(Discussion) New Constitution

View previous topic View next topic Go down

(Discussion) New Constitution

Post  South Macwick on Fri Sep 05, 2014 12:46 pm

People should ask themselves what they want the constitution to do?

How much of the old constitution do you wish to include?

Is there anything you would particularly like to see in the constitution?

Below is my idea for a draft constitution for people to comment on and make suggestions on.
avatar
South Macwick
Recognized State

Posts : 41
Join date : 2014-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  South Macwick on Fri Sep 05, 2014 12:48 pm

A draft constitution (Third) of the World Alliance

Second Draft

Article I

The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of democracy, the rule of law and individual sovereignty while being an organisation that pools its sovereignty for the good of all nations in the region. All sovereign member states of the World Alliance are subject to its laws as enacted and enforced by the Security Council. The World Alliance shall maintain peace, security and stability within the region.

Article II Member State rights

The World Alliance shall respect the inherent rights of each member state, which include, but not limited to, the following: right to exist, right to self defense, right to self-determination, right to free speech, right to justice, right to participate in the World Alliance procedures (including voting), right to enter into treaties and agreements, and right to excise sovereignty and independence.

Article III Security Council

The Security Council is the governing body and judiciary of the World Alliance. The Security Council will have 17 members, 15 directed elected by the nations in each continent, the President and the Vice-President. To stand for election and to vote in them a nation must have land allocated on the Role Play map.

The main role of the Security Council is to pass proposals into resolutions that are binding on all member nations of the World Alliance region. Proposals are passed into resolutions (and World Alliance law) after a three day voting period by a simple majority. The President may cast an addition casting vote in the event of a tie.

The Security Council is the sole judiciary and law interpreter of the World Alliance. Any member nation, including members of the Security Council themselves, can bring an issue before the Security Council for justice.

Article IV The President

The President shall be elected every three months by the member nations registered on the forum. Vacancies shall be elected in the same manner and hold office for the remainder of the term.

The President is chair of the Security Council and is responsible for managing the procedures of this body.

The Security Council may impeach the President for acting outside their authority or if they have been inactive for more than 4 days without stating for how long they intended to be away from the forum. Impeachment needs a two-thirds majority to pass.

Article V The World Assembly Delegate – Vice President

The World Assembly Delegate (Vice President) is elected by the members of the World Assembly in the region and is a member of the Security Council and their main responsibility is to manage the regions position in World Assembly affairs. The Vice President (World Assembly Delegate) shall have moderator powers over the World Assembly sub-forum on World Alliance forum.

The Vice President (World Assembly Delegate) may also have the privilege to eject/ban anyone from the region (when the WA Delegate controls are on) that that he feels presents a threat to it without having to clear it with anyone prior.
1. The reason for the action shall be stated on the RMB and in the forum
2. Anyone who feels that they have been unfairly treated may request a trial regarding their actions.
3. If a trial is requested evidence shall be provided to the World Alliance Security Council.

The Vice President (World Assembly Delegate) shall deputise for the President when the President is absent or the position is vacant.

Article VI The Founder

The Founder nation if active shall be a member of the Security Council. ?????

The Founder has the right to eject/ban anyone from the region that he feels presents a threat to it without having to clear it with anyone prior.
1. The reason for the action shall be stated on the RMB in the forum
2. Anyone who feels that they have been unfairly treated may request a trial regarding their actions.
3. If a trial is requested evidence shall be provided in the World Alliance Security Council.

The Founder may also restrict the delegate controls if necessary and post the reason why on the forum.

Article VII Admins and Moderators

There shall be Admins to administer the Forum.
Admins may take any appropriate actions against anyone that they believe presents a threat to the forum or the constitution.
1. The reason for the action shall be stated on the forum
2. Anyone who feels that they have been unfairly treated may request a trial regarding their actions.
3. If a trial is requested evidence shall be provided in the World Alliance Security Council.

Moderator power may be given to members of the forum by the Admin Team to aid the functioning of the forum. Member nations need to have been resident in the region for at least 30 days before they can be granted any moderator powers. Moderator powers shall be removed by the Admin Team once they are no longer required or for any justifiable reason.

There should always be at least two Admins. New Admins shall be appointed with the approval of a majority of the Admin Team. Member nations need to have been resident in the region for at least 60 days before they can be made an Admin. Admins may be removed either by a majority vote of the Admin Team or by a simple majority of the Security Council.

Article VIII Judicial Procedure

Any member nation can bring an issue before the Security Council to give a judicial decision on. The Security Council may appoint any member nation to investigate the claim and present the case. This person if a member of the Security Council shall not vote on the verdict or any sentence.

The accused person (the defendant) shall present the evidence in their defense.

The person presenting evidence, the defendant and all members of the Security Council may ask questions of the person presenting evidence, the defendant and any witnesses.

Once both sides have presented their full case, members of the Security Council shall vote on the verdict. If less than three members vote on the verdict the defendant is automatically found not guilty. No member of the Security Council shall vote if it is considered that they have an interest in the case.

The President of the Security Council shall suggest a sentence and members of the Security Council shall discuss and amend until an agreed sentence is agreed. At least two members of the Security Council need to vote in favour of the final amended sentence for it to be agreed.

Players if found guilty in a court case may have their forum rights restricted or be banned from the forum and can be banned and ejected from the region by the Security Council as part of the sentence for a specified time or unlimited in the case of banning.

Security Council members, the President, the Vice-President, Admins and  Moderators if found guilty in a court case may be removed from office by the Security Council as part of the sentence for a specified time.

The Founder and Root Admins if found guilty in a court case may be requested not to use some or all of their powers by the Security Council as part of the sentence for a specified time. Failure to comply will be taken very seriously.

Article IX Constitutional Amendments

This constitution may be amended by the passing of a constitutional amendment by a two-thirds majority vote of the Security Council.

Article X Transitory provisions

Upon the adoption of this new Constitution the preceding constitution is deemed null and void and all existing laws remain in force until amended or repealed subject to their interpretation in line with the new constitution by the Security Council.

The Security Council shall appoint at least three of its members to examine all the existing laws and to bring recommendations to the Security Council on each one recommending;
No changes required;
Amendments required;
Repeal required.


First Draft:
First Draft

Article I

The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of democracy, the rule of law and individual sovereignty while being an organisation that pools its sovereignty for the good of all nations in the region. All sovereign member states of the World Alliance are subject to its laws as enacted by the General Assembly and enforced by the Court of Justice. The World Alliance shall maintain peace, security and stability within the region.

Article II Member State rights

The World Alliance shall respect the inherent rights of each member state, which include, but not limited to, the following: right to exist, right to self defense, right to free association, right to express opinion, right to self-determination, right to due process and a fair trial, right to participate in the World Alliance General Assembly, right to enter into treaties and agreements, and right to excise sovereignty and independence.

Article III General Assembly

The General Assembly is made up of the all nations in the World Alliance that register on the forum, but no one may register more than one nation. Puppet nations are not members of the General Assembly.

The role of the General Assembly is to pass proposals into resolutions that are binding on all member nations of the World Alliance region. Proposals are passed into resolutions (and World Alliance law) after a three day voting period by a simple majority. The Secretary General may cast an addition casting vote in the event of a tie.

Article IV The General Secretary

The General Secretary shall be elected every three months by the members of the General Assembly. Vacancies shall be elected in the same manner and hold office for the remainder of the term.

The General Secretary is chair of both the General Assembly and the Security Council and is responsible for managing the procedures of those bodies.

The General Secretary shall appoint the Minister of Offence (subject to ratification by the General Assembly) who is a member of the Security Council.

In the absence of the General Secretary the General Assembly may elect one of their number to temporary act as General Secretary – be Acting General Secretary.

The General Assembly may impeach the General Secretary for acting outside their authority or if they have been inactive for more than 4 days without stating for how long they intended to be away from the forum. Impeachment needs a two-thirds majority to pass.

Article V The Founder

The Founder nation if active shall be a member of the Security Council.

The Founder has the right to eject/ban anyone from the region that he feels presents a threat to it without having to clear it with anyone prior.
1. The reason for the action shall be stated on the RMB
2. Anyone who feels that they have been unfairly treated may request a trial regarding their actions.
3. If a trial is requested evidence shall be provided in the World Alliance Court of Justice.

The Founder may also restrict the delegate controls if necessary and post the reason why on the forum.

Article VI The World Assembly Delegate

The World Assembly Delegate is elected by the members of the World Assembly in the region and is a member of the Security Council and their main responsibility is to manage the regions position in World Assembly affairs.

The World Assembly Delegate may also have the right to eject/ban anyone from the region (when the WA Delegate controls are on) that that he feels presents a threat to it without having to clear it with anyone prior.
1. The reason for the action shall be stated on the RMB
2. Anyone who feels that they have been unfairly treated may request a trial regarding their actions.
3. If a trial is requested evidence shall be provided in the World Alliance Court of Justice.

Article VII Admins and Moderators

There shall be Admins to administer the Forum.
Admins may take any appropriate actions against anyone that they believe presents a threat to the forum or the constitution.
1. The reason for the action shall be stated on the forum
2. Anyone who feels that they have been unfairly treated may request a trial regarding their actions.
3. If a trial is requested evidence shall be provided in the World Alliance Court of Justice.

Admin power may be given to members of the Security Council to aid them in their role.

Moderator power shall be given to members of the forum to aid the functioning of the forum.

There should always be at least two Admins. New Admins shall be appointed with the approval of a majority of the Admin Team. Admins may be removed either by a majority vote of the Admin Team or both a simple majority of the Security Council and a simple majority the General Assembly.

The Admins shall elect a Head Admin who shall be a member of the Security Council.

Article VIII The Security Council

The Security Council shall consist of:
The General Secretary
The Founder
The World Assembly Delegate
The Head Admin
Minister of Offence who is responsible for all military missions conducted outside of the World Alliance.
Minister of Home Affairs, elected by the General Assembly every three months (vacancies shall be filled after a by-election for the remainder of the term), is responsible for the granting and denying of citizenship, retention of members, the conduct of elections (should appoint an impartial Returning Officer to run elections).
Minister of Foreign Affairs, elected by the General Assembly every three months (vacancies shall be filled after a by-election for the remainder of the term), is responsible for the granting of diplomatic rights on the forum and issuing of embassies, the appointment of ambassadors to other regions with forums, the issuing of updates to post in foreign forums.
Minister of Culture, elected by the General Assembly every three months (vacancies shall be filled after a by-election for the remainder of the term), is responsible for managing cultural and historical institutions and events and the developing of things of interest for members of the forum.
Minister for Role Play, elected by the General Assembly every three months (vacancies shall be filled after a by-election for the remainder of the term), is responsible for managing all aspects of role play.

The Secretary General may carry out the duties of any minister if the minister fails to do so.

A person may hold more than one position but in any Security Council votes they only have one vote accept the Secretary General who as an additional casting vote in the event of a tie.

The Security Council should discuss and agree the actions of its members with regard to policy and regulations and these should be held in public on the forum.

Article IX The Court of Justice

The Court of Justice is the sole judiciary and law interpreter of the World Alliance composed of three members elected by the General Assembly, They serve until removed or they resign. They cannot also be members of the Security Council. From amongst themselves they shall elect a Chief Justice.

Two members of the General Assembly can move a motion for dismissal of any individual judge including the Chief Justice and if at least 25% of the members of the General Assembly or 10 members whichever is the least vote then with a simple majority the named member of the Court of Justice is removed and a new election shall take place, in which the person just dismissed may not stand, but they can stand in future Court of Justice elections.

Any member of the General Assembly, including members of the Court themselves, can bring an issue before the Court of Justice.

In the event of a shortage of competent and capable Justices or in response to an event otherwise deemed necessary by the Chief Justice, the Court of Justice may appoint as temporary members citizens or citizens of friendly regions, to hear particular cases, if deemed to be competent and capable by the Chief Justice.

Players if found guilty in a court case may have their forum rights restricted or be banned from the forum and can be banned and ejected from the region by the Court of Justice as part of the sentence for a specified time or unlimited in the case of banning.

Assembly Members, the General Secretary, Admins, Ministers and Justices if found guilty in a court case may be removed from office by the Court of Justice as part of the sentence for a specified time.

The Founder and Root Admins if found guilty in a court case may be requested not to use some or all of their powers by the Court of Justice as part of the sentence for a specified time. Failure to comply will be taken very seriously.

Article X Constitutional Revisions

Each proposal to amend or replace the constitution shall undergo a constitutional convention for at least one week, which shall be administered by the Secretary General where discussion of the proposal and changes to it shall be discussed. After this time the caller of the constitutional convention shall state when they wish their proposal (original or changed) to be put before the General Assembly to vote on. The proposal needs a three-quarter majority to pass.

Article XI Transitory provisions

(Ideas please?)


Last edited by South Macwick on Wed Sep 10, 2014 3:33 am; edited 6 times in total
avatar
South Macwick
Recognized State

Posts : 41
Join date : 2014-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  Great Eurussia on Fri Sep 05, 2014 1:57 pm

Article I

The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of democracy, the rule of law and individual sovereignty while being an organisation that pools its sovereignty for the good of all nations in the region. All sovereign member states of the World Alliance are subject to its laws as enacted by the General Assembly and enforced by the Court of Justice. The World Alliance shall maintain peace, security and stability within the region.

I proposed to be removed since they are unnecessary as there could be no General Assembly nor Court of Justice. Or there could be a different setup of regional government.

Article II Member State rights

The World Alliance shall respect the inherent rights of each member state, which include, but not limited to, the following: right to exist, right to self defense, right to free association, right to express opinion, right to self-determination, right to due process and a fair trial, right to participate in the World Alliance General Assembly, right to enter into treaties and agreements, and right to excise sovereignty and independence.

I proposed to be removed since they are unnecessary and redundant. They are in no way could affect the major and basic rights of nations anyway.


Article III General Assembly


The General Assembly is made up of the all nations in the World Alliance that register on the forum, but no one may register more than one nation. Puppet nations are not members of the General Assembly.


The role of the General Assembly is to pass proposals into resolutions that are binding on all member nations of the World Alliance region. Proposals are passed into resolutions (and World Alliance law) after a three day voting period by a simple majority. The Secretary General may cast an addition casting vote in the event of a tie.


Article IV The General Secretary


The General Secretary shall be elected every three months by the members of the General Assembly. Vacancies shall be elected in the same manner and hold office for the remainder of the term.


The General Secretary is chair of both the General Assembly and the Security Council and is responsible for managing the procedures of those bodies.


The General Secretary shall appoint the Minister of Offence (subject to ratification by the General Assembly) who is a member of the Security Council.


In the absence of the General Secretary the General Assembly may elect one of their number to temporary act as General Secretary – be Acting General Secretary.


The General Assembly may impeach the General Secretary for acting outside their authority or if they have been inactive for more than 4 days without stating for how long they intended to be away from the forum. Impeachment needs a two-thirds majority to pass.


Article V The Founder


The Founder nation if active shall be a member of the Security Council.


The Founder has the right to eject/ban anyone from the region that he feels presents a threat to it without having to clear it with anyone prior.
1. The reason for the action shall be stated on the RMB
2. Anyone who feels that they have been unfairly treated may request a trial regarding their actions.
3. If a trial is requested evidence shall be provided in the World Alliance Court of Justice.


The Founder may also restrict the delegate controls if necessary and post the reason why on the forum.

I propose a single unitary and combined legislative-executive body. Just like the current transitional setup where there are 15 member Council representing different continents of the world so as to ensure that members are active since they need to be in RP and OOC.

Article VI The World Assembly Delegate

The World Assembly Delegate is elected by the members of the World Assembly in the region and is a member of the Security Council and their main responsibility is to manage the regions position in World Assembly affairs.

The World Assembly Delegate may also have the right to eject/ban anyone from the region (when the WA Delegate controls are on) that that he feels presents a threat to it without having to clear it with anyone prior.
1. The reason for the action shall be stated on the RMB
2. Anyone who feels that they have been unfairly treated may request a trial regarding their actions.
3. If a trial is requested evidence shall be provided in the World Alliance Court of Justice.

The WA Delegate should have the 'privilege' to exercise banjection powers if ever he will be granted such powers. He should also enjoy the moderator powers over the World Assembly Sub-Forum at the World Alliance Forum. He also has the responsibility to explain every vote/actions/representations he makes to the World Assembly by posting on the RMB and the World Assembly Sub-Forum.


Article VII Admins and Moderators

There shall be Admins to administer the Forum.
Admins may take any appropriate actions against anyone that they believe presents a threat to the forum or the constitution.
1. The reason for the action shall be stated on the forum
2. Anyone who feels that they have been unfairly treated may request a trial regarding their actions.
3. If a trial is requested evidence shall be provided in the World Alliance Court of Justice.

Admin power may be given to members of the Security Council to aid them in their role.

Moderator power shall be given to members of the forum to aid the functioning of the forum.

There should always be at least two Admins. New Admins shall be appointed with the approval of a majority of the Admin Team. Admins may be removed either by a majority vote of the Admin Team or both a simple majority of the Security Council and a simple majority the General Assembly.

The Admins shall elect a Head Admin who shall be a member of the Security Council.

I propose that Admins/Moderators must be referred as "Forum Administrators" if they possess moderator powers throughout the entire forum. "Forum Moderators" if they possess  moderator powers in a specific sub-forum in the WA Forum to ensure and to see which has vast powers and authority in the Forum. There must be a requirements for FORUM ADMIN and MODS which should have been a resident in the region for not less than 90 days to ensure their loyalty.



Article VIII The Security Council

The Security Council shall consist of:
The General Secretary
The Founder
The World Assembly Delegate
The Head Admin
Minister of Offence who is responsible for all military missions conducted outside of the World Alliance.
Minister of Home Affairs, elected by the General Assembly every three months (vacancies shall be filled after a by-election for the remainder of the term), is responsible for the granting and denying of citizenship, retention of members, the conduct of elections (should appoint an impartial Returning Officer to run elections).
Minister of Foreign Affairs, elected by the General Assembly every three months (vacancies shall be filled after a by-election for the remainder of the term), is responsible for the granting of diplomatic rights on the forum and issuing of embassies, the appointment of ambassadors to other regions with forums, the issuing of updates to post in foreign forums.
Minister of Culture, elected by the General Assembly every three months (vacancies shall be filled after a by-election for the remainder of the term), is responsible for managing cultural and historical institutions and events and the developing of things of interest for members of the forum.
Minister for Role Play, elected by the General Assembly every three months (vacancies shall be filled after a by-election for the remainder of the term), is responsible for managing all aspects of role play.

The Secretary General may carry out the duties of any minister if the minister fails to do so.

A person may hold more than one position but in any Security Council votes they only have one vote accept the Secretary General who as an additional casting vote in the event of a tie.

The Security Council should discuss and agree the actions of its members with regard to policy and regulations and these should be held in public on the forum.

Article IX The Court of Justice

The Court of Justice is the sole judiciary and law interpreter of the World Alliance composed of three members elected by the General Assembly, They serve until removed or they resign. They cannot also be members of the Security Council. From amongst themselves they shall elect a Chief Justice.

Two members of the General Assembly can move a motion for dismissal of any individual judge including the Chief Justice and if at least 25% of the members of the General Assembly or 10 members whichever is the least vote then with a simple majority the named member of the Court of Justice is removed and a new election shall take place, in which the person just dismissed may not stand, but they can stand in future Court of Justice elections.

Any member of the General Assembly, including members of the Court themselves, can bring an issue before the Court of Justice.

In the event of a shortage of competent and capable Justices or in response to an event otherwise deemed necessary by the Chief Justice, the Court of Justice may appoint as temporary members citizens or citizens of friendly regions, to hear particular cases, if deemed to be competent and capable by the Chief Justice.

Players if found guilty in a court case may have their forum rights restricted or be banned from the forum and can be banned and ejected from the region by the Court of Justice as part of the sentence for a specified time or unlimited in the case of banning.

Assembly Members, the General Secretary, Admins, Ministers and Justices if found guilty in a court case may be removed from office by the Court of Justice as part of the sentence for a specified time.

The Founder and Root Admins if found guilty in a court case may be requested not to use some or all of their powers by the Court of Justice as part of the sentence for a specified time. Failure to comply will be taken very seriously.

This is covered my proposal above forming a single governing body for the region whereby such as the duties of the Court of Justice may be handled by a 'Judicial Committee' of the new governing body which will act as the fact-finding group and will recommend the proper punishment for any trial which shall be decided by the whole governing body. Of course, it is necessary that there is a balanced checks and balances mechanisms.

Article X Constitutional Revisions

Each proposal to amend or replace the constitution shall undergo a constitutional convention for at least one week, which shall be administered by the Secretary General where discussion of the proposal and changes to it shall be discussed. After this time the caller of the constitutional convention shall state when they wish their proposal (original or changed) to be put before the General Assembly to vote on. The proposal needs a three-quarter majority to pass.

It will depend on the new structure of the regional government.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  South Macwick on Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:45 pm

To sum up. You do not wish to have a constitution in the format I have suggested.

Would you like to write your own or do you wish me to draft one for you. However some of your suggestions I am not happy with, while others need more work.

I assume that the Security Council will make the laws so that could replace “General Assembly” in Article I. The “Court of Justice” could be replaced with whatever the new system will be.

However the purpose of this draft is to replace the interim arrangements with something that the members of the forum have agreed to, not to leave areas open to future agreement.

Article II Member State rights – you seem to be speaking of member rights within the association. However something needs to be said about their rights to speak (without their posts being deleted) and their right to a fair hearing if accused of something.

You do not wish to have a government like other regions do. UK.

So a 15 member Security Council.

I assume elected every two or three months by the nations in the relevant continent. I will need to work on the wording.

You may be unhappy with the section on the Founder but it is very important and I believe it needs to stay.

Article VI The WA Delegate - your changes are not an issue.

Article VII Admins and Mods

We have a language problem here. Admin rights are not just being a Moderator of the whole forum, they have extra rights with regard to accounts and we need to agree that you will appoint at least one other person to have these Admin rights. I have no problem with a residency requirement, but I am not sure about the length of time. Why not 60 days?

Lack of Court of Justice

I think this is a bad idea. I can work on some wording but would like members of the new Security Council to have a meaningful debate on the issue.

We can come back to amending the constitution.

With regard to Transition I have been thinking of keeping all the current laws and the setting up of a temporary sub-committee of the Security Council to work through all of them staring with the oldest and coming back to the SC with recommendations to either repeal or amend. I was also thinking about giving the Court of Justice the right to interpret them until they have been reviewed, but with no Court of Justice this will not be possible.
avatar
South Macwick
Recognized State

Posts : 41
Join date : 2014-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  Great Eurussia on Sat Sep 06, 2014 4:02 pm

I assume that the Security Council will make the laws so that could replace “General Assembly” in Article I. The “Court of Justice” could be replaced with whatever the new system will be.


Yes. We want a new format other than the previous EU-style and UN-style systems.


However the purpose of this draft is to replace the interim arrangements with something that the members of the forum have agreed to, not to leave areas open to future agreement.

Of course, that is what constitutions do.



Article II Member State rights – you seem to be speaking of member rights within the association. However something needs to be said about their rights to speak (without their posts being deleted) and their right to a fair hearing if accused of something.


Of course.


We have a language problem here. Admin rights are not just being a Moderator of the whole forum, they have extra rights with regard to accounts and we need to agree that you will appoint at least one other person to have these Admin rights. I have no problem with a residency requirement, but I am not sure about the length of time. Why not 60 days?


Why? What are the criteria? And knowing that you are new to the region, why insist too much on this? Besides, we do not have any problems regarding whoever controls the Forums and by default it is the Founder of the region who should have the complete authority on the Forums. And for the interest of the region, he should enjoy the right to choose whom he believe to have the credibility to grant the admin rights on the Forums you are talking about. We do not want to have a scenario where there are lots of moderators just to suit your demands of having someone be given the same moderator powers like the Founder and one day we all wake up the history of the World Alliance is deleted forever on the Forums.


Lack of Court of Justice

I think this is a bad idea. I can work on some wording but would like members of the new Security Council to have a meaningful debate on the issue.

As I have told you, a judiciary should never be absent in a democratic society. However, it must complement the new format of regional government. Because we have witnessed how lackluster the previous Courts have been and how it can be easily abused. Therefore we wish to have a complete checks and balances.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  Xolox on Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:10 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
As I have told you, a judiciary should never be absent in a democratic society. However, it must complement the new format of regional government. Because we have witnessed how lackluster the previous Courts have been and how it can be easily abused. Therefore we wish to have a complete checks and balances.

You proposed that the security council be both the executive and legislative body. Why not judicial as well? We could just combine them all into one. We could treat court cases like passages of law, require 3/4ths vote to declare some innocent or guilty.
avatar
Xolox
Regional Power

Posts : 470
Join date : 2014-09-04
Age : 19
Location : Florida

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=xolox

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  Great Eurussia on Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:00 am

Xolox wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
As I have told you, a judiciary should never be absent in a democratic society. However, it must complement the new format of regional government. Because we have witnessed how lackluster the previous Courts have been and how it can be easily abused. Therefore we wish to have a complete checks and balances.

You proposed that the security council be both the executive and legislative body. Why not judicial as well? We could just combine them all into one. We could treat court cases like passages of law, require 3/4ths vote to declare some innocent or guilty.

Great idea! However, to make it more impartial and fair, I suggest that for example, Nation A charges Nation B of any violations before the Security Council, the President himself nor any member of the council (if willing) will take charge first of getting the facts where all parties will be heard their evidences and proofs and that one in-charge will recommend to the Council of the proper punishments which the Council will then decide to make verdict via 75% approval of all member states.

But if the one charged for a case is a member of the Council, that nation cannot be in charge of handling the case and will not be allowed to vote on the recommendation of the verdict.

What do you think?
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  South Macwick on Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:02 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
We have a language problem here. Admin rights are not just being a Moderator of the whole forum, they have extra rights with regard to accounts and we need to agree that you will appoint at least one other person to have these Admin rights. I have no problem with a residency requirement, but I am not sure about the length of time. Why not 60 days?

Why? What are the criteria? And knowing that you are new to the region, why insist too much on this? Besides, we do not have any problems regarding whoever controls the Forums and by default it is the Founder of the region who should have the complete authority on the Forums. And for the interest of the region, he should enjoy the right to choose whom he believe to have the credibility to grant the admin rights on the Forums you are talking about. We do not want to have a scenario where there are lots of moderators just to suit your demands of having someone be given the same moderator powers like the Founder and one day we all wake up the history of the World Alliance is deleted forever on the Forums.

I have no problem with the Founder being both the Root Admin of the forum and it being his decision alone who he appoints as Joint Admin. The Founder and forum Admin have to be able to be held to account and without an alternative forum Admin the Founder cannot be told to not carry out admin tasks as a punishment. I think Moderators have the power to delete posts so this could happen anyway. That is why it is important that the right people are made moderators and admins. I am saying there should be at least two people who have Admin rights not loads of people, just at least two.

Great Eurussia wrote:
Xolox wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
As I have told you, a judiciary should never be absent in a democratic society. However, it must complement the new format of regional government. Because we have witnessed how lackluster the previous Courts have been and how it can be easily abused. Therefore we wish to have a complete checks and balances.

You proposed that the security council be both the executive and legislative body. Why not judicial as well? We could just combine them all into one. We could treat court cases like passages of law, require 3/4ths vote to declare some innocent or guilty.

Great idea! However, to make it more impartial and fair, I suggest that for example, Nation A charges Nation B of any violations before the Security Council, the President himself nor any member of the council (if willing) will take charge first of getting the facts where all parties will be heard their evidences and proofs and that one in-charge will recommend to the Council of the proper punishments which the Council will then decide to make verdict via 75% approval of all member states.
But if the one charged for a case is a member of the Council, that nation cannot be in charge of handling the case and will not be allowed to vote on the recommendation of the verdict.
What do you think?
Not having a separate judiciary doesn’t work in real life, which is why they are separate, but that of course does not mean it can’t work in NS. Why isn’t a simple majority good enough for a verdict? It is in real life.
avatar
South Macwick
Recognized State

Posts : 41
Join date : 2014-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  South Macwick on Wed Sep 10, 2014 3:24 am

I have posted a second draft.

I am not happy about voting rights. We talk about being a democratic region but restrict the voting for Security Council members to those people who have land on the role play map, restrict voting for the President to those people who are registered on the forum and restrict voting for the Vice President to those who have nations in the NS World Assembly. Do we need to remove our commitment to democracy or qualify it in some way?

I have included a section called “Article VIII Judicial Procedure”, which hopefully will ensure that the judicial procedure will not be held up by low levels of activity. I have changed the procedure for amending the constitution and put in writing an idea for the transitory provisions.

There are no ministers such as minister of recruitment and no method to appoint them. Do we what something about ministers?

Please can people comment and make suggestions on how it can be improved?
avatar
South Macwick
Recognized State

Posts : 41
Join date : 2014-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  Xolox on Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:33 am

Xolox currently supports the revisited constitution.
avatar
Xolox
Regional Power

Posts : 470
Join date : 2014-09-04
Age : 19
Location : Florida

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=xolox

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  Great Eurussia on Wed Sep 10, 2014 6:21 am

South Macwick wrote:I am not happy about voting rights. We talk about being a democratic region but restrict the voting for Security Council members to those people who have land on the role play map, restrict voting for the President to those people who are registered on the forum and restrict voting for the Vice President to those who have nations in the NS World Assembly. Do we need to remove our commitment to democracy or qualify it in some way?

Well, to remind you of how inactivity greatly affects the functions of the regional government, the WA Government have been transformed several times to accommodate to the changing need of times. The time came when it had to be very non-restrictive to get as many nations serving in the regional government, but at the end of the day, only few are performing their duties thus there was consistent discussions ever since to include RP activeness and Map presence to ensure that a certain nation is indeed serious and helping shape the future of the WA and not just a bunch of nations that wish to be seen themselves on the Regional Factbook. Hence, I believe it is not a restrictive democracy, but a responsible democracy.


Furthermore, we are not just dealing here anymore with the principles of democracy. We have to consider the experience of this region under the pre-text of democracy which have been through lots of experiments based on the needs of the World Alliance.

South Macwick wrote:I have included a section called “Article VIII Judicial Procedure”, which hopefully will ensure that the judicial procedure will not be held up by low levels of activity. I have changed the procedure for amending the constitution and put in writing an idea for the transitory provisions.

On the issue of JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, I am actually planning to introduce a proposal law about the same as what have been previously discussed so as not to prolong it further in a rigorous process of constitutionalities as in anyways, regional laws are well enforced in the region. If you wish, you can do the honor of crafting the proposed law on Judicial Procedure and combining it with existing judicial laws of the World Alliance. Please check the Archives.

There are no ministers such as minister of recruitment and no method to appoint them. Do we what something about ministers?

At the moment, we can easily create ministerial systems in the Council if you will have good suggestions about it. Since for the mean time, the titularities of those members of the Council are simply based on their locations and not yet on their responsibilities which we could work on later on. Since the Council for the mean time is still being developed according to the urgent needs of the region. Such as crafting foundation laws for the regional government.

I have no problem with the Founder being both the Root Admin of the forum and it being his decision alone who he appoints as Joint Admin. The Founder and forum Admin have to be able to be held to account and without an alternative forum Admin the Founder cannot be told to not carry out admin tasks as a punishment. I think Moderators have the power to delete posts so this could happen anyway. That is why it is important that the right people are made moderators and admins. I am saying there should be at least two people who have Admin rights not loads of people, just at least two.

I agree with you on this. And thank you as you have also recognized my long standing position that there is always a great threat if we simply entrust moderator powers just to those who simply want it. There must be a trust established first and commitment to safeguard the contents and history of the WA Forums.

Not having a separate judiciary doesn’t work in real life, which is why they are separate, but that of course does not mean it can’t work in NS. Why isn’t a simple majority good enough for a verdict? It is in real life.

Yes in real life but here, it's not. If we can't complete the Council at the moment, why insist on building a separate judiciary if we know we cannot complete its membership out right? Why not just introduce laws that will regulate the judicial powers of the Council which is much efficient and productive at the moment?
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  South Macwick on Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:40 am

I note that I’ll have to do a third draft as I have the number of elected members of the Security Council wrong, according to the regions Factbook Entry there are 13.

I note that Xolox likes the second draft, but Eurussia wants the Judicial Procedure at least reduced so it can be set and changed more easily by the passing of a law. I would be interested in the views of other members of the Security Council.

It appears that Eurussia want the Security Council to be able to appoint ministers and this is not an issue for me. Do we want it to be able to appoint any forum member or do we want it to allocate minister responsibilities only to existing members of the Security Council?

We still need to address the problem of “The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of democracy” because it does not. How about “The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of a representative type of government”. The constitution sets out which groups of people elected which representatives in the Security Council. With the removal of the reference to democracy there might be a reluctance of those in disagreement with the way things are being done to rebel rouse with an appeal to democracy over the rule of law as happened in the recent past.

In Article VI there are some question marks over whether the Founder should get a permanent seat on the Security Council. Please can people express their opinions?
avatar
South Macwick
Recognized State

Posts : 41
Join date : 2014-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  Xolox on Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:43 am

South Macwick wrote:I note that I’ll have to do a third draft as I have the number of elected members of the Security Council wrong, according to the regions Factbook Entry there are 13.

I note that Xolox likes the second draft, but Eurussia wants the Judicial Procedure at least reduced so it can be set and changed more easily by the passing of a law. I would be interested in the views of other members of the Security Council.

It appears that Eurussia want the Security Council to be able to appoint ministers and this is not an issue for me. Do we want it to be able to appoint any forum member or do we want it to allocate minister responsibilities only to existing members of the Security Council?

We still need to address the problem of “The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of democracy” because it does not. How about “The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of a representative type of government”. The constitution sets out which groups of people elected which representatives in the Security Council. With the removal of the reference to democracy there might be a reluctance of those in disagreement with the way things are being done to rebel rouse with an appeal to democracy over the rule of law as happened in the recent past.

In Article VI there are some question marks over whether the Founder should get a permanent seat on the Security Council. Please can people express their opinions?

I think the founder should have a permanent seat on the security council, but not necessarily at the head.
avatar
Xolox
Regional Power

Posts : 470
Join date : 2014-09-04
Age : 19
Location : Florida

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=xolox

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  Great Eurussia on Thu Sep 11, 2014 1:24 pm

Xolox wrote:
South Macwick wrote:I note that I’ll have to do a third draft as I have the number of elected members of the Security Council wrong, according to the regions Factbook Entry there are 13.

I note that Xolox likes the second draft, but Eurussia wants the Judicial Procedure at least reduced so it can be set and changed more easily by the passing of a law. I would be interested in the views of other members of the Security Council.

It appears that Eurussia want the Security Council to be able to appoint ministers and this is not an issue for me. Do we want it to be able to appoint any forum member or do we want it to allocate minister responsibilities only to existing members of the Security Council?

We still need to address the problem of “The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of democracy” because it does not. How about “The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of a representative type of government”. The constitution sets out which groups of people elected which representatives in the Security Council. With the removal of the reference to democracy there might be a reluctance of those in disagreement with the way things are being done to rebel rouse with an appeal to democracy over the rule of law as happened in the recent past.

In Article VI there are some question marks over whether the Founder should get a permanent seat on the Security Council. Please can people express their opinions?

I think the founder should have a permanent seat on the security council, but not necessarily at the head.

I believe this is necessary since the Security Council is the sole organ of authority for the region. I would simply desire that there is no reference any more to a 'Founder' since some times it pertains to enormous powers which I prefer to exercise only upon the orders of an institutionalized body like the Security Council. But for the sake of efficiency, most of the time, I just do what is necessary since it is in my powers as Founder.

Let me remind you that in the previous Security Councils, the Founder is a permanent member of the Council and has the veto power in case a group of rogue nation tries to use the SC to pass a resolution that is not good for the region. I also made it a point that the WA Delegate also has an honorary seat in the Council since he is 'elected in a sense' by World Assembly members. And I wish to bring back this secured and fair setup for the Council.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  South Macwick on Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:10 am

I have no problem with the Founder having a permanent seat on the Security Council and can change the numbers accordingly. I do not understand how this can be done without reference to the Founder nation. I am happy to change all references to the “Founder” to the “Founder nation”.

I oppose the idea that any one person should have a veto on what the Security Council passes, especially someone not elected. If Eurussia believes something is not good for the region he should have to argue his case like anyone else, not dictate to the region. As I have said the Founder and the Root Admin must be accountable to the wider membership.

The WA Delegate is the Vice President and is on the Security Council.
avatar
South Macwick
Recognized State

Posts : 41
Join date : 2014-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  Great Eurussia on Sat Sep 13, 2014 7:14 pm

South Macwick wrote:I have no problem with the Founder having a permanent seat on the Security Council and can change the numbers accordingly. I do not understand how this can be done without reference to the Founder nation. I am happy to change all references to the “Founder” to the “Founder nation”.

I oppose the idea that any one person should have a veto on what the Security Council passes, especially someone not elected. If Eurussia believes something is not good for the region he should have to argue his case like anyone else, not dictate to the region. As I have said the Founder and the Root Admin must be accountable to the wider membership.

The WA Delegate is the Vice President and is on the Security Council.

I agree on that, "Founding Nation" rather than Founder having permanent seat in the council just like the WA Delegate. Although I oppose your notion that just because the Founder is not elected, it shall not have veto powers. Going directly to the point, the Founder will always want the best for 'his region' and thus, just like before, this veto power ensures that just in case a coalition of nations (puppets if not yet discovered) undermines the Council and use it to pass laws that could endanger the region of the Founder, at the very least, that veto power can come in to use. Just like before, there is no worry since it can be regulated by law anyways.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  South Macwick on Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:28 am

Great Eurussia wrote:I agree on that, "Founding Nation" rather than Founder having permanent seat in the council just like the WA Delegate. Although I oppose your notion that just because the Founder is not elected, it shall not have veto powers. Going directly to the point, the Founder will always want the best for 'his region' and thus, just like before, this veto power ensures that just in case a coalition of nations (puppets if not yet discovered) undermines the Council and use it to pass laws that could endanger the region of the Founder, at the very least, that veto power can come in to use. Just like before, there is no worry since it can be regulated by law anyways.
The problem seems to be that you wish to use the word “veto” and I clearly do not, but I think we agree that the Founder Nation has a role in protecting the region and this is included in the draft constitution as is the way the Founder Nation is held accountable for their actions. The Security Council is the sovereign body of the region and its decisions are final and no one should have the power to veto their decisions. The Founder Nation is one voice among many and it has to be assumed that everyone wants what is best for the region and that we believe that open debate and democracy are the ways to achieve this and bring everyone along.

If the Security Council is controlled by puppets then each puppets status would need to be decided in the “courts”. The draft constitution excludes people with an interest being involved in the court case and so it should be possible for the Founder Nation to take action and then go to court to prove that the action was legitimate and the recent law passed by the Security Council was not valid because of the proven irregularities. And this does not involve the Founder Nation having a veto.
avatar
South Macwick
Recognized State

Posts : 41
Join date : 2014-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  Great Eurussia on Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:09 pm

South Macwick wrote:The problem seems to be that you wish to use the word “veto” and I clearly do not, but I think we agree that the Founder Nation has a role in protecting the region and this is included in the draft constitution as is the way the Founder Nation is held accountable for their actions. The Security Council is the sovereign body of the region and its decisions are final and no one should have the power to veto their decisions. The Founder Nation is one voice among many and it has to be assumed that everyone wants what is best for the region and that we believe that open debate and democracy are the ways to achieve this and bring everyone along.

If the Security Council is controlled by puppets then each puppets status would need to be decided in the “courts”. The draft constitution excludes people with an interest being involved in the court case and so it should be possible for the Founder Nation to take action and then go to court to prove that the action was legitimate and the recent law passed by the Security Council was not valid because of the proven irregularities. And this does not involve the Founder Nation having a veto.

Then I suggest you use other term other than veto.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  South Macwick on Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:35 pm

Please can other nations post their views of a Founder Nations’ veto and if we need one considering the powers they have set out in Article VI?
avatar
South Macwick
Recognized State

Posts : 41
Join date : 2014-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  Great Eurussia on Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:08 pm

South Macwick wrote:Please can other nations post their views of a Founder Nations’ veto and if we need one considering the powers they have set out in Article VI?

Thank you.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Closed

Post  Great Eurussia on Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:09 am

Closed due to inactivity.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Discussion) New Constitution

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum