Discussion on meaning of Article G in the Constitution
- Thread starter Eklektikos
- Start date
Eklektikos
Eponymous
If that were the case then this discussion wouldn't be happening
I'm certain something needs to be done to clarify what this Article means, whatever we decide that is. The constitution should be self-explanatory, and at the moment this article is way too open to interpretation for this to be the case.
donsig
Low level intermediary
I think I follow what you're saying Shaitan and it works for the cycle of regular elections. I'm still wondering how we can justify appointing officals and approving such with council votes when the clause clearly says offices will be filled via election. While we may not need any amendments laws or standards we sure may need to get rid of some laws and standards.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Sure it would. And it is.
True. We'll add a clarification in the Judicial Log when all this is said and done. My main point here is if we take the article as written, literally, everything works now and in the future without adding or changing anything in the Constitution, COL or COS. All we have to do is agree to the article as it is already written and in its literal sense.
I shall endeavor to elucidate.
Interim hires are not covered or mandated in the Big C except at the highest level. There is Constitutional assurance that the cycle of elections will be once a month. Filling positions between the elections is left to the COL and COS. In those documents we have defined in detail how it is to be done.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Does anybody have anything further to add? If not, I'll call for a Judicial Review for clarification of the article.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
I'd originally intended this thread to result in a poll to achieve a more definitive consensus on the intent of the article, and I still think that this would be the best way to end the discussion. However, if the two other main participants in this thread both wish to end this quickly with a judicial review I will not be opposed, due to the apparent lack of public interest in this issue.
Aside from that statement I've nothing to add, except a re-iteration of my assertion that the clarification of this article needs to be incorporated into the COL or COS once it has been finalised, passed Judicial Review, etc.
Ideally it could replace the entirely redundant CoS Section G point 4: "Terms last 1 calendar month." which simply repeats the second half of Article G.
I think this is necessary to prevent this debate recurring, and to make the Constitution a self-explanatory document.
EDIT: "two other main participants" = Shaitan & Donsig. If anyone else wishes to demand a poll they should also speak now, or forever hold their peace.
Aside from that statement I've nothing to add, except a re-iteration of my assertion that the clarification of this article needs to be incorporated into the COL or COS once it has been finalised, passed Judicial Review, etc.
Ideally it could replace the entirely redundant CoS Section G point 4: "Terms last 1 calendar month." which simply repeats the second half of Article G.
I think this is necessary to prevent this debate recurring, and to make the Constitution a self-explanatory document.
EDIT: "two other main participants" = Shaitan & Donsig. If anyone else wishes to demand a poll they should also speak now, or forever hold their peace.
Shaitan
der Besucher
I think that altering COS G-4 to include the clarification from the Judicial Review is an excellent idea. We will need a sponsor from the Cabinet when we get to that point.
donsig
Low level intermediary
The standard that caused this discussion has passed judicial review. I think we should end this now since there seems to be no need.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
I disagree Donsig. There is still dissent from both camps. The review came with attachments that could lead to future debates. I believe that a new Judicial review should be done to determine how best to implement the prodedure (where to make the changes - COL, COS. Who should write it, etc.) After reading the end of the thread, I see no clear resolve of what exactly the phrase in question means.
I'm sorry my involvement dwindled away at the end, but I did say that I was waitng for Bill's review, and then family showed up, one thing after another. But I think I stated my case fairly well before that. If the top dawgs here can't come to agreement as to what the phrase implies (in a concrete form), then put up a poll to the citizens, and then make a new Judicial review on the case in light of the poll results. If you can come to a solid conclusion, then a poll won't be necessary. But the end of the month IS coming up. GTG, GL.
I'm sorry my involvement dwindled away at the end, but I did say that I was waitng for Bill's review, and then family showed up, one thing after another. But I think I stated my case fairly well before that. If the top dawgs here can't come to agreement as to what the phrase implies (in a concrete form), then put up a poll to the citizens, and then make a new Judicial review on the case in light of the poll results. If you can come to a solid conclusion, then a poll won't be necessary. But the end of the month IS coming up. GTG, GL.
I think gaurenteeing an elected official 1 month without threat of penalties (for lack of duties) is far too lient, especially when PTW comes. All that's needed is a few 'enemies' to be elected and bring the game down.
For a 1 player aspect, we'd be relying on the auto-governor (which seems to like building immortals, and settling for wealth when there's still improvements to be built.
For a 1 player aspect, we'd be relying on the auto-governor (which seems to like building immortals, and settling for wealth when there's still improvements to be built.
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
I'd be happy to participate in further judicial review as called for appropriately.
In general, where I sit is what I wrote in my previous review. That being that I feel "G" in the constitution is a guarentee of monthly elections, not a guarentee of 30 days of term.
Pretty simple in my eyes really, even though I see all sides of the argument. Those of you who have known me from the beginning undoubtedly know that I am not afraid to debate the smallest details of any constitutional issue, and have done so with great zeal in other matters.
In this case I go back to intent of the constitution (similar to the US Supreme Court referencing Federalist Papers and such), our demonstrated behavior in the past, and the consequences (bad in my opinion) of interpreting the article in the opposite manner. So I am opposed to changing the article itself.
As always though, if someone wants to promote a law or standard that further clarifies the issue to their satisfaction, then I am all in favor of it.
To donsig's concern with fair trials. I didn't ignore the issue in my assessment, but failed to properly elaborate on it. I believe the timelines posted in the change were adaquate protection for the accused. Had they been much shorter, I would have opposed on those grounds. In this case though I think a impeachment would take less time than the abandonment timeline.
I still feel that impeachment/trial is the better way to formally handle the situation. Such a resolution might also encourage the parties to either resign or serve out their terms, but as noted before, the Standard itself remains constitutional in my humble, but apparently in this case, tie-breaking, opinion.
Bill
in PDX...we're regaining our happiness...
In general, where I sit is what I wrote in my previous review. That being that I feel "G" in the constitution is a guarentee of monthly elections, not a guarentee of 30 days of term.
Pretty simple in my eyes really, even though I see all sides of the argument. Those of you who have known me from the beginning undoubtedly know that I am not afraid to debate the smallest details of any constitutional issue, and have done so with great zeal in other matters.
In this case I go back to intent of the constitution (similar to the US Supreme Court referencing Federalist Papers and such), our demonstrated behavior in the past, and the consequences (bad in my opinion) of interpreting the article in the opposite manner. So I am opposed to changing the article itself.
As always though, if someone wants to promote a law or standard that further clarifies the issue to their satisfaction, then I am all in favor of it.
To donsig's concern with fair trials. I didn't ignore the issue in my assessment, but failed to properly elaborate on it. I believe the timelines posted in the change were adaquate protection for the accused. Had they been much shorter, I would have opposed on those grounds. In this case though I think a impeachment would take less time than the abandonment timeline.
I still feel that impeachment/trial is the better way to formally handle the situation. Such a resolution might also encourage the parties to either resign or serve out their terms, but as noted before, the Standard itself remains constitutional in my humble, but apparently in this case, tie-breaking, opinion.
Bill
in PDX...we're regaining our happiness...
Cyc
Looking for the door...
So that's it then. Our Judicial Department has ruled the Article G in the Constitution represents monthly elections and not length of terms held.
This done, all we all we need is written proposal for a change or addition to the COS to reflect this ruling. Am I correct?
This done, all we all we need is written proposal for a change or addition to the COS to reflect this ruling. Am I correct?
Eklektikos
Eponymous
CT: I've never advocated interpreting the article as implying that leaders are immune to penalties. My interpretation was that the 1 cal month term is akin to a contract, and that that contract is with the people of phoenatica. Therefore only the decision of the people as a whole should be able to unseat a leader against their will, via the investigative process.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Let's do the review right here as it is germaine to this thread.
My clarification is:
Article G defines the cycle of elections and pertains only to the offices, not the positions of the leaders. It does not include or imply a guarantee or contract of employment.
My clarification is:
Article G defines the cycle of elections and pertains only to the offices, not the positions of the leaders. It does not include or imply a guarantee or contract of employment.
Shaitan
der Besucher
I realize both other justices have already effectively posted their reviews. To make it official, either repost them or edit the previous explanations to note that they are official Reviews for Clarification.
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
Judicial Review - Clarification of Article G - Judge Advocate Opinion/Review
The Judge Advocate's office has previously rendered an opinion on the constitutionality of a change to the Code of Standards that would empower the President to replace office holders that have demonstrated abandonment of their duties. That opinion can be found here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=387114#post387114
This further opinion relates specifically to the meaning of Article G of the Phoenatican Constitution.
It is the opinion of the Judge Advocate that Article G is intended as a guarentee of a election cycle within the timeline outlined in that article. Further this is a guarentee to the office itself, not to the holder of that office, and therefore interim replacement can be legislated for via the Code of Laws and Code of Standards.
The Judge Advocate's office has previously rendered an opinion on the constitutionality of a change to the Code of Standards that would empower the President to replace office holders that have demonstrated abandonment of their duties. That opinion can be found here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=387114#post387114
This further opinion relates specifically to the meaning of Article G of the Phoenatican Constitution.
It is the opinion of the Judge Advocate that Article G is intended as a guarentee of a election cycle within the timeline outlined in that article. Further this is a guarentee to the office itself, not to the holder of that office, and therefore interim replacement can be legislated for via the Code of Laws and Code of Standards.
Raven1er
Kevin
Take it from a citizen- if you change it, some of the citizens will be unhappy in some way or form. i moved to this empire because i admired the culture, power, and government and wealth
But not changing it leads to a domestic crises which may cause civil disorder.....or worse
But not changing it leads to a domestic crises which may cause civil disorder.....or worse
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
The change in question passed a council vote unanimously.
Should citizens have a concern with it, they should take appropriate action within the laws...OR...now might be a good time to question the councilpeople who passed the law since it is the election cycle.
I think civil disorder stemming from an obscure ruling not likely to take effect anytime the remainder of this game would be a bit misplaced to say the least.
Should citizens have a concern with it, they should take appropriate action within the laws...OR...now might be a good time to question the councilpeople who passed the law since it is the election cycle.
I think civil disorder stemming from an obscure ruling not likely to take effect anytime the remainder of this game would be a bit misplaced to say the least.
Raven1er
Kevin
im takin it to seriously 
sorry!
the TV did it to me
sorry!the TV did it to me
Eklektikos
Eponymous
Given the clarifications issued by my two Judicial colleagues this is little more than a formality, but I shall get it over with so that the subject can be closed once and for all. As I have said before:
My interpretation is that the 1 calendar month term specified in the Article is akin to a contract, and that that contract is with the citizens of Phoenatica. Therefore only the decision of the citizenry as a whole should be able to unseat a leader against their will, via the investigative process laid out in the COS.
My interpretation is that the 1 calendar month term specified in the Article is akin to a contract, and that that contract is with the citizens of Phoenatica. Therefore only the decision of the citizenry as a whole should be able to unseat a leader against their will, via the investigative process laid out in the COS.
Similar threads
