Advertisement
by The Nihilistic view » Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:17 pm
by Beta Test » Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:21 pm
The Nihilistic view wrote:President can't be any longer than 2 months. Otherwise it will just get too boring.
Cutting down the frequency of something people liked the most is not going to do the RP any good at all.
by Estva » Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:22 pm
Great Nepal wrote:Beta Test wrote:Six months is still a long time in the RP. Aurentina's system was elections every two months and that seemed to work well.
Yeah i am keeping that similar for PM, but issue with Aruentina and Baltonia was politicisation of president - president as head of state shouldn't be involved in partisan politics and deal makings, instad they should be voted on character and impartiality. Since we cant ICly change voting (same person will vote for PM and president) so having diffren term lengths should moderate politics involved.
Although if 6 is too long, how about 2 month term for PM and 4 for president? I don't really mind duration as much as concept that they shouldn't have same terms.
by The Nihilistic view » Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:25 pm
by The New World Oceania » Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:10 pm
by Intermountain States » Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:22 pm
The New World Oceania wrote:Get rid of the idea of an elected President and approved Prime Minister, and instead have the elected President and an appointed Supreme Leader. The President is elected as typically whereas a special Council of experts decides on the appointment of the Supreme Leader, with regards to God's choice for the leadership of our glorious nation. President serves for a six month term, Supreme Leader rules for life (OOC nuances and technicalities to be determined).
Then, a bill passes through the parliament (elected members) and goes to the desk of the President for approval. Whether the President (elected) approves or vetoes, the Supreme Leader (appointed by Council (appointed by President then approved by parliament)) can reverse. The President has a Cabinet/Assembly of Advisors appointed by the Supreme Leader. The President and Advisors can pass executive actions which can be vetoed by either the parliament or Supreme Leader. Any bills or actions of questionable legality to the Council, whose decisions are then approved or vetoed by the Supreme Leader. Both the Counciland Supreme Leader are bound by precedent regarding their decisions.
This keeps for a stable, working government. Gridlock will be no issue in our glorious nation and the will of God will be ever-present in the State.
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I'm a third party voter. Trust me when I say this: Not even a lifetime supply of tacos could convince me to vote for either Hillary or Trump. I suspect I'm not the only third party voter who feels that way. I cost Hillary nothing. I cost Trump nothing. If I didn't vote for third party, I would have written in 'Batman'.
If you try to blame me, I will laugh in your face. I'm glad she lost. I got half my wish. :)
by Ainin » Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:36 pm
Great Nepal wrote:They can, someone calls the prosecutor who finds a judge to sign the warrant and gives go ahead.
Either way I have fixed this issue, added exigent circumstance exception.
Ainin wrote:No it isn't. Functional immunity covers international president, prime minister and even some high level ministers...
Nationally speaking sovereign immunity is quite widely accepted, and often goes much further than simply postponing it to such time that person leaves office.
High level government ministers enjoys special protection that others dont: functional immunity, sovereign immunity etc. Justice is always limited by state's interest and state has vested interest in not seeing pictures of its head of state in handcuffed plastered in newspapers.
Plus if you give a homeless guy 12 hour to surrender, you are quite likely not going to find him by then. You give Obama 12 hours to surrender and he flees, you will find him.
That is not absolute though. Even if judge completely ignores all evidence suggesting defendant is guilty of serial murder, sets aside jury verdict releasing the defendant who goes on to murder five people, you can't charge him with reckless manslaughter because what he was doing is covered by judicial immunity.
In this case, it goes even further - you can never prosecute him for his decision whereas executive immunity as in the bill only postpones the judgement until the president in your example is no longer the president (which will be quite quick).
Same with PM: you commit grievous crime covered by your job as PM, you loose the vote of confidence and then you go to jail. This is further reinforced by functional immunity which is equally broad...
I am planning on standing as a prosecutor so...
But seriously, this is quite redundant: 99% of the prosecutors will never charge sitting PM or President for minor crimes and for major crimes they are going to be removed from office anyway. All this does is codify what is subject to tons of dispute (executive privilege in US for example).
by Great Nepal » Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:33 am
The Nihilistic view wrote:President can't be any longer than 2 months. Otherwise it will just get too boring.
Cutting down the frequency of something people liked the most is not going to do the RP any good at all.
Estva wrote:Great Nepal wrote:Yeah i am keeping that similar for PM, but issue with Aruentina and Baltonia was politicisation of president - president as head of state shouldn't be involved in partisan politics and deal makings, instad they should be voted on character and impartiality. Since we cant ICly change voting (same person will vote for PM and president) so having diffren term lengths should moderate politics involved.
Although if 6 is too long, how about 2 month term for PM and 4 for president? I don't really mind duration as much as concept that they shouldn't have same terms.
Politicization is what is going to keep this RP alive.
by Kouralia » Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:51 am
Great Nepal wrote:Part III - Executive privilege
§1 - Immunity from arresta. Any sitting president, vice president, prime minister and ministers (for this part refereed as executive branch) may not be arrested by law enforcement except with arrest warrant signed by a judge or where there exists exigent circumstance requiring their arrest.
b. Where such warrant has been signed, sitting president, vice president and prime minister must be notified in advance and given no less than twelve hours to surrender except where it is determined in opinion of issuing judge that arrestee may flee the jurisdiction if given such notice.
c. Where arresting members of executive branch, it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to keep such arrest private and respectful.
d. Where arresting ministers, it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to notify the prime minister and while arresting prime minister or vice president it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to notify the president.
e. Prior to arrest of sitting member of executive branch, it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to make provisions for security and segregation from general prison populance.
Thoughts so far?
Kouralia wrote:S5 - Powers
(1)All [Law Enforcement Officers] have the power to arrest someone who they have witnessed commit a crime, has reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime, or have been charged to arrest by a warrant (see S5(9)). Resisting a lawful arrest is a crime of RESISTING LAWFUL ARREST. An unjustified arrest will likely constitute a minimum of unlawful application of force to another’s person. Upon arresting someone, as soon as is practicable, the following caution should be read to [The Arrestee]: “I am placing you under arrest for.../under suspicion of… . You do not have to say anything if you do not wish to do so, but anything you do say may be noted in evidence and used against you in a court of law.” This is the POWER OF ARREST.
by Britanno » Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:10 am
Estva wrote:What exactly does "Domestic minister" mean? That is extremely vague.
by The Nihilistic view » Tue Dec 23, 2014 8:39 am
Kouralia wrote:Great Nepal wrote:Part III - Executive privilege
§1 - Immunity from arresta. Any sitting president, vice president, prime minister and ministers (for this part refereed as executive branch) may not be arrested by law enforcement except with arrest warrant signed by a judge or where there exists exigent circumstance requiring their arrest.
b. Where such warrant has been signed, sitting president, vice president and prime minister must be notified in advance and given no less than twelve hours to surrender except where it is determined in opinion of issuing judge that arrestee may flee the jurisdiction if given such notice.
c. Where arresting members of executive branch, it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to keep such arrest private and respectful.
d. Where arresting ministers, it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to notify the prime minister and while arresting prime minister or vice president it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to notify the president.
e. Prior to arrest of sitting member of executive branch, it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to make provisions for security and segregation from general prison populance.
Thoughts so far?
Not good.
What's the point of this? How is Exigent defined? For example, if the Minister of Social Affairs and Citizenship is harassing/stalking his ex, that's exigent to see him/her protected. If the Minister of Transport is speeding, that's exigent to see people on the public highways protected from his reckless behaviour.
I could come up with examples all day, but the point I'm making is that almost all Mala in Se offences, and some Mala prohibita offences could be argued to automatically bring about 'exigent circumstances'. I append below the power to arrest:Kouralia wrote:S5 - Powers
(1)All [Law Enforcement Officers] have the power to arrest someone who they have witnessed commit a crime, has reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime, or have been charged to arrest by a warrant (see S5(9)). Resisting a lawful arrest is a crime of RESISTING LAWFUL ARREST. An unjustified arrest will likely constitute a minimum of unlawful application of force to another’s person. Upon arresting someone, as soon as is practicable, the following caution should be read to [The Arrestee]: “I am placing you under arrest for.../under suspicion of… . You do not have to say anything if you do not wish to do so, but anything you do say may be noted in evidence and used against you in a court of law.” This is the POWER OF ARREST.
by Murkwood » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:08 pm
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by United Provinces of Atlantica » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:13 pm
Murkwood wrote:We should have a reference to God in the Oath of Office, like our neighbors Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. It's much more realistic that way.
How about this: "I,<full name>, do solemnly affirm before the people of placeholderstan that I will faithfully and with good faith fulfil my duties as President (or Acting President) of the placeholderstan, and to best of my ability preserve and defend its values, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of placeholderstan, so help me God."
by Murkwood » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:14 pm
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by Murkwood » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:14 pm
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by United Provinces of Atlantica » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:16 pm
Murkwood wrote:Does anyone know the history? I ask because I want to know if we are already a Commonwealth nation.
by Murkwood » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:17 pm
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by Heraklea- » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:22 pm
Murkwood wrote:We should have a reference to God in the Oath of Office, like our neighbors Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. It's much more realistic that way.
How about this: "I,<full name>, do solemnly affirm before the people of placeholderstan that I will faithfully and with good faith fulfil my duties as President (or Acting President) of the placeholderstan, and to best of my ability preserve and defend its values, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of placeholderstan, so help me God."
by Murkwood » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:24 pm
Heraklea- wrote:Murkwood wrote:We should have a reference to God in the Oath of Office, like our neighbors Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. It's much more realistic that way.
How about this: "I,<full name>, do solemnly affirm before the people of placeholderstan that I will faithfully and with good faith fulfil my duties as President (or Acting President) of the placeholderstan, and to best of my ability preserve and defend its values, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of placeholderstan, so help me God."
We should be an explicitly secular state. No deity should be referenced in legal texts or oaths. If such language is ever introduced I will immediately sponsor legislation to remove the offending language.
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by Murkwood » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:25 pm
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by Dejanic » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:26 pm
Murkwood wrote:How'd y'all react to a bill that applies to join the Commonwealth and to become a Commonwealth realm? I ask because I'm working on one now and want to test the waters.
by Dejanic » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:26 pm
Heraklea- wrote:Murkwood wrote:We should have a reference to God in the Oath of Office, like our neighbors Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. It's much more realistic that way.
How about this: "I,<full name>, do solemnly affirm before the people of placeholderstan that I will faithfully and with good faith fulfil my duties as President (or Acting President) of the placeholderstan, and to best of my ability preserve and defend its values, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of placeholderstan, so help me God."
We should be an explicitly secular state. No deity should be referenced in legal texts or oaths. If such language is ever introduced I will immediately sponsor legislation to remove the offending language.
by Geilinor » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:43 pm
by Great Nepal » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:46 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement