|
Post by Nyelant on May 3, 2018 23:35:45 GMT
Sure. Any thoughts on my submission for 2.2?
|
|
|
Post by Lady Cari on May 4, 2018 16:03:49 GMT
Sure. Any thoughts on my submission for 2.2? I think that citizen non-legislators should be barred from submitting legislation altogether, and should instead have a legislator submit in their name.
|
|
|
Post by hromos on May 9, 2018 21:40:49 GMT
*seconds Cari*
|
|
|
Post by United Barbaros on May 11, 2018 0:28:21 GMT
This all looks good.
|
|
Rhein
Veteran Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by Rhein on May 13, 2018 17:47:20 GMT
Section IV is problematic. 15 is still rather low. Looking at current activity and being realstic about recruitment it is hard to have 2 houses at all.
In The Allied States, a region I have resided for a long time, they always revised government every 1,5 to 2 years. The reason for it was that activity dropped, yet every revision did not solve the problem long term.
The REAL issue was that everyone wanted to create legislation, yet few, acutally, nobody, wanted to execute the legislation and there was no control on the executive, so officials soon lost interest and nothing got done.
I would propose to give the legislative even more powers and limit powers of the executive. There would be more options, here below is the one I made for another region:
SECTION 1 :: DESCRIPTION OF THE BODY
1. The Senate shall be the most powerful government body in this region, having Parliamentary Sovereignty but will not be more powerful than our constitution, having Constitutional Supremacy. 2. The Senate shall be an elected body of government with a set number of senators, able to grow as this constitution sets forth. 3. The Senate shall be unable to directly amend this constitution and shall not have the right to pass laws that conflict with this constitution.
SECTION 2 :: MEMBERSHIP AND VACANCIES
1. The members of the Senate shall be known as Senators. 2. Each nation being resident in either REGION, or a subsidiary region, and is a citizen on the forums, may become candidate in the senate elections. 3. Senators shall be elected for a 2 month term. 4. The Senate shall consist of 3 senators and may be expanded every Senate General Election with 2 additional seats by the members of the Senate. 5. The elections for Senate will be divided into: General Elections and every other month Midterm Elections. 6. If a seat becomes vacant a by-election will be held, unless it happens less than 7 days before next elections in which the seat would have been up for election anyway. 7. If a senator has been inactive for more than 5 days without notice, his/her seat shall be considered vacant, thus removing the senator from office.
SECTION 3 :: TASKS OF THE SENATE The Senate of REGION shall have the tasks to:
1. Create functional legislation, Role-play legislation and Acts of Parliament. 2. Approve or disapprove embassies, alliances or any other form of agreements with other regions. 3. Act as the final court in civil or criminal cases, as a court of cassation and shall be regulated by Act of Parliament 4. Oversee the activities of the executive and may investigate those activities. 5. In case the founder ceases to exist additional powers shall be granted to the senate according to Article 7, Section 1. 6. In cases laid down by Act of Parliament senators may be suspended or dismissed.
SECTION 4 :: SPEAKER OF THE SENATE
1. The Senate Speaker shall be elected by the senators among themselfs. 2. The Speaker shall be responsible for the organisation of the senate floors (draft, debate, pending, at vote, passed and failed legislation sub-forums) 3. The Senators and Directors, or anyone speaking in the senate, never speak directly against each other but always through or to the Speaker.
|
|
|
Post by hromos on May 13, 2018 22:35:50 GMT
1. With parliamentary sovereignty...I can see the appeal, but I joined in part because this is a constitutional monarchy--I like the monarch having the ultimate authority in what happens. This last point may be moot because it is in the constitution, but I still think it is an important point to make.
2. If we WERE to give the House the ultimate power, we would need to sort out how we can amend the constitution. We shouldn't have the House be able to make the laws, amend the constitution, AND be the most powerful--especially if citizens are no longer to be the ultimate decisionmakers (as they were with the 2-house system).
|
|
|
Post by Nyelant on May 13, 2018 23:35:01 GMT
I also like the dynamic seats of the "Legislature", which is not included in this draft. I do, however, appreciate the effort. Plus, constitutional monarchies are good.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Cari on May 14, 2018 0:28:01 GMT
Great, I'm going to be here a while... SECTION 1 :: DESCRIPTION OF THE BODY1. The Senate shall be the most powerful government body in this region, having Parliamentary Sovereignty but will not be more powerful than our constitution, having Constitutional Supremacy. Londinium always has been a constitutional monarchy (well, ever since the first Constitution was penned). At this time, total sovereignty is vested in the Monarch, with the other branches operating under separation of powers and checks and balances. The way this has been put into practice is that the Monarch has let the legislature and Cabinet run the government of the region, while he focused more on formalities and OOC administrative tasks (his most drastic use of IC power is likely the formation of the militia). And as heir/acting Monarch, despite my dictatorial personal leanings, I support and intend to continue this practice. Okay, maybe 2-month terms will work better than what we have now. But I can't understand the wording of clause 4, and labeling them "General" and "Midterm" elections makes little sense if Senators are the only thing we're electing both times (note that such terminology would be completely pointless next to our three-month PM periods). Londinium's not fast-paced enough for this short of a time frame. And I ain't running elections every couple weeks just because someone takes an unannounced break. You also need to define "inactive", no matter what the timeframe is. RP legislation? Nope nope nope. I think our RP directors would agree. Do I hear "red tape"? I've been in a wide spectrum of regions, and not one of them had embassies put to a vote. Speaking as a citizen, "...what?" Speaking as a justice, "Objection." Speaking as a dictator: "There goes separation of powers." Article 7 of what?
|
|
Rhein
Veteran Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by Rhein on May 14, 2018 6:51:31 GMT
Nevermind, EDIT: I shall explain myself, to not look like a fool. I made this for another region, who was planned to be a Republic... It cannot just be copied, it's just an example. Here you can read the full constitution. s15.zetaboards.com/URON/topic/10422561/1/The rotation is very high because of the powers legislators get. Ever heard of a Court of Cassation? It is an addition to the judicial system, not replacing it and has a different power. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_cassationEDIT 2: I would change article 7, since I learned that NationStates can be more 'hostile'.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Cari on May 14, 2018 13:39:45 GMT
Nevermind, EDIT: I shall explain myself, to not look like a fool. I made this for another region, who was planned to be a Republic... It cannot just be copied, it's just an example. Here you can read the full constitution. s15.zetaboards.com/URON/topic/10422561/1/The rotation is very high because of the powers legislators get. Alright, I admit I missed that the point was "I would propose to give the legislative even more powers and limit powers of the executive" rather than "We should restructure our government to be just like this bill that makes up most of the post." If you could revise the bill to be something more fitting with our regional structure, I'd at least look over it open-mindedly. [/quote] Alrighty. Such a court is a completely foreign concept to me, but I would likely not oppose it.
|
|
Rhein
Veteran Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by Rhein on May 14, 2018 16:16:39 GMT
Nah, on second thought, I shall propose something you all might agree with more... 'takes some time' Idea
I shall incorporate Nyelant 's idea of an open assembly, open to all who are allowed. 'rough' draft: www.nationstates.net/nation=the_rhein_states/detail=factbook/id=1026952Synopsis1. Council-Manager style of government in which the Prime Minister is appoint by the legislative. He/She does not hold executive authority to make big decisions, which the legislative body retains. 2. Nyelant's idea has been incorporated as an act of parliament which allows the legislative (All) what the requirements for membership are. 3. I streamlined the executive by combining two ministers and removing one. The rest remains the same P.S. The 'red tape' has stayed since the executives serves the legislative (members) and not the other way around. P.S.2 Could you explain a bit more about your systems in place?
|
|
|
Post by hromos on May 15, 2018 7:29:40 GMT
I like the sound of the Council-Manager style--considering the size of the participating group, it seems to be a better fit. However, since the Monarchy is considered a part of the executive in the constitution, I'd be curious about how the manager would "cross over", so to speak.
With the legislative holding so much power over what is essentially an executive position in the manager, I think an official "whistle-blower" position should be incorporated. I do not remember if our court system is active or passive when it comes to cases--if active, then the court itself acts as a whistle-blower. If passive, a separate whistle-blower office that is able to bring cases to court would keep the legislation in check (I am assuming the legislation does not need any such office themselves because they are active and are in more direct control over the execution of laws in the Council-manager system).
|
|
Rhein
Veteran Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by Rhein on May 15, 2018 8:50:56 GMT
Thanks Hromos, for your interest and your concerns.
The founder remains to hold its powers and is not subject to change. He is not considered the manager. The only change I have made is to make the assembly more powerful and took away some power from the prime minister. Sadly, the feeling something is missing creeps on me.
I do not know anything about your judicial system and cannot comment on this yet.
|
|
|
Post by United Barbaros on May 16, 2018 4:56:50 GMT
Does anyone see any flaws (potential or not) with how we have the Judiciary?
We have the Attorney General to act as the main prosecutor, three justices (including a Lord Chancellor) to process evidence, give out a verdict for each case, and to appropriately sentence defendants as required. We also have the opening of the office of the Defense Attorney to act on the defendants behalf per request in the case.
Do we need anything else?
Perhaps we could have a jury maybe. That way, verdicts are given by members of the region, and not solely by three individuals.
|
|
Rhein
Veteran Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by Rhein on May 20, 2018 8:58:33 GMT
|
|