NATION

PASSWORD

[TWI ONLY] The Senate of the Western Isles

Where nations come together and discuss matters of varying degrees of importance. [In character]

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Verdon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 677
Founded: Apr 27, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Verdon » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:30 pm

I really don't think this changes enough to warrant the legislation. This is very situational, it only applies to a certain people and in general, I'm against things that make that sort of provision.

It just seems very negligible. While it fixes a very specific problem, It doesn't really improve the region, or affect the general populace.
I don't feel like I'm being treated unfairly, even if I would lose my vouches when running for another office. I know what's at stake.

I agree with the sentiment that becoming a senator shouldn't be a fall-back plan or a second option. I agree that you should focus on one aspect of serving the region when attempting to join the regional government.

However, I think our region deals with these occasions well by natural course of action. Nations who tend to jump from position to position or run in subsequent elections time after time tend to do poorly. Wildelyn, who held multiple offices eventually showed his hand as a poor officer. GI, who ran multiple times in a row suffered multiple defeats. Polar, who ran two times in a row was accused of only trying to vie for power and thus spent a long stretch of time out of government and, in my opinion, maturing his administrative ability before he finally got enough credibility to hold office again.

So what if Callumstan becomes a senator after losing a justice election? Will he even get that last vouch after losing by such a margin? Will it be from a new nation? Will he get burned when that new nation ends up not sticking around and his 3rd vouch is pulled? Didn't we just increase the power of senators that attract more vouches than the minimum 3?

I'm trying to find some way to justify this legislation, but I just can't.

User avatar
Verdon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 677
Founded: Apr 27, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Verdon » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:36 pm

Also we'll remind senator Doppler that a minimum 24 hours must elapse before we can move on to a vote. Debate started at 5:29 PM UTC-8 or 8:29 PM EST, thus a motion to vote can be called for tomorrow at the same time.

User avatar
Agadar
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7776
Founded: Dec 06, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Agadar » Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:42 am

Verdon, I feel like your entire argument against the amendment essentially boils down to 'it's too small and narrow a thing for us to bother making a law about'.

I don't really agree with that. The amendment fundamentally discourages people that only want to be in offices for the sake of power. It removes the safety net of vouches. As small and narrow as this amendment is, I don't think the positive consequences it has are to be underestimated.
Proud resident of The Western Isles, the #1 role-playing region!
Developer of Telegrammer, NS API Java Wrapper, and more!

User avatar
The Pacific Peace Union
Diplomat
 
Posts: 693
Founded: Jun 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby The Pacific Peace Union » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:53 am

Verdon wrote:However, I think our region deals with these occasions well by natural course of action. Nations who tend to jump from position to position or run in subsequent elections time after time tend to do poorly. Wildelyn, who held multiple offices eventually showed his hand as a poor officer. GI, who ran multiple times in a row suffered multiple defeats. Polar, who ran two times in a row was accused of only trying to vie for power and thus spent a long stretch of time out of government and, in my opinion, maturing his administrative ability before he finally got enough credibility to hold office again.

.


This has nothing to do with vouchers
♔ Secretary of Information, AKA the Honorable Information God of The Western Isles
Winner of The Western Isles' Presidential Award
Former Justice of The Western Isles
✮ Child of Monsanto ✮
♦ I'm With Hillary ♦

User avatar
Verdon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 677
Founded: Apr 27, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Verdon » Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:13 am

Agadar wrote:Verdon, I feel like your entire argument against the amendment essentially boils down to 'it's too small and narrow a thing for us to bother making a law about'.

I don't really agree with that. The amendment fundamentally discourages people that only want to be in offices for the sake of power. It removes the safety net of vouches. As small and narrow as this amendment is, I don't think the positive consequences it has are to be underestimated.

Yes, I think it's unnecessary it's very narrow, it addresses one problem, the problem that it does address isn't a large concern for me or for the region in general as it's not a threat or inhibiting enjoyment of the region. At current, it affects one individual. The problem has arisen once since August an I doubt it will be a frequent concern.

I don't see how this discourages the power-hungry, who will instead just try to find more people to vouch for them after they lose, and if they win, well we're all the fools for electing them.

Also, Peace, you made a statement about people who don't commit to a certain government role, and instead try to run for everything. I was countering with the fact that those people tend to not do well.

User avatar
The Pacific Peace Union
Diplomat
 
Posts: 693
Founded: Jun 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby The Pacific Peace Union » Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:51 am

Verdon wrote:
Agadar wrote:Verdon, I feel like your entire argument against the amendment essentially boils down to 'it's too small and narrow a thing for us to bother making a law about'.

I don't really agree with that. The amendment fundamentally discourages people that only want to be in offices for the sake of power. It removes the safety net of vouches. As small and narrow as this amendment is, I don't think the positive consequences it has are to be underestimated.

At current, it affects one individual. The problem has arisen once since August an I doubt it will be a frequent concern.




It has occurred constantly since August, people abusing the voucher system.
Last edited by The Pacific Peace Union on Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
♔ Secretary of Information, AKA the Honorable Information God of The Western Isles
Winner of The Western Isles' Presidential Award
Former Justice of The Western Isles
✮ Child of Monsanto ✮
♦ I'm With Hillary ♦

User avatar
Doppler
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: Apr 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Doppler » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:25 pm

Verdon wrote:Also we'll remind senator Doppler that a minimum 24 hours must elapse before we can move on to a vote. Debate started at 5:29 PM UTC-8 or 8:29 PM EST, thus a motion to vote can be called for tomorrow at the same time.

Thanks for the clarification. Forgot about the starting time! :P
Proud member of The Western Isles
Please, call me Doppy

User avatar
Verdon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 677
Founded: Apr 27, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Verdon » Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:26 pm

The Pacific Peace Union wrote:It has occurred constantly since August, people abusing the voucher system.


Except have you been vocal about this concern?

I just don't find this a necessary fix. It doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't threaten the region, and it doesn't impede anyone's enjoyment.

User avatar
Agadar
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7776
Founded: Dec 06, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Agadar » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:32 am

It doesn't look like the opinion of Senator Verdon is going to change. I respect his position, but this does mean that further debate is pointless, as no agreement can be reached. I therefore motion to vote.
Last edited by Agadar on Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Proud resident of The Western Isles, the #1 role-playing region!
Developer of Telegrammer, NS API Java Wrapper, and more!

User avatar
Verdon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 677
Founded: Apr 27, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Verdon » Fri Apr 29, 2016 5:49 am

Agreed, I'm more concerned for this taking up our time than it potentially passing.
Second the motion, motion carries. I vote AGAINST

I urge the other senators to vote in a timely fashion.

User avatar
Agadar
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7776
Founded: Dec 06, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Agadar » Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:01 am

I vote FOR.
Proud resident of The Western Isles, the #1 role-playing region!
Developer of Telegrammer, NS API Java Wrapper, and more!

User avatar
Doppler
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: Apr 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Doppler » Fri Apr 29, 2016 8:07 am

I vote FOR.
Proud member of The Western Isles
Please, call me Doppy

User avatar
Alesini
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 403
Founded: Feb 24, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Alesini » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:04 pm

I vote Aye
Overview Factbook
Fauna Factbook
Flags
Common Legends
Traditional Music
Alesinese Italian (Language)
I make flags and national anthems.
Pro's: Russia, Vladimir Putin, Social Democracy, Europe, EU, Cyprus, Western Sahara Independence, US States Right Secede, Crimean Annexation, Republic of China (Taiwan), Secularism, Humanism, Science, Education, Space Research, Bernie Sanders, Free Speech, UK
Anti's: David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Donald Trump, Barrack Obama, Ted Cruz, Current US Government, US Interventionism, Israel's Wars, Anti Semitism, Racism, Political Correctness, European Gun Laws, US Capitalism, Radical Communism/Socialism, Fascism, National Socialism, UKIP, Radicalised Religion, Erdogan, Current Turkish Government, Anarchy, North Cyprus

User avatar
Agadar
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7776
Founded: Dec 06, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Agadar » Sat Apr 30, 2016 4:40 am

Grace Period Act

"A law to ensure Executive and Judicial Officers are protected from being challenged to an election too soon after the previous challenge election



Preamble

The Constitution states among other things in Article V, Section 4: 'Challenge elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent a reasonable period of time in office, or the defending officer is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling their duties.' The adjective 'reasonable' in this sentence is highly subjective, and thus the length of the described 'period of time' differs between persons and between Presidents. This law seeks to resolve this problem by defining explicitly a number of days following a challenge election during which an Executive or Judicial Officer may not be challenged to a new election.

Grace Period

(1) After an election for an Executive or Judicial Office, the winner of the election may not be challenged to a new election for the same office until at least 30 days have passed since taking office, or he is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling his duties.

(2) This law does not limit the Constitutional rights of the President, the Supreme Court, and the Founder to dismiss officers from their office.


I was thinking this might be better as a Constitutional amendment. Thoughts?
Proud resident of The Western Isles, the #1 role-playing region!
Developer of Telegrammer, NS API Java Wrapper, and more!

User avatar
The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 49
Founded: Jan 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture » Sat Apr 30, 2016 6:35 am

The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture
Citizen and Member Nation of The Western Isles - No Political Position
Voluntary Testimony of Assertion and Opinion


_______________________________



According to Senator Agadar - A proposal to establish a 'grace period' for recently elected Justices and Executives.
Agadar wrote:
Grace Period Act

"A law to ensure Executive and Judicial Officers are protected from being challenged to an election too soon after the previous challenge election



Preamble

The Constitution states among other things in Article V, Section 4: 'Challenge elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent a reasonable period of time in office, or the defending officer is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling their duties.' The adjective 'reasonable' in this sentence is highly subjective, and thus the length of the described 'period of time' differs between persons and between Presidents. This law seeks to resolve this problem by defining explicitly a number of days following a challenge election during which an Executive or Judicial Officer may not be challenged to a new election.

Grace Period

(1) After an election for an Executive or Judicial Office, the winner of the election may not be challenged to a new election for the same office until at least 30 days have passed since taking office, or he is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling his duties.

(2) This law does not limit the Constitutional rights of the President, the Supreme Court, and the Founder to dismiss officers from their office.


I was thinking this might be better as a Constitutional amendment. Thoughts?



_______________________________



Firstly, On the Topic of Constitutionality:
It is of the opinion of the GRCP, that the passage of this act is unconstitutional, and thus, must be in the form of an amendment in order to successfully be enacted as policy. This legislation is, by opinion of the GRCP, unconstitutional, under the two provisions that: A) this act modifies a quality or property of positions within the Judicial Branch and Executive Branch, positions defined in the Constitution, and B) this act modifies a process delineated and defined within the Constitution.

To elaborate on my provisions, my first point is that it modifies a position in the Judicial Branch and Executive Branch that is explicitly defined in the Constitution. This modification is the addition of the property of "immunity" or specifically "immunity from challenge for a certain duration" . The property of "immunity" is not explicitly granted nor explicitly denied. However, the Constitution acts as framework for the both the proceedings of the Justice, as well as the proceedings of Legislature, and thus, I assert the following:

If the Constitution presides over all government functions, and If the properties and capabilities of any government position are delineated within the Constitution, therefor in any instance where a property or capability of a an official government position is added, removed, or modified by Legislature, an amendment to the Constitution is required.


To further elaborate on my provisions, my second point is that this act modifies and actively restricts an explicit procedure delineated in the Constitution. This act restricts the procedure of a challenge (defined in the Constitution), and denies the action of a challenge for a certain period of time. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Legislature the ability to restrict a Constitutionally defined procedure , without, first, a Constitutional Amendment. Therefor, I assert the following:

If the Constitution presides over all government functions, and If the functions and procedures of government, including challenges, are delineated within the Constitution, then therefor in any instance where a procedure delineated in the Constitution is added, removed, or modified by Legislature, an amendment to the Constitution is required.


My assertions are referential to Article IV and Article V of the Constitution.

_______________________________


Secondly, On the Topic of Viability:
Assuming that the act is rewritten in the format of a Constitutional Amendment, and that all assertions within the amendment are to remain the same upon conversion from act to amendment, then I would like to provide my opinion on the concept of Judicial Grace Periods and Executive Grace Periods.

1. --- I assert that this amendment is advantageous in concept, in that is lowers the fear associated with running for public office, and subsequently encourages public involvement.

2. --- I assert that this amendment is advantageous in concept, in that it protects the rights of 'the novice officer' defined as an inexperienced individual in an official position, allowing for development, self-improvement, and education in properly fulfilling the role of the position.

3. --- I assert that this amendment is inadequate in wording, in that the following: "...or he is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling his duties." (in Grace Period, Point 1) is ambiguous, inadequately defined, and inadequately assigns jurisdiction to the determining party.

4. --- I assert that this amendment is disagreeable in wording, in that the aspect of the "Executive Grace Period" (Grace Period Section, Point 1) should be modified, distinguished, or removed.

4 --- A. --- I reinforce that my assertion on the amendment is agreeable in concept, in that the aspect of the "Executive Grace Period" should be defined in a separate subsection in the amendment, distinguished from Judiciary Grace Periods, as the amendment would modify separate articles in the Constitution.

5. --- I assert that this amendment is disadvantageous in concept: in that it evokes a potential 'disruption period'. This disruption period is during the thirty days of immunity, in which the proceedings within the Supreme Court could potentially be disrupted by an "immune" Justice, who can only be removed by a presidential order, an order of the Supreme Court, or a Founder action, or a majority vote of 'treasonous offense'. (Article VI of the Constitution)

5. --- I reiterate that this amendment is disadvantageous in concept: in that it evokes a potential 'disruption period'. This disruption period is during the thirty days of immunity, in which the proceedings within the Executive Branch could potentially be disrupted by an "immune" Executive, who can only be removed by removed by an order of the Supreme Court, or a Founder action, or a majority vote of 'treasonous offense'. (Article VI of the Constitution)



_______________________________


I conclude with the assertion that I disagree with the proposed resolution in its current state,
due to issues in constitutionality and wording.
Thank you for your time.

- GRCP
Last edited by The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture on Sat Apr 30, 2016 6:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture
Proud Member of The Western Isles

Factbook Hub : Niederscheld International Airport
National Ideology | Economy | Military | Government

User avatar
Agadar
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7776
Founded: Dec 06, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Agadar » Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:53 am

3. --- I assert that this amendment is inadequate in wording, in that the following: "...or he is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling his duties." (in Grace Period, Point 1) is ambiguous, inadequately defined, and inadequately assigns jurisdiction to the determining party.


I copied that last part directly from the Constitution for clarity's sake. This law/amendment is meant to tackle the ambiguity of the 'reasonable period of time' part, not the ambiguity of the 'or he is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling his duties' part. It could be included, but that would increase the scope of the law/amendment outside of its original target.

4 --- A. --- I reinforce that my assertion on the amendment is agreeable in concept, in that the aspect of the "Executive Grace Period" should be defined in a separate subsection in the amendment, distinguished from Judiciary Grace Periods, as the amendment would modify separate articles in the Constitution.


I see only one article in the Constitution that would need to be changed. What other articles would need to be changed according to you?

5. --- I assert that this amendment is disadvantageous in concept: in that it evokes a potential 'disruption period'. This disruption period is during the thirty days of immunity, in which the proceedings within the Supreme Court could potentially be disrupted by an "immune" Justice, who can only be removed by a presidential order, an order of the Supreme Court, or a Founder action, or a majority vote of 'treasonous offense'. (Article VI of the Constitution)

5. --- I reiterate that this amendment is disadvantageous in concept: in that it evokes a potential 'disruption period'. This disruption period is during the thirty days of immunity, in which the proceedings within the Executive Branch could potentially be disrupted by an "immune" Executive, who can only be removed by removed by an order of the Supreme Court, or a Founder action, or a majority vote of 'treasonous offense'. (Article VI of the Constitution)


This is irrelevant in the context of the law/amendment as the 'disruption period' you describe already exists, only instead of being a set number of days it is a 'reasonable amount of time'.
Proud resident of The Western Isles, the #1 role-playing region!
Developer of Telegrammer, NS API Java Wrapper, and more!

User avatar
The Pacific Peace Union
Diplomat
 
Posts: 693
Founded: Jun 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby The Pacific Peace Union » Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:24 am

Doesn't this kind of go against our whole challenge system and give every single officer a guaranteed 30 days in office?
♔ Secretary of Information, AKA the Honorable Information God of The Western Isles
Winner of The Western Isles' Presidential Award
Former Justice of The Western Isles
✮ Child of Monsanto ✮
♦ I'm With Hillary ♦

User avatar
Agadar
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7776
Founded: Dec 06, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Agadar » Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:49 am

The Pacific Peace Union wrote:Doesn't this kind of go against our whole challenge system and give every single officer a guaranteed 30 days in office?


It isn't guaranteed: the President, Supreme Court or Founder can still dismiss an officer from office.

What this law seeks to do is give election winners some breathing space to settle in office, learn the ropes, and earn the trust of the region before they're suddenly challenged again. This breathing space already exists, but its length is entirely up to the President to decide because the Constitution nor any existing laws explicitly define a minimum length for this breathing space; just that it exists.
Proud resident of The Western Isles, the #1 role-playing region!
Developer of Telegrammer, NS API Java Wrapper, and more!

User avatar
Verdon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 677
Founded: Apr 27, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Verdon » Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:53 am

Agree that it will need to be redrafted as an amendment.

Viability:
1 - I'm doubtful that this legislation will in any way influence the rate at which member nations will challenge for office.

3 - That's just as ambiguous as the current provisions made by the constitution. Are you in favor of giving the constitution more finite definitions of those terms? That could be something else to include in the bill

4A. - This legislation should only be modifying Article V, as it covers both executive and judicial elections and challenges.

5 - The potential disruptions happen regardless. Must I use Wildelyn as an example, again? He was in office 6(?) days before being removed, and would have even if this legislation were in place.

Agadar, are there any other provisions you can think of that you would like to see amended to the current election & challenge system? I'd be more supportive of this if there were more provisions being made.

User avatar
Agadar
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7776
Founded: Dec 06, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Agadar » Sat Apr 30, 2016 9:13 am

Verdon wrote:Agree that it will need to be redrafted as an amendment.

Viability:
1 - I'm doubtful that this legislation will in any way influence the rate at which member nations will challenge for office.

3 - That's just as ambiguous as the current provisions made by the constitution. Are you in favor of giving the constitution more finite definitions of those terms? That could be something else to include in the bill

4A. - This legislation should only be modifying Article V, as it covers both executive and judicial elections and challenges.

5 - The potential disruptions happen regardless. Must I use Wildelyn as an example, again? He was in office 6(?) days before being removed, and would have even if this legislation were in place.

Agadar, are there any other provisions you can think of that you would like to see amended to the current election & challenge system? I'd be more supportive of this if there were more provisions being made.


Its scope could be expanded to also tackle the ambiguities of the '... or he is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling his duties.' part of the sentence. Exactly how is something we could discuss. How would we define inactivity? Being completely absent for, say, a week?

Other than that, there are no ambiguities in Article V of the Constitution that I see.
Proud resident of The Western Isles, the #1 role-playing region!
Developer of Telegrammer, NS API Java Wrapper, and more!

User avatar
The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 49
Founded: Jan 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture » Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:52 am

Agadar wrote:
3. --- I assert that this amendment is inadequate in wording, in that the following: "...or he is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling his duties." (in Grace Period, Point 1) is ambiguous, inadequately defined, and inadequately assigns jurisdiction to the determining party.


I copied that last part directly from the Constitution for clarity's sake. This law/amendment is meant to tackle the ambiguity of the 'reasonable period of time' part, not the ambiguity of the 'or he is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling his duties' part. It could be included, but that would increase the scope of the law/amendment outside of its original target.

4 --- A. --- I reinforce that my assertion on the amendment is agreeable in concept, in that the aspect of the "Executive Grace Period" should be defined in a separate subsection in the amendment, distinguished from Judiciary Grace Periods, as the amendment would modify separate articles in the Constitution.


I see only one article in the Constitution that would need to be changed. What other articles would need to be changed according to you?

5. --- I assert that this amendment is disadvantageous in concept: in that it evokes a potential 'disruption period'. This disruption period is during the thirty days of immunity, in which the proceedings within the Supreme Court could potentially be disrupted by an "immune" Justice, who can only be removed by a presidential order, an order of the Supreme Court, or a Founder action, or a majority vote of 'treasonous offense'. (Article VI of the Constitution)

5. --- I reiterate that this amendment is disadvantageous in concept: in that it evokes a potential 'disruption period'. This disruption period is during the thirty days of immunity, in which the proceedings within the Executive Branch could potentially be disrupted by an "immune" Executive, who can only be removed by removed by an order of the Supreme Court, or a Founder action, or a majority vote of 'treasonous offense'. (Article VI of the Constitution)


This is irrelevant in the context of the law/amendment as the 'disruption period' you describe already exists, only instead of being a set number of days it is a 'reasonable amount of time'.


I see only one article in the Constitution that would need to be changed. What other articles would need to be changed according to you?


In a previous assertion, I stated that the amendment would add a 'property of immunity for a set duration' to any position in the executive or judicial branch.
Therefore, it'd be necessary to add the clause:

- All positions are immune from removal from office by challenge for 30 days

to Article II and Article III, and their appropriate sections.
The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture
Proud Member of The Western Isles

Factbook Hub : Niederscheld International Airport
National Ideology | Economy | Military | Government

User avatar
Agadar
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7776
Founded: Dec 06, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Agadar » Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:00 pm

The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture wrote:
Agadar wrote:
I copied that last part directly from the Constitution for clarity's sake. This law/amendment is meant to tackle the ambiguity of the 'reasonable period of time' part, not the ambiguity of the 'or he is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling his duties' part. It could be included, but that would increase the scope of the law/amendment outside of its original target.



I see only one article in the Constitution that would need to be changed. What other articles would need to be changed according to you?



This is irrelevant in the context of the law/amendment as the 'disruption period' you describe already exists, only instead of being a set number of days it is a 'reasonable amount of time'.


I see only one article in the Constitution that would need to be changed. What other articles would need to be changed according to you?


In a previous assertion, I stated that the amendment would add a 'property of immunity for a set duration' to any position in the executive or judicial branch.
Therefore, it'd be necessary to add the clause:

- All positions are immune from removal from office by challenge for 30 days

to Article II and Article III, and their appropriate sections.


I don't see why that would be necessary.

Again, the 'immunity' you speak of already exists without being described in the Articles you mentioned, so why add it to them now?
Proud resident of The Western Isles, the #1 role-playing region!
Developer of Telegrammer, NS API Java Wrapper, and more!

User avatar
Agadar
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7776
Founded: Dec 06, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Agadar » Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:28 pm

On another note, I'd like to inform the Speaker and the SPT that the Single Candidacy Amendment has passed with 3 votes for and 1 against.

EDIT: Disregard what I said: the voting period is 48 hours, not 24.
Last edited by Agadar on Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Proud resident of The Western Isles, the #1 role-playing region!
Developer of Telegrammer, NS API Java Wrapper, and more!

User avatar
Dashgrinaar
Minister
 
Posts: 2001
Founded: Apr 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Dashgrinaar » Sun May 01, 2016 6:37 am

The Single Candidacy Amendment (Act 2016) has PASSED 3- 0 - 1 in the Senate, and shall now be presented to the Court for official implementation into the Constitution.

The Pacific Peace Union wrote:
Single Candidacy Amendment

“An amendment to limit the number of offices one can run for simultaneously."



(1) Amends Article V, Section 4 " Any non-officer can challenge an officer for their position through an election. At this point any other non-officer who was not the challenger can also run for the position in the same election. Challenge elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent a reasonable period of time in office, or the defending officer is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling their duties."

to

"Any non-officer, who is not a Senate candidate, can challenge an officer for their position through an election. At this point any other non-officer who was not the challenger and is not a Senate candidate, can also run for the position in the same election. Challenge elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent a reasonable period of time in office, or the defending officer is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling their duties."

(2) Amends Article V, Section 5 "All elections occur via direct member nation vote. All non-officers may run. There is no limit on the amount of candidates that may run."

to

"All elections occur via direct member nation vote. All non-officers, who are not Senate candidates, may run. There is no limit on the amount of candidates that may run.
Last edited by Dashgrinaar on Sun May 01, 2016 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dashgrinaar
Proud Member of The Western Isles
Speaker Pro Tempore and Senator Emeritus
Vice President of The Western Isles

User avatar
Agadar
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7776
Founded: Dec 06, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Agadar » Sun May 01, 2016 11:54 am

Grace Period Specification Amendment

"A Constitutional amendment to specify the duration and conditions of the grace period granted to newly-elected Executive and Judicial Officers."



Preamble

The Constitution states in Article V, Section 4 among other things: 'Challenge elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent a reasonable period of time in office, or the defending officer is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling their duties.' This sentence is filled with ambiguities. It fails to specify the following things:

1. Exactly how long a 'reasonable period of time in office' is;
2. Exactly how long an Executive or Judicial Officer may be inactive during his grace period before his grace period is revoked;
3. What is meant exactly by 'inactive'.

This amendment seeks to specify all three of these ambiguities in the following way:

1. A 'reasonable period of time in office' will be specified to be 25 days;
2. The number of consecutive days an Executive or Judicial Officer may be inactive during his grace period before his grace period is revoked will be specified to be 7 days;
3. 'Inactive' will be specified as being 'completely absent'.

Grace Period Specification

(1) Amends the following sentence in Article V, Section 4: "Challenge elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent a reasonable period of time in office, or the defending officer is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling their duties."

to

"Challenge elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent 25 days in office, or the defending officer is completely absent for 7 or more days without explicit consent from the President, or is otherwise clearly incapable of fulfilling their duties in the eyes of the President."
Proud resident of The Western Isles, the #1 role-playing region!
Developer of Telegrammer, NS API Java Wrapper, and more!

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to NationStates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Greater Miami Shores 3

Advertisement

Remove ads