimethius, the author of the attached proposal, I submit the following to the House of the People for consideration. While I may not agree with every provision therein and reserve the right to comment upon and change such provisions, I enthusiastically support this effort and encourage all citizens to become involved.

House of the People of Japanatica Proposal 1: Law Regulation
Proposed by Citizen and Deputy Minister of Domestic Affairs Epimethius in Term 1

WHEREAS the Article E of the Constitution of Japanatica states that the House of the People has a right to pass laws; and

WHEREAS the same article also states that the Supreme Court of Japanatica will review all laws, amendments, and articles; and

WHEREAS the House of the People consists of all registered citizens of Japanatica; and

WHEREAS the Constitution of Japanatica does not specify any method of proposing, approving, or enforcing laws; and

WHEREAS amendments and articles of the Constitution cannot be repealed, have high necessary majorities, and add to or change the constitution rather than exist below it;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of the People of Japanatica, consisting of all properly registered citizens, have the right to pass laws via polls in a method outlined in this resolution, the first of such laws: any citizen may propose a law, and must do so in a topic with the text of the law, a summary if it is in legalese, and a 48-hour poll with the options for (yes), against (no), or otherwise (abstain) whether the proposal should become law. If a majority (greater than half those voting for either yes or no) approve of the law, it takes effect. The three justices of the Supreme Court shall hold collective veto power, as they would with a judicial review of an amendment, but shall not conduct a complete, traditional review of the proposal. Should the law be deemed to be unconstitutional, they may veto it, in which case the vote will be void; otherwise their approval will be given and the people's vote will count. This is not to be considered a regular review, such as that for an amendment, and will not take place in the Judicial thread, or be numbered as such.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the laws shall be numbered and collected, with links to their polls, in a Code of Laws.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any law already passed, including (but not restricted to) this, may be repealed by the same means.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if approved by a majority of the people voting for or against, this law will take effect immediately.

---

Summary: Basically, this outlines how to make laws. Up until now, we've had lots of amendments, which are serious things. An amendment changes the constitution. A law, on the other hand, exists below the constitution, and can't contradict it. The constitution outlines how to pass amendments, but said nothing on laws, so a lot of things that should simply be laws were being made amendments. So I wrote this. Basically, a proposal would become a law like this:
-A citizen starts a poll, with the proposed law in the first post and a poll with yes/no/abstain options.
-For two days the citizens vote in the poll.
-The Supreme Court does a semi-review, to save time. Rather than do an official thing, they all just read over it and decide if its constitutional or not. If it isn't, they can veto it. This happens in the poll, not in the judicial thread, and isn't counted in the list of judicial acts. This is still, officially, a review (or else it would be unconstitutional), but it is more informal. This is one of the main differences from an amendment.
-The law passes if a majority (anything above half) of those who voted for something other than abstain aprove the law and it isn't vetoed.
-A law can be repealed the same way it is enacted.

The result is that a law can be approved without a certain percent of the population voting, without a certain majority above 50%, can be repealed, and doesn't need a full judicial review. I know that Article E didn't exactly pass, but I don't think this can wait much longer. This will provide, among other things, a way for Provolution to make his immense bureaucracy plan legal.

This is a public poll, so misvotes can be corrected.

The first time I tried this I forgot the poll.

 

[Cyc]

I am really saddened to hear this news. When a citizen bypasses standard operating procedures in dealing with proposed Legislation and posts a poll that has to be closed by the Judiciary, the flags go up. But when the President of Japanatica picks up that Legislation and pushes it forward in an attempt to bypass the Judiciary, it's definitely time to take action.

I can see taking the necessary steps to form Legislation, have it reviewed, and then sent to be polled, but what has happened here is not that. President DaveShack says he agrees with some of this and disagrees with other things. But he won't say which he disagrees with. He just posts it in full support of the citizen who acted illegally. In essance this Legislation would authorize the removal of established duties of the Judiciary in passing Legislation. I see this as a very wrong move. And with the support of the President, I'm sure it will receive strong support from the people. I commend the President for his swift move and wish him luck with this action.

I do realize that there is a need for the Code of Laws, as refinement of the Constitution is called for. I had wanted to be part of that process as CJ, but now my input will be as a citizen. I am hereby resigning as Chief Justice. I feel that this move of bypassing the Judiciary can be best handled by one of the other Justices in my place. I no longer wish to deal with it. I put a lot of work into making the Judicial Branch work, I'm sorry it didn't work out.

 

[Comnenus]

Cyc,
I sincerely hope that you will reconsider. I am sure that it was not the President's intention to bypass anyone. Your opinions and wisdom are valued highly, and I am sure I speak for many when in asking that you remain steadfastly at you post.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I am really saddened to hear this news. When a citizen bypasses standard operating procedures in dealing with proposed Legislation and posts a poll that has to be closed by the Judiciary, the flags go up. But when the President of Japanatica picks up that Legislation and pushes it forward in an attempt to bypass the Judiciary, it's definitely time to take action.

I can see taking the necessary steps to form Legislation, have it reviewed, and then sent to be polled, but what has happened here is not that. President DaveShack says he agrees with some of this and disagrees with other things. But he won't say which he disagrees with. He just posts it in full support of the citizen who acted illegally. In essance this Legislation would authorize the removal of established duties of the Judiciary in passing Legislation. I see this as a very wrong move. And with the support of the President, I'm sure it will receive strong support from the people. I commend the President for his swift move and wish him luck with this action.

I do realize that there is a need for the Code of Laws, as refinement of the Constitution is called for. I had wanted to be part of that process as CJ, but now my input will be as a citizen. I am hereby resigning as Chief Justice. I feel that this move of bypassing the Judiciary can be best handled by one of the other Justices in my place. I no longer wish to deal with it. I put a lot of work into making the Judicial Branch work, I'm sorry it didn't work out.

Cyc, don't you dare! Can you give the benefit of the doubt to our President's intentions; that he may be merely honoring the first phase of your established guidelines, the discussion phase?

Let's see how this discussion phase pans out. I plan to be active in discussions, and am sure Comnenus and Provolution will join in. And I will fight for this to go to review, as all laws should. But, alas, who will be there to consider it?

There is still time to reconsider your decision. For the good of Japanatica, I hope make the right choice.

 

[KCCrusader]

I am completely opposed to this method of law-making. Despite the actions of the Chief Justice, I feel my voice can better be heard while staying in position. I do feel a method of law-making IS require. But this is not the method we want or need to make a smooth-running process. But as Cyc did, I will to voice my opposition as a citizen, and this debate is in no way an official ruling or policy.

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of the People of Japanatica, consisting of all properly registered citizens, have the right to pass laws via polls in a method outlined in this resolution, the first of such laws: any citizen may propose a law, and must do so in a topic with the text of the law, a summary if it is in legalese, and a 48-hour poll with the options for (yes), against (no), or otherwise (abstain) whether the proposal should become law.

This clause of the current bill at hand will undoubtedly cause confusion and chaos in the lawmaking system. According to this bill, anyone can just post a law they have drafted for a vote immediately. No dicussion. No rewording. No clarifications. In most cases I even imagine the legislation would pass because many people don't care about clarifications, they like the laws for their general application. Unfortunately, this haphazard method of submitting bills to be voted on immediately not only sacrifices every citizen's right to speak out against the legislation, but it also will cause foreseeable clutter on the Polls board. If every citizen can simply post any bill off the top of their head into a poll to be voted on for ratification, the board will have too many laws to vote on. A citizen's right to review every bill and decide whether to support it is sacrificed based on the shear number of issues at hand. Thus my first reason of opposition to this law is the fact that it gives a law a chance to be passed that has seen no debate and no opposition.

If a majority (greater than half those voting for either yes or no) approve of the law, it takes effect. The three justices of the Supreme Court shall hold collective veto power, as they would with a judicial review of an amendment, but shall not conduct a complete, traditional review of the proposal. Should the law be deemed to be unconstitutional, they may veto it, in which case the vote will be void; otherwise their approval will be given and the people's vote will count. This is not to be considered a regular review, such as that for an amendment, and will not take place in the Judicial thread, or be numbered as such.

I don't like this part of the legislation because the judiciary is given extra power. I don't think everyone realizes what power they are granting. With a poll already underway, a judicial review is time-wasting and pointless. The opinion of the people shall already be formed enough based on poll numbers that it will potentially swing the opinion of a Justice. Judical Review (formal or informal) MUST take place before an election is open. The reasoning for this is very simple. If a poll had already been conducted and a law passes, but the legislation is unconstitutional, this law forces the Judiciary to act against the will of the people in excercising this veto power. This action not only violates the constitution in itself(the people make the decisions according to the constitution) but is dangerous to the game. Any justice who vetos a passed law that had large amounts of support in the polls faces persecution. The decision to do the right thing according to the constitution conflict with the decision to please the people. This unfair policy given to the justices will make the Justice department flimsy. Personally I would be afraid to veto something that has passed because I like my position. And a majority of people support a bill, that majority notices I don't support them. Its outrage.

Also, the fact that every law does not have to be reviewed in order to pass (or even be voted on) borders on unconstitutionality. With no record in the Judicial Log that a proposed law is legal and ready to be put up for polling, how can the people trust the judiciary have seen the bill? Once again this Judicial system will begin to creep back into secrecy. ALL judicial actions, formal and informal, must be logged inorder to benefit the citizenry.

With the conclusion of this reply, I urge Cyc to return and take back his position before it is fillled. Opposition to this law needs a leader, not rash decisisons. Help us make the changes necissary to this law and for the sake of the game, repost the judicial procedings. Repost the introduction. And pull your head out of the ground. This is a game. Don't get flustered.

-Citizen KCCrusader.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Excellent points all, KCC, and thank you for opening the discussion.

I do not have much time to dissect this proposal, but here is a general thought to toss out:

When opening a Code of Laws, we have always kept the procedure for CoL passage within itself. But the question arises: how do we go about validating that first law? Think chicken and the egg.....

For that reason, I believe that if we are serious about adopting a lower book, then the guidelines for CoL passage should be placed in the Constituition first, if only temporarily. This in turn would allow us to recognize a Code of Laws and have the authority to pass such things as Provolution's Ringi system if we so desire. To do this, we would need to revisit Article I and add the appropriate guidelines to it.

Any feedback on this idea would be greatly appreciated. I would just like this CoL unveiling to be Constitutional, and do not see that in the current proposal.

 

[DaveShack]

Honorable Justices,

Rest assured, I only said I support the effort to start a code of laws, not necessarily the contents of the proposal.

Now let's have a dicussion on the proposal itself, not on the person who initiated it or the manner in which it was first introduced.

 

[KCCrusader]

I propose the following changes to this law to the discussion. Any removed sections are in italic. All added sections in Bold.

House of the People of Japanatica Proposal 1: Law Regulation
Proposed by Citizen and Deputy Minister of Domestic Affairs Epimethius in Term 1

WHEREAS the Article E of the Constitution of Japanatica states that the House of the People has a right to pass laws; and

WHEREAS the same article also states that the Supreme Court of Japanatica will review all laws, amendments, and articles; and

WHEREAS the House of the People consists of all registered citizens of Japanatica; and

WHEREAS the Constitution of Japanatica does not specify any method of proposing, approving, or enforcing laws; and

WHEREAS amendments and articles of the Constitution cannot be repealed, have high necessary majorities, and add to or change the constitution rather than exist below it;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of the People of Japanatica, consisting of all properly registered citizens, have the right to pass laws via polls in a method outlined in this resolution. The first of such laws: any citizen may propose a law, and must do so in a topic with the text of the law,and a summary if it is in legalese. and a 48-hour poll with the options for (yes), against (no), or otherwise (abstain) whether the proposal should become law. If a majority (greater than half those voting for either yes or no) approve of the law, it takes effect. The three justices of the Supreme Court shall hold collective veto power, as they would with a judicial review of an amendment, but shall not conduct a complete, traditional review of the proposal. Should the law be deemed to be unconstitutional, they may veto it, in which case the vote will be void; otherwise their approval will be given and the people's vote will count. This is not to be considered a regular review, such as that for an amendment, and will not take place in the Judicial thread, or be numbered as such.This proposal will be posted in the "Citizens" board for further discussion. Once this proposed law has been debated by the citizens of the House, a process that will require a minimum of 24 hours from the opening of the discussion thread, a citizen shall, in the same discussion thread, post a mock poll. This action will consist of posting the Proposed legislation, a proposed title for a poll, and an explanation of the options to vote for. These options will consist of "YES", "NO", and "ABSTAIN". Once this mock poll is posted, a citizen of the house shall submit a link to the discussion thread to the Judiciary my means of the Judicial Thread. The Judicial department shall conduct a review in the method set forth by the Chief Justice as stated in Article F. Should the proposed law pass judicial review, the actual poll will be posted by a member of the judiciary on the "Polls" board for a period of 48 hours. A quorum of voters will not be required. If at the close of the poll, the "YES" option has more votes that the "NO" option, the law shall be considered PASSES

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the laws shall be numbered and collected, with links to their polls, in a Code of Laws.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any law already passed, including (but not restricted to) this, may be repealed by the same means.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if approved by a majority of the people, voting for or against, this law will take effect immediately.

I feel these changes are necissary in order to:
-Reduce the flow of laws to the polls board, and allow each law to be given equal attension by each citizen.
-Require a debate and discussion regarding the law, and to prevent any unwanted laws or laws with NO MERIT from ever reaching the final polling stage.
-Provide that every proposed law must pass an OFFICIAL judicial review in order that any laws that reach polls have been approved by the judcial department.
-Prevent the Judiciary from gaining powers that enable it to contradict the will of a majority of the people.
-Separate official polls from informal decision polls on the "Polls" board.
-Allow each law to be passed with a Majority of "Yes" votes over "No" votes.

I know as a member of the Judiciary, I do not mind reviewing EVERY submitted law. It does not take too much time to review the law carefully, and this ensures that no laws sneak under the radar of the Judicial department.

(Newly Proposed law with all changes made:

House of the People of Japanatica Proposal 1: Law Regulation
Proposed by Citizen and Deputy Minister of Domestic Affairs Epimethius in Term 1

WHEREAS the Article E of the Constitution of Japanatica states that the House of the People has a right to pass laws; and

WHEREAS the same article also states that the Supreme Court of Japanatica will review all laws, amendments, and articles; and

WHEREAS the House of the People consists of all registered citizens of Japanatica; and

WHEREAS the Constitution of Japanatica does not specify any method of proposing, approving, or enforcing laws; and

WHEREAS amendments and articles of the Constitution cannot be repealed, have high necessary majorities, and add to or change the constitution rather than exist below it;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of the People of Japanatica, consisting of all properly registered citizens, have the right to pass laws in a method outlined in this resolution. The first of such laws: any citizen may propose a law, and must do so in a topic with the text of the law, and a summary if it is in legalese. This proposal will be posted in the "Citizens" board for further discussion. Once this proposed law has been debated by the citizens of the House, a process that will require a minimum of 24 hours from the opening of the discussion thread, a citizen shall, in the same discussion thread, post a mock poll. This action will consist of posting the Proposed legislation, a proposed title for a poll, and an explanation of the options to vote for. These options will consist of "YES", "NO", and "ABSTAIN". Once this mock poll is posted, a citizen of the house shall submit a link to the discussion thread to the Judiciary my means of the Judicial Thread. The Judicial department shall conduct a review in the method set forth by the Chief Justice as stated in Article F. Should the proposed law pass judicial review, the actual poll will be posted by a member of the judiciary on the "Polls" board for a period of 48 hours. A quorum of voters will not be required. If at the close of the poll, the "YES" option has more votes that the "NO" option, the law shall be considered PASSED.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the laws shall be numbered and collected, with links to their polls, in a Code of Laws.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any law already passed, including (but not restricted to) this, may be repealed by the same means.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if approved by a majority of the people this law will take effect immediately.

Thank you.
Citizen KCCrusader

 

[KCCrusader]

Good point donovan. The code of laws should be created in the constitution first, as well as any provisions stating how to add laws to it. Since the constitution is the only way right now we can pass laws.

 

[Black_Hole]

i think somewhere in the constitution there should be something stating that a code of laws can be added and have the rules for adding laws in the constitution

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Great work, KCC.

As long as we have the honor to submit this first law to the Judiciary based on its own context, my Constitutional propsal is not needed.

A few things to discuss, however:

1. Perhaps we should extent the poll duration to 72 hours?
2. Do we really want 20-19 decisions to dictate new law? I would prefer a 3/5 majority with no quorum. This way there is still reasonable support for the law, while not holding the process to the high participation minimums that the Constitution requires.

 

[DaveShack]

I will be posting this in several places...

[roleplay]
To messenger:

Remember this, preferably the whole thing but at least the parts about message not received, stop by the office, and deliver to the Chief Justice immediately.

---
Chief Justice Cyc,

The scatterbrained dolt you sent with your message couldn't remember what you wanted to say, only that you were hopping mad about something and something about going to find office space. Since I have no idea what he was talking about, feel free to drop by the office any time and we can discuss whatever it was that was bothering you. I can't wait till we discover a way to record these things, maybe using symbols on some kind of flat surface...

Regards, President DaveShack

---

Now hurry, and don't mess up like the last messenger did, or I'll have your hide for a throw rug!
[/roleplay]

See my previous post regarding what my support for this effort really means. I agree with the changes which have been proposed so far, now that they have been proposed in the proper manner and in the proper forum.

 

[Comnenus]

Great work, KCC.

As long as we have the honor to submit this first law to the Judiciary based on its own context, my Constitutional propsal is not needed.

A few things to discuss, however:

1. Perhaps we should extent the poll duration to 72 hours?
2. Do we really want 20-19 decisions to dictate new law? I would prefer a 3/5 majority with no quorum. This way there is still reasonable support for the law, while not holding the process to the high participation minimums that the Constitution requires.

Whether we use a simple majority or a 3/5 majority, I feel there should be a minimum participation requirement as well. I would suggest that 25 - 30% of the census be required to vote in order to ratify a new law. I would also like to see it go to 72 hours as it gives more people the opportunity to voice an opinion.

 

[Comnenus]

Also, I might add that if Article E is approved, it will require Judicial Review of all proposed legislation. Here is the quote from the proposed article:

1.The House of the People will be formed of the entirety of the
          citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws and
          Amendments to the Constitution.
		a.The House will present all proposed Articles, Amendments
                  and Laws to the Judicial Branch for review.

 

[Cyc]

It may be that I misinterpreted the President's intent on posting this thread. It just seems that there is a subversive movement in the game that needs to be reigned in. Take the poll that Noldodan just put up (6 hours late). He changes the letter of my proposed city location with another. Why? Just an error you say. A simple mistake? Sure.

It seems that people are just doing whatever the hell they want to get what they want. Just like the original posting of this Legislation. Just like the original polls for the second city location. You couldn't have delayed the decision any better, Noldy. Now with the changing of the letters...that's pretty sneaky. I refuse to believe your that dumb or stoned. But that's why I made the decision I did. I work hard to make the Judicial Branch what it is, yet we can't trust to Domestic Leader to post a poll with a map on it. It's just too unbelieveable.

But I will recind my resignation and take back my position if you all will allow that. I apologize for making such a rash decision.

 

[Provolution]

I think laws shall be dealt with as cities, any citizen proposal should be polled, after review. Also, new city sites should be reviewed by the Domestic Minister. Laws are a powerful tool in the DG, it allows a faction to determine what is legal and illegal.
Yet, discussing a law in an open thread should be perfectly legal, with or without Judicial review. The Judicial review should prepare the law prior to polling, the review should not supercede the freedom of expression by any measure.

I do not understand that Cyc will resign over starting a discussion thread over this humble proposal, the right to open a discussion thread should be free for all, regardless
of topic and context. If I reacted with resignation over CG polling the gold concessions or any other polling, and everyone did the same when any other outpolled them,we would have constitutional crisis upon crisis.

What can be done, would be to develop a system for legal and binding polls that determine game actions, only developed and monopolized by the rightful institutions, such as Judiciary on Law Polls and, DA on city localization and FA on policy polls.
Yet, polling without approval would be allowed, but non-valid until posted by the rightful institution as required by law. Yet, that it is an opinion poll only should be specified. Again, the Ringi system is basically a review system, and I think Ministerial reviews should be in place prior to polls. Official polls should be a ministers and a justices privilege, as they are elected by the people.

Yet I see a problem in that the Judiciary as now is overstretching in seeking to silent a
public debate on an unfinished law.

 

[Comnenus]

But I will recind my resignation and take back my position if you all will allow that. I apologize for making such a rash decision.

Thank all the spirits who reign in the forest, the plains, the sky and the waters!

 

[Noldodan]

It may be that I misinterpreted the President's intent on posting this thread. It just seems that there is a subversive movement in the game that needs to be reigned in. Take the poll that Noldodan just put up (6 hours late). He changes the letter of my proposed city location with another. Why? Just an error you say. A simple mistake? Sure.

It seems that people are just doing whatever the hell they want to get what they want. Just like the original posting of this Legislation. Just like the original polls for the second city location. You couldn't have delayed the decision any better, Noldy. Now with the changing of the letters...that's pretty sneaky. I refuse to believe your that dumb or stoned. But that's why I made the decision I did. I work hard to make the Judicial Branch what it is, yet we can't trust to Domestic Leader to post a poll with a map on it. It's just too unbelieveable.

But I will recind my resignation and take back my position if you all will allow that. I apologize for making such a rash decision.

Posting in my defense here: I'm actually quite shocked you think I'm sneaky like that. You've seen ample evidence that I have a problem with polling correctly. Take for example the marathon polling session on chat stoppage. You yourself pointed out my stupidity time and time again there. Anyway, here's my point: I may be dumb and/or stoned at times, but I am never sneaky when it comes to getting decisions made.

 

[Epimethius]

In defense of myself, I sent it strait to a poll because in all my experiance thats what happened. The system I posted is basically that used in region games since New Manhattan, minus a required discussion period for 48 hours after the poll was done. I'm used to that system, and I figured its speed would be a nice advantage over amendments here, so I proposed it. And in doing so I demonstrated it.

And for the record I tend not to go online when stoned or drunk, or at least only when mildly so, so when I do stupid things thats just me being stupid. In fact there's a good chance I'll behave better when stoned.

And I'll review that criticism later, when I'm more busy and therefore more willing to actually do things.

 

[Cyc]

I believe the first step we should take in this process is Section (or Law) of the CoL that deals with the mechanics of amending (or creating) a Section. It really doesn't matter what the number or letter this Section will be, but it should be the first one approved.

As Article I of the Constitution states, if passed:

1.The House of the People will be formed of the entirety of the
          citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws and
          Amendments to the Constitution.
		a.The House will present all proposed Articles, Amendments
                  and Laws to the Judicial Branch for review.

This takes care of the first steps of creating a Law. Defining all the steps of this process needs to be in the Section mentioned above. It will include procedure for the discussion thread through polling standards.

After this Section is approved, it will make the rest of the CoL process more uniform and easier to understand. It has been said before that nothing of this sort is in the Constitution. I believe it should stay that way and be in the CoL. Comments?