|
Post by hromos on Sept 3, 2017 5:33:42 GMT
Again, a minimum should be set for the number of members in the Upper House. While the constitution states we start with 5, nowhere is this made a cutoff.
A rogue PM could technically remove all but 1 seat in the Upper House. Anything decided by that one member would technically pass the 2/3 rule. (For example, the judiciary could be ruined with this).
|
|
|
Post by hromos on Sept 3, 2017 5:38:04 GMT
Just a thought...it may be good to put in the constitution somewhere a mechanism by which the Assembly can submit a law to review to the Upper House. It wouldn't necessarily have to be 50%+1, could be only 33% -- just enough to show that a sizeable part of the Assembly sees a problem which the Upper House should address.
|
|
|
Post by hromos on Sept 3, 2017 5:48:04 GMT
GUYS, THERE'S A FLAW/HOLE. It let's a rogue PM take control.
Monarch disappears, PM becomes standing monarch according to the constitution. According to the constitution, the Cabinet decides who becomes the next monarch...except the PM can dismiss them and appoint a friendly cabinet. Technically, they can then just name the PM the monarch--and there's no rule preventing anyone from being monarch and PM at the same time. In a slightly different scenario, a buddy to the PM becomes monarch OR the PM becomes monarch and appoints a buddy as the new PM. One workaround is placing a rule where the standing cabinet cannot be removed until a new monarch is found or something like that.
From my previous posts, you can see the results of a rogue PM on the legislature and judiciary.
|
|
|
Post by hromos on Sept 3, 2017 5:49:52 GMT
One other question: in removing a monarch, does the 3/4 majority mean the Assembly, the upper house, or both?
|
|
|
Post by Bymaria on Sept 3, 2017 9:21:20 GMT
GUYS, THERE'S A FLAW/HOLE. It let's a rogue PM take control. Monarch disappears, PM becomes standing monarch according to the constitution. According to the constitution, the Cabinet decides who becomes the next monarch...except the PM can dismiss them and appoint a friendly cabinet. Technically, they can then just name the PM the monarch--and there's no rule preventing anyone from being monarch and PM at the same time. In a slightly different scenario, a buddy to the PM becomes monarch OR the PM becomes monarch and appoints a buddy as the new PM. One workaround is placing a rule where the standing cabinet cannot be removed until a new monarch is found or something like that. From my previous posts, you can see the results of a rogue PM on the legislature and judiciary. Hopefully nothing like this will ever happen, but it would be a good idea to be prepared. I was also thinking that we should add articles of impeachment (i.e. What is an impeachable offense?). Collusion with another region *cough* Trump *cough*, abuse of power and inactivity should all qualify. Maybe the judiciary can decide once they are established?
|
|
|
Post by germanempire on Sept 3, 2017 10:58:45 GMT
Thing is Like Mr trumps case you have to have a Proof of the "colusion" and abuse of Power and there for need a Definition of a case where this is able to become a lawsuit
|
|
|
Post by Bymaria on Sept 3, 2017 14:45:14 GMT
Collusion would be harder to prove, but I suspect abuse of power would be fairly easy.
|
|
|
Post by germanempire on Sept 3, 2017 17:40:20 GMT
Difine abuse of Power
|
|
|
Post by hromos on Sept 3, 2017 18:24:10 GMT
Abuse of power could go on a case by case basis by holding a poll for the Assembly. I know that isn't a rigid definition, but I think an abuse of power has the issue of technically being able to play by the rules.
|
|
|
Post by germanempire on Sept 3, 2017 19:46:52 GMT
Thing is , if we grant somebody the Power to be the head of our government , should we really dictate him what the Best for the region is ? We have to clearify what an abuse is , otherwise everything could be an abuse and thus render our government incapable of acting how they intended when they were being voted for
|
|
|
Post by Fortwhile on Sept 3, 2017 20:34:19 GMT
hromos, you've brought up some super important points.
I think though, we do need to get a constitution voted on and permanent government in place soon. I think some of your points could be addressed in the legislature once it's actually convened (i.e. your loophole observation is important, but I promise I won't vanish any time soon!)
I think once the constitution is updated with all the decisions on the outstanding issues, we should present it for a vote and then get a legislature in place that can address these issues more in-depth!
|
|
|
Post by Lady Cari on Sept 3, 2017 22:27:32 GMT
Questions: 1. Is a member of the upper house still a member of the Assembly of All? Depending on the size of the Upper House, the two-thirds vote could really impact the vote made by the Assembly of All IF an Upper Houser is allowed to vote on something as part of the Assembly after having voted for it in the Upper House. 2. Since it is still up for debate, we could called the Upper House the "Voted Assembly" or the "Chosen Assembly", or "Voted House",etc. 3. A maximum number of judges for the judiciary (or at least a way to derive a max number via votes from the Upper House or Assembly) should be figured out. A rogue PM could appoint a ton of judges in their favor and own the judiciary (FDR, anyone?). 4. Just an opinion, the judiciary should be fleshed out a bit more. 1. No. The Upper House is specifically excluded from the Assembly. 3. But they would have to be confirmed by the Upper House. PM would also have to own them. 4. Not really much more to say, unless you have any ideas. (In response to other post) Since I tend to think of voting in terms of percentages, I thought it obvious that a lower percentage wouldn't be rounded up. Pretty much anyone accepts that 66-34 Senate votes do not constitute two-thirds. I can fix this if enough others think it's an issue, though.) (wow that sounded uninentionally passive-agressive--i'm tired)
|
|
|
Post by Lady Cari on Sept 3, 2017 22:29:16 GMT
I'll address other points later when I can make a cohesive argument. *falls asleep*
|
|
|
Post by hromos on Sept 4, 2017 5:41:04 GMT
Questions: 1. Is a member of the upper house still a member of the Assembly of All? Depending on the size of the Upper House, the two-thirds vote could really impact the vote made by the Assembly of All IF an Upper Houser is allowed to vote on something as part of the Assembly after having voted for it in the Upper House. 2. Since it is still up for debate, we could called the Upper House the "Voted Assembly" or the "Chosen Assembly", or "Voted House",etc. 3. A maximum number of judges for the judiciary (or at least a way to derive a max number via votes from the Upper House or Assembly) should be figured out. A rogue PM could appoint a ton of judges in their favor and own the judiciary (FDR, anyone?). 4. Just an opinion, the judiciary should be fleshed out a bit more. 1. No. The Upper House is specifically excluded from the Assembly. 3. But they would have to be confirmed by the Upper House. PM would also have to own them. 4. Not really much more to say, unless you have any ideas. (In response to other post) Since I tend to think of voting in terms of percentages, I thought it obvious that a lower percentage wouldn't be rounded up. Pretty much anyone accepts that 66-34 Senate votes do not constitute two-thirds. I can fix this if enough others think it's an issue, though.) (wow that sounded uninentionally passive-agressive--i'm tired) Not passive aggressive at all. I keep writing on here at wee hours, so if my reasoning is off, let me know. For 3.: Because I don't see a provision preventing the PM from removing any seats from the Upper House he deems "necessary", he could strip the House of anyone who disagrees. For filling out the judiciary...is this an active or passive judiciary? Does a trial have to be brought to the court to allow the court to make a decision, or can the court just call people and laws out on their unconstitutionalism? (Is "unconstitutionalism" a word? "Unconstitutionality"?)
|
|
|
Post by germanempire on Sept 4, 2017 11:50:49 GMT
How about we help the judges with somebody that brings injustice to their attention? A lawyer of the state
|
|