Discussion on meaning of Article G in the Constitution

[Eklektikos]

I have opened this thread to discuss the actual meaning of Article G of the Phoenatican Constitution. The article reads:

All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month.

From the current conflict over a certain adendum to the Code Of Standards it has become apparent that this article is not interpreted by eveyone in the same manner.

I, and perhaps other citizens, view it as defining the length of time an official is contracted to serve.

Others, so I believe, view it as merely defining the length of time between elections, and having not guaranteeing an official's employment for the whole of that period.

As there is no law or standard actually defining what a "term" means either of these interpretations could be valid, therefore any standard or law which touches on Article G is on constitutionally shaky ground. I'm hoping that discussion of this issue and a subsequent poll will clear this confusion up. Once the interpretation of the majority is known, a new law or standard should be created to set the meaning of the article in stone and avoid future strife.

 

[donsig]

I agree that the term is akin to a contract. Contracts can be broken legally or illegally. Terms can also end prematurely in either a legal (constitutional) fashion or an illegal (unconstitutional) manner. The generally accepted constitutional methods of ending a term before its prescribed time is up are: 1) resignation of the official; and 2) an impeachment of an official.

 

[Danke]

I think the purpose of the constitution is to provide a framework for a workable and responsible government. Clearly, MIA leaders are not supporting the spirit of the constitution or acting responsibly on behalf of their constituency.

If Article G is interpreted as being a guaranteed term irrespective of performance of the minimal duties of office, it would certainly go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitution.

My personal interpretation is that Article G was meant to define the terms of office for office-holders who are performing their duties and is not meant to be a stranglehold on the public. I see no conflict between the proposed amendments to the CoS to accomodate the removal of non-performing leaders with Article G.

 

[Shaitan]

If Article G is taken to be an enforceable contract for an individual's position for a calendar month then there cannot be impeachments or resignations. As there is no Constitutional specification for impeachment or resignation, no Law or Standard could override this interpretation of Article G. Every leader who resigned could be brought up on charges of violating Article G and there would be no recourse to remove anybody from office no matter what they did.

As Donsig said, impeachment and resignation are recognized as Constitutionally valid forms of early termination of a Leader's position. In other words, it is accepted that a Leader cannot be forced to carry his position for the entire term and it is accepted that a Leader can be removed from office. Our history and common thought both argue that Article G cannot be interpreted in the manner proposed.

 

[Eklektikos]

Shaitan: The way the 3 Books are now structured means that rather than altering the wording of the article, we could define it via laws which could include the fact that officials may resign or be impeached as a result of an investigation.

 

[Shaitan]

Eklektikos - If we define this article to mean that a leader is guaranteed to be in office for a month then a law or standard cannot conflict with that.

We have well established rules for investigation and we have punishments for violations that include impeachment.

We never intended a Leader to have a guaranteed one month ride.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
We have well established rules for investigation and we have punishments for violations that include impeachment.

We never intended a Leader to have a guaranteed one month ride.

While we do not guarantee a one month ride we have constitutional proceedures to end the ride. The proposed change is not constitutional as it pre-empts the fair trial that the constitution guarantees citizens.

No one is proposing that article G be interpreted as an end all guarantee to a one month term. Resignation or impeachment can end the ride. In the former we have no recourse if someone wants to throw in the towel. In the latter we guarantee the official a trial before we throw him or her out on his or her ear.

 

[Danke]

donsig, I disagree. The amendment to the CoS to deal with MIA leaders is to deal with a special type of situation, namely an elected official who is a no-show for a specific period of time. Impeachment is to have recourse for a leader who is *here* but is acting counter to the constitution and the best interests of the citizenry.

I like that there is a minimum expectation laid down so that if, for whatever reason, a leader goes MIA then they know what is going to happen, and so does the public.

Also, how would someone who is not here get a "fair trial", if they are not here to present their side?

And yes, my opinions are based on the need for a practicable application of the rule of law to day-to-day government.

 

[donsig]

Well, the MIA official would be defended by the Public Defender. Also, since there would be an official investigation we'd see evidence like when the last post was made by the official in question. Also citizens would be making the decision about keeping or removing the official. In the proposed change the president has discretion in keeping or discharginh MIA officials.

It may be in our best interests to review and tweak the procedures in place for investigations and impeachments especially in cases where the individual being investigated or impeached does not respond in a reasonable time.

 

[Shaitan]

There is a 24 hour courtesy delay after the Investigation thread is launched for the accused to respond before the investigation begins in earnest. After that, all other aspects proceed at speed with or without the participation of the accused.

While we do not guarantee a one month ride we have constitutional proceedures to end the ride. The proposed change is not constitutional as it pre-empts the fair trial that the constitution guarantees citizens.

No one is proposing that article G be interpreted as an end all guarantee to a one month term. Resignation or impeachment can end the ride. In the former we have no recourse if someone wants to throw in the towel. In the latter we guarantee the official a trial before we throw him or her out on his or her ear.[/b]

My point is that there is no Constitutional provision to end the ride. Lacking a yay or nay in the Constitution this is provided for in the Laws and Standards. However, if this article is determined to apply to the length of service of an individual leader then it is the only article that does so. As a result, it will be the end all/be all on the subject and impeachments and retirements will be specifically unconstitutional.

The Standard that was passed should not be a factor in this discussion. This thread is to determine the actual meaning of Article G. Does it define an individual's term of service or does it define the cycle of elections?

Also note that taking this as a literal definition of a leader's term of service will mean that any time an office is vacant we will need an election for it. It will also mean that if somebody takes a position on the 14th of the month, they will hold that position until the 14th of the next month.

 

[Cyc]

Thank you, Shaitan. Exactly.

 

[Octavian X]

Can Article G be amended to for a clearer meaning? I would propose:

All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month, except in cases of resigination and impeachment.

 

[Shaitan]

An amendment could be proposed but it's premature at this point as we do not have an agreement on what the original article means.

EDIT: Goofed a word originally. "amendment" changed to "original article".

 

[Almightyjosh]

A leader is welsome to defend themselves or to demand thier full time in office, either would save them as they would then hopefully be re-involved!!

 

[Eklektikos]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Eklektikos - If we define this article to mean that a leader is guaranteed to be in office for a month then a law or standard cannot conflict with that.

We have well established rules for investigation and we have punishments for violations that include impeachment.

We never intended a Leader to have a guaranteed one month ride.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes slightly... what I mean is that we can pass a law defining what a "term" actually means, and that that law can also stipulate the legality of impeachment and resignation. If the law that defines the Article as implying a contract-type situation also defines the situations in which this contract can be voided then there is no constitutional conflict.

I'm not suggesting that we amend the Article itself in any way at this point.

 

[donsig]

While I applaud our efforts to interpret article G of the constitution I do not think we are headed in the right direction. I would like to respond to an earlier post:

Originally posted by Danke
donsig, I disagree. The amendment to the CoS to deal with MIA leaders is to deal with a special type of situation, namely an elected official who is a no-show for a specific period of time. Impeachment is to have recourse for a leader who is *here* but is acting counter to the constitution and the best interests of the citizenry.

Danke maintains that an MIA official is a special case that requires swift action and wherein it is ok to bypass the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. Our interpretation of article G must not result in a conflict with other articles of the constitution. If the document is not internally consistent then it has little value as a legal document.

Since the constitution does guarantee a fair trial I think there is a constitutional basis for impeachment. Inherent in the idea of a fair trial is punishment upon conviction. Removal from office is a generally accepted punishment for those who abuse or mis-use their office.

As for retirement, well, what can one say about the constitutionality of that? When Grey Fox resigned in term two I proposed that the easiest solution available was to simply ignore his resignation. I can't recall anyone in all Phoenatica siding with me on that. The upshot was that we decided we had no recourse but to accept resignations as they come. Interpreting article G so as to make resignations unconstitutional only leads to more problems. If someone unconstitutionally resigns then we'd have no recourse but to impeach them - unless that is also unconstitutional in which case we could do nothing about the office until the next election!

The most disturbing (to me anyway) part of article G is the phrase "All offices will be filled via election". As the appointed governor of Istar I'm beginning to wonder if i now hold that office constitutionally. It could certainly be argued that appointed officials, even when confirmed by the council, are not elected. Of course we could rectify that in the CoS or CoL by authorizing special elections. Unfortunately, that raises the spectre of the second half of article G, the length of the term!

Something has to give somewhere!

 

[Eklektikos]

lol, by that token I've never constitutionally held an office since I joined the game... Does this mean I'm impeachment-proof?

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Eklektikos

we can pass a law defining what a "term" actually means, and that that law can also stipulate the legality of impeachment and resignation. If the law that defines the Article as implying a contract-type situation also defines the situations in which this contract can be voided then there is no constitutional conflict.

I agree with this!

Don't feel bad about the elections Eklektikos. I've only been elected to one post and then there were allegations of poll stuffing!

 

[Lovro]

A few of my observations and thoughts...

Originally posted by Shaitan
Also note that taking this as a literal definition of a leader's term of service will mean that any time an office is vacant we will need an election for it. It will also mean that if somebody takes a position on the 14th of the month, they will hold that position until the 14th of the next month.

I don't think this is such a good idea. Terms should be defined to last up to the end of the calendar month, not for a month.

This could obviously lead to disaster since we could have an election every other day after a few terms. You never know when an official may need to resign, and definitely cannot stop him in doing so.

Originally posted by Octavian X
All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month, except in cases of resigination and impeachment.

I agree, this does sound better. It might be worthwhile to explain how the exceptional cases are handled (i.e. terms last until the end of the calendar month).

Originally posted by Shaitan
An amendment could be proposed but it's premature at this point as we do not have an agreement on what the original article means.

This sentence is funny.

 

[Shaitan]

You are still trying to fix a particular definition of the article when we have not decided on what definition we will use. All of the talk about "we could do this" and "how about this" is somewhat laughable when the entire thing works perfectly as it is if the "office" version is accepted versus the "position" version.

"All offices will be filled via election": This says all "offices", not all "positions". The Office of the Presidency, not the President.

"with terms lasting one calendar month": The term of the office is one calendar month. This defines the term of the office only. That is, the election cycle is monthly.

This is all we need. No other fixes, amendments, laws or standards.