Aurentine Constitutional Convention [NSG Senate]

[Wolfmanne]

We must allow provinces to have some independence from federal rule. Provincial rights must be protected in our nation.

Of course, those rights however must not include law enforcement or judiciary. We need to ensure there is one law enforcement and judiciary body with one job: to combat crime and put criminals behind bars. Having provincial law enforcement or judiciary goes against this and creates strife within the law enforcement or judiciary bodies.

But we already have local constabularies, which need to come under the oversight of the provincial governments.

[Belmaria]

We must allow provinces to have some independence from federal rule. Provincial rights must be protected in our nation.

Of course, those rights however must not include law enforcement or judiciary. We need to ensure there is one law enforcement and judiciary body with one job: to combat crime and put criminals behind bars. Having provincial law enforcement or judiciary goes against this and creates strife within the law enforcement or judiciary bodies.

Provinces should have judiciary power over misdemeanors and crimes against local laws. And what is wrong with provincial law enforcement? The Americans have the same system.

[Great Nepal]

Of course, those rights however must not include law enforcement or judiciary. We need to ensure there is one law enforcement and judiciary body with one job: to combat crime and put criminals behind bars. Having provincial law enforcement or judiciary goes against this and creates strife within the law enforcement or judiciary bodies.

But we already have local constabularies, which need to come under the oversight of the provincial governments.

Or, they can be local branch of federal law enforcement body.

[Of the Quendi]

So, my proposal for the division of Provinces:

http://i42.tinypic.com/33krxxv.png

Now, I realise it's just a bad paint job but I think it gets the point accross. I followed the borders Hippo had already included when drawing land borders of the provinces. It doesn't show in the map but Leishaagen is federal city.

I believe the large island to the southeast and the small one of its coast should be a province on its own.

Claiming I'm anti-democratic just because I don't support their monarchy idea

That isn't what is being claimed. If you want to call the CMP liers you shouldn't create a straw man. You are being called anti-democratic on the basis of your opposition to self-determination and your call for uniformity.

[Great Nepal]

Of course, those rights however must not include law enforcement or judiciary. We need to ensure there is one law enforcement and judiciary body with one job: to combat crime and put criminals behind bars. Having provincial law enforcement or judiciary goes against this and creates strife within the law enforcement or judiciary bodies.

Provinces should have judiciary power over misdemeanors and crimes against local laws.

No, those should be prosecuted in federal courts which can be built within provinces.

And what is wrong with provincial law enforcement? The Americans have the same system.

Problem with provincial law enforcement is that they will be fighting over jurisdiction, between jurisdictions as well as with federal law enforcement. One unified law enforcement will be much more effective in battle against crime.

[Auralia]

Why do only born persons have the right to life?

[Wolfmanne]

Why do only born persons have the right to life?

Great. First a gun control debate, and now this.

I'm moderate pro-life, I believe 20 weeks is good enough, but it's only fair that we do not include it, like how we're not including the right to bear arms, or a pro-market interpretation of the right to property.

NOW DON'T DISCUSS!

[Jetan]

Looks good. I have a proposal with the National Capital Region inside:

http://i.imgur.com/447EEyB.png

The size of the capital region in that proposal looks good to me.

Is that divided based on party preference? And if so, are those two islands up at the top ours? BTW, the outline kind of looks like a gentleman's sausage

No, it's not based on party preference.

I believe the large island to the southeast and the small one of its coast should be a province on its own.

And the rest of the current black province would go to the brown province? Works for me.

[Britanno]

Why do only born persons have the right to life?

You are not a member of the ACC. Leave now.

[Belmaria]

Provinces should have judiciary power over misdemeanors and crimes against local laws.

No, those should be prosecuted in federal courts which can be built within provinces.

And what is wrong with provincial law enforcement? The Americans have the same system.

Problem with provincial law enforcement is that they will be fighting over jurisdiction, between jurisdictions as well as with federal law enforcement. One unified law enforcement will be much more effective in battle against crime.

But with more local administration there will be less red tape from the central control. Local administration of law allows it to be flexible to meet the needs of various communities.

[Jetan]

No, those should be prosecuted in federal courts which can be built within provinces.


Problem with provincial law enforcement is that they will be fighting over jurisdiction, between jurisdictions as well as with federal law enforcement. One unified law enforcement will be much more effective in battle against crime.

But with more local administration there will be less red tape from the central control. Local administration of law allows it to be flexible to meet the needs of various communities.

Are you seriously trying to argue that having two overlapping systems lessens red tape?

[Great Nepal]

No, those should be prosecuted in federal courts which can be built within provinces.


Problem with provincial law enforcement is that they will be fighting over jurisdiction, between jurisdictions as well as with federal law enforcement. One unified law enforcement will be much more effective in battle against crime.

But with more local administration there will be less red tape from the central control.

How?
Surely local administration would have same level of red tape as central one and we will also have red tape from central government, thus there is double the red tape by having two distinct bodies.

Local administration of law allows it to be flexible to meet the needs of various communities.

Laws shouldn't be flexible. They need to be set in stone and applied to everyone, everywhere.

[Regnum Dominae]

I hereby tender my resignation from the positions of Vice President of Aurentina, Aurentine Senator for District 512, member of the Libertarian Freedom Party, member of the Council of State, member of the Aurentine Constitutional Convention, founder of the Aurentine Civil Liberties Union, member of the Association for the Defense of the Republic, member of Aurentine Citizens for a Secular State, member of the John Locke Institute, and member of the Aurentine Firearms Rights Organization; as well as any other positions which I have not specified here.

I may return, but it probably will not be for quite a while.

[Wolfmanne]

No, those should be prosecuted in federal courts which can be built within provinces.


Problem with provincial law enforcement is that they will be fighting over jurisdiction, between jurisdictions as well as with federal law enforcement. One unified law enforcement will be much more effective in battle against crime.

But with more local administration there will be less red tape from the central control. Local administration of law allows it to be flexible to meet the needs of various communities.

(crap, how am I agreeing with Belmaria?)

Correct, and if these local governments need help in law enforcement, then they can request gendarmes from the MoJ thanks to the Law and Order Improvement Act. In the judiciary system, I'm not sure. On one hand, local courts can handle certain aspects, but they need to be tightly regulated and follow standards set by national courts, including professionally trained judges to conduct the proceedings and give the final verdict, or the criminal procedure. On the other hand, I don't see why regular courts can't deal with local law as well. Judges do need to reside in the jurisdictions they preside over, so they should be well-versed.

[Distruzio]

Indecision is no vice until it is revealed as sourced from a drive for power. You do not, here (or elsewhere that I've seen), possess that drive. Furthermore, how has my suggestion of oversight by both National and Provincial entities not catering to your desire for popularly elected considerations?



I'll ask you the same question then: if simplicity was desired then why did the senate opt for a federal republic instead of a unitary democracy?

I didn't vote on the federal issue...

I think your proposal for a "regent" is not acceptable to me, because I believe the decision to remove the monarch should be a simple vote in the Parliament/legislature. Maybe a higher threshold than the simple majority should be required; although I'd prefer it be a simple majority for this matter.

Understandable. I only suggest a Regent in order that the national government might have an agent of dual loyalty to both it and the people over whom the monarch holds sway. Moreover, I suggest a Regent catapulted into action against a monarch at the request of the provincial representative institutions (however organized) in order that their might be a transitory figure in place while redress of issues concerning the monarch in question occurs. You cannot deny that overnight political upheaval is not in the best interest of anyone, can you? I'm not suggesting that the Regent have a say in the matter at all. He would only be a placeholder; a representative of the national government to the people rejecting said monarch.

Does that make sense?

[Distruzio]

I hereby tender my resignation from the positions of Vice President of Aurentina, Aurentine Senator for District 512, member of the Libertarian Freedom Party, member of the Council of State, member of the Aurentine Constitutional Convention, founder of the Aurentine Civil Liberties Union, member of the Association for the Defense of the Republic, member of Aurentine Citizens for a Secular State, member of the John Locke Institute, and member of the Aurentine Firearms Rights Organization; as well as any other positions which I have not specified here.

I may return, but it probably will not be for quite a while.

I'm sorry to see you go but... bwaha! Gentlemen? I now demand recognition as usurper to the the thrown of Vice Presidency! Huzzah!

... oh... perhaps I've had too much bourbon?

[Welsh Cowboy]

I didn't vote on the federal issue...

I think your proposal for a "regent" is not acceptable to me, because I believe the decision to remove the monarch should be a simple vote in the Parliament/legislature. Maybe a higher threshold than the simple majority should be required; although I'd prefer it be a simple majority for this matter.

Understandable. I only suggest a Regent in order that the national government might have an agent of dual loyalty to both it and the people over whom the monarch holds sway. Moreover, I suggest a Regent catapulted into action against a monarch at the request of the provincial representative institutions (however organized) in order that their might be a transitory figure in place while redress of issues concerning the monarch in question occurs. You cannot deny that overnight political upheaval is not in the best interest of anyone, can you? I'm not suggesting that the Regent have a say in the matter at all. He would only be a placeholder; a representative of the national government to the people rejecting said monarch.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but in my mind, it would be better to, when the monarch is removed, simply have the provincial legislature appoint a temporary placeholder. While I see some merit in having the federal government appoint someone to represent them and serve as placeholder, I believe it should be the province's choice. After all, the national government shouldn't have say in democratic provinces, and I don't see any reason to do so in monarchist provinces.

[Belmaria]

But with more local administration there will be less red tape from the central control. Local administration of law allows it to be flexible to meet the needs of various communities.

(crap, how am I agreeing with Belmaria?)

Correct, and if these local governments need help in law enforcement, then they can request gendarmes from the MoJ thanks to the Law and Order Improvement Act. In the judiciary system, I'm not sure. On one hand, local courts can handle certain aspects, but they need to be tightly regulated and follow standards set by national courts, including professionally trained judges to conduct the proceedings and give the final verdict, or the criminal procedure. On the other hand, I don't see why regular courts can't deal with local law as well. Judges do need to reside in the jurisdictions they preside over, so they should be well-versed.

I pretty much agree with you. Surprising to me as well.

[Great Nepal]

In Regards to Provinces
1. Aurentina shall be divided into provinces which may not be altered unless by ammendment of this constitution, these divisions shall be in an attached document labelled "attachment 3(1)".
2. Provinces shall have powers stated in this clause, and no further unless authorised by presiding federal government for the term of the said federal government.

a) Legislation: Provinces shall have right to pass laws which shall be in effect within the said province provided the said laws do not violate federal laws, this constitution or any applicable directive issued by presiding federal government. If any new directives is issued by presiding federal government which contradicts the provincial laws, contradicting provincial laws are to be suspended for duration of effectiveness of federal governmental directive. Through new laws, provinces may create a crime however these crimes may not be over a delict offence.
b) Executive branch: Provinces shall have right to create an executive branch, lead by an elected chief executive who may be named as per provincial constitution. Chief executive must be elected either from provincial parliament or directly by electorate themselves.
c) Social security: Provinces shall have complete authority over any social security payments in accordance to federal regulations. Social security shall include any form of payment paid by the state to a citizen to assist in the said citizen's livelihood including universal credit, social housing, universal healthcare.
d) Housing: Provinces shall have complete authority over housing regulations provided they do not violate federal laws, federal executive government directives or present clear and present danger to the welfare of the entire federation.
e) Energy: Provinces shall have complete authority over energy production provided, they are able to meet energy requirements of their province. If the province fails to meet energy requirement of their province for period of two weeks continuously or ten weeks over period of a year, federal government may suspend this right and take over production of energy.
f) Amenities: Provinces shall have complete authority other amenities (fire service, public transport, libraries, leisure and recreation, waste collection and waste disposal) unless they are deemed unable to provide any of these by a federal commission in which case, the federal government may suspend this right and take over.
g) Environment: Provinces shall have complete authority over environment of the province and any beautifications carried out within it.
h) Taxation: Provinces shall have right to levy total of five forms of taxation, each one not exceeding 10%.
i) Sub division: Provinces shall have right to create further sub divisions within their province and delegate it with powers, not exceeding the powers province government has. However, provincial government shall be ultimately responsible for any actions carried out by sub divisions they created.

3. 2. Provinces shall have responsibilities stated in this clause, and no further unless authorised by the senate by amending this document.

a) All provinces are to have a elected, unicameral legislature.
b) All provinces must respect and recognise supremacy of the federal government at all times.
c) In any state owned property, whether run by federal authority or by state authority, following code must be abided by at all times:
I) If state flag is flown, a national flag must be flown at an height of 150% from the ground where 100% is the height where state flag is flown.
II) If state name is written, national name must be written above it at all times.
d) Abide by federal laws passed by senate and directives issued by federal government at all times.

Suggested text...

[Welsh Cowboy]

The national flag and name requirements are silly and pointless.

[Distruzio]

Understandable. I only suggest a Regent in order that the national government might have an agent of dual loyalty to both it and the people over whom the monarch holds sway. Moreover, I suggest a Regent catapulted into action against a monarch at the request of the provincial representative institutions (however organized) in order that their might be a transitory figure in place while redress of issues concerning the monarch in question occurs. You cannot deny that overnight political upheaval is not in the best interest of anyone, can you? I'm not suggesting that the Regent have a say in the matter at all. He would only be a placeholder; a representative of the national government to the people rejecting said monarch.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but in my mind, it would be better to, when the monarch is removed, simply have the provincial legislature appoint a temporary placeholder. While I see some merit in having the federal government appoint someone to represent them and serve as placeholder, I believe it should be the province's choice. After all, the national government shouldn't have say in democratic provinces, and I don't see any reason to do so in monarchist provinces.

Thoughtfully, de Medici concedes, "hmmm.... I do believe that is quite acceptable. I admit that my suggestion for that particular national agent was to assure those hostile to subnational monarchy that the national government would not be defenseless against such an entity. But... the threat, you make clear, is to the provincial citizens rather than to the national government. Then I would suggest that, perhaps, the "placeholder" appointed hold the title of regent and that, as you appropriately suggest, the national government have no say in the matter."

[Welsh Cowboy]

It makes sense, but in my mind, it would be better to, when the monarch is removed, simply have the provincial legislature appoint a temporary placeholder. While I see some merit in having the federal government appoint someone to represent them and serve as placeholder, I believe it should be the province's choice. After all, the national government shouldn't have say in democratic provinces, and I don't see any reason to do so in monarchist provinces.

Thoughtfully, de Medici concedes, "hmmm.... I do believe that is quite acceptable. I admit that my suggestion for that particular national agent was to assure those hostile to subnational monarchy that the national government would not be defenseless against such an entity. But... the threat, you make clear, is to the provincial citizens rather than to the national government. Then I would suggest that, perhaps, the "placeholder" appointed hold the title of regent and that, as you appropriately suggest, the national government have no say in the matter."

I don't particularly care about specifics like that.

[Great Nepal]

The national flag and name requirements are silly and pointless.

I dont really mind them much but, I think state governments should recognise supremacy of federal authority and flying flag and writing name over the state's is best way to do that.

[Jetan]

The national flag and name requirements are silly and pointless.

I disagree.

[Distruzio]

In Regards to Provinces
1. Aurentina shall be divided into provinces which may not be altered unless by ammendment of this constitution, these divisions shall be in an attached document labelled "attachment 3(1)".
2. Provinces shall have powers stated in this clause, and no further unless authorised by presiding federal government for the term of the said federal government.

a) Legislation: Provinces shall have right to pass laws which shall be in effect within the said province provided the said laws do not violate federal laws, this constitution or any applicable directive issued by presiding federal government. If any new directives is issued by presiding federal government which contradicts the provincial laws, contradicting provincial laws are to be suspended for duration of effectiveness of federal governmental directive. Through new laws, provinces may create a crime however these crimes may not be over a delict offence.
b) Executive branch: Provinces shall have right to create an executive branch, lead by an elected chief executive who may be named as per provincial constitution. Chief executive must be elected either from provincial parliament or directly by electorate themselves.
c) Social security: Provinces shall have complete authority over any social security payments in accordance to federal regulations. Social security shall include any form of payment paid by the state to a citizen to assist in the said citizen's livelihood including universal credit, social housing, universal healthcare.
d) Housing: Provinces shall have complete authority over housing regulations provided they do not violate federal laws, federal executive government directives or present clear and present danger to the welfare of the entire federation.
e) Energy: Provinces shall have complete authority over energy production provided, they are able to meet energy requirements of their province. If the province fails to meet energy requirement of their province for period of two weeks continuously or ten weeks over period of a year, federal government may suspend this right and take over production of energy.
f) Amenities: Provinces shall have complete authority other amenities (fire service, public transport, libraries, leisure and recreation, waste collection and waste disposal) unless they are deemed unable to provide any of these by a federal commission in which case, the federal government may suspend this right and take over.
g) Environment: Provinces shall have complete authority over environment of the province and any beautifications carried out within it.
h) Taxation: Provinces shall have right to levy total of five forms of taxation, each one not exceeding 10%.
i) Sub division: Provinces shall have right to create further sub divisions within their province and delegate it with powers, not exceeding the powers province government has. However, provincial government shall be ultimately responsible for any actions carried out by sub divisions they created.

3. 2. Provinces shall have responsibilities stated in this clause, and no further unless authorised by the senate by amending this document.

a) All provinces are to have a elected, unicameral legislature.
b) All provinces must respect and recognise supremacy of the federal government at all times.
c) In any state owned property, whether run by federal authority or by state authority, following code must be abided by at all times:
I) If state flag is flown, a national flag must be flown at an height of 150% from the ground where 100% is the height where state flag is flown.
II) If state name is written, national name must be written above it at all times.
d) Abide by federal laws passed by senate and directives issued by federal government at all times.

Suggested text...

I assume that, per the monarchist request, the "elected" executive could be recognized as royalty and, assuming popular subnational sovereignty, enjoy a term limited by the provincial legislature alone - without national interference?