[TWI ONLY] The Senate of the Western Isles

by **Verdon** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:48 am

"Section 1: Any of the following processes for the dismissal of officers and/or non-officers from their office and/or the region itself, shall be used:
-A presidential order
-An order of the Supreme Court
-A Founder action, which shall only occur in straightforward matters, such as in the case of breaking the Regional Rules"

Welp, Wildy I guess you have some writing to do.

by **Wildelyn** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 10:05 am

Verdon wrote:"Section 1: Any of the following processes for the dismissal of officers and/or non-officers from their office and/or the region itself, shall be used:
-A presidential order
-An order of the Supreme Court
-A Founder action, which shall only occur in straightforward matters, such as in the case of breaking the Regional Rules"

Welp, Wildy I guess you have some writing to do.

damn, care to assist me in writing Verdon? I am doing a lot right now and would love some help.

by **Verdon** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Wildelyn wrote:
Verdon wrote:"Section 1: Any of the following processes for the dismissal of officers and/or non-officers from their office and/or the region itself, shall be used:
-A presidential order
-An order of the Supreme Court
-A Founder action, which shall only occur in straightforward matters, such as in the case of breaking the Regional Rules"

Welp, Wildy I guess you have some writing to do.

damn, care to assist me in writing Verdon? I am doing a lot right now and would love some help.

I've got a full plate too, man. But we'll see.

I motion to dismiss the current proposed legislation
Reason: Unconstitutional and will need further drafting before suitable.

by **Vancouvia** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:23 pm

Second the motion

by **Libra Project** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:42 pm

Sorry for not elaborating enough, I shouldn't post again.. But, some things need to be explained. The term "new government" does not pose any limits for the same people to form the new government. I included this in case a member of the government must be dismissed, e.x. as a problematic member, creating constantly trouble for the region. The same people can be elected, there is no limit. The dismissal of the current government will also allow the Commission to act without any pointless intervention of a government member. Finally, a member of the government cannot hold another office, as stated in the constitution. So, if a member of the government is to be appointed, the only way is to be dismissed before his appointment. Direct appointment would be considered undemocratic.

Creating a Commission is needed so that in case of unlawful acts, its members can be accused. If the Founder acts unlawfully though, he can't be so easily persecuted, as this would be destabilizing for the entity of the region. As the top member of our society, he must remain out of any potentially harmful situations, in order to remain the symbolic figure of our region. On the contrary, a highly responsible force of member nations will be appointed by him. In this way, they will accept the fact that they are responsible and they will also receive the acceptance by the entire region.

Please excuse me and feel free to strike out or add any section of this draft. Ask me for any elaborations if you wish.

by **The Pacific Peace Union** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:46 pm

Libra thats pointless to be honest a commission isn't needed to accuse people, the current government divisions can do that themselves.

by **Vancouvia** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:56 pm

Article XI will probably very rarely be used, and I would bet that it in fact might never be used. The main point of it is to enable the government to be secure after I am dead and gone, because there is really no use in suspending the Constitution while I'm here.

Say I CTE. What will happen is the person with the next highest amount of endorsements will become the executive delegate which gets all the founder's controls. I believe right now this is Linaviar with 74 endorsements but I'm not 100% sure on that. So, Linaviar takes control but now we are open to being raided because someone else could attempt to get more endorsements than Linaviar and then raid then region. Linaviar in this case would likely execute Article XI, suspend the Constitution, kick out any nations who are attempting to coup the delegacy, and then install an endorsement limit. That's really the only situation I see this being used because I have no plans to ever use it. It's just nice to have in there in case something goes horribly wrong and the Founder/ED needs to work fast.

Legislating on what occurs after the Founder CTEs i.e. putting a plan in place would be a better aim to work towards instead of creating a bunch of superfluous "commission" positions. But I don't think that's a high priority right now, either.

by **Dashgrinaar** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:34 pm

Vancouvia wrote:Second the motion

Then the legislation is dismissed.

by **Hodgsonistan** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:39 pm

I would like to Submit the following Constitutional Amendment to the Senate

by **Dashgrinaar** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 5:08 pm

Hodgsonistan wrote:I would like to Submit the following Constitutional Amendment to the Senate
Vice Delegacy Amendment (2015)

An amendment to the constitution to safeguard the region from delegacy coup

Article II, Section 11

(1) Changes the title of the current Article II, Section 11 to Article II, Section 12

(2) Establishes the new section titled The Vice Delegate as Article II, Section 11

The New Article II, Section 11

(1) Shall read as follows:
The Vice Delegate shall be the nation with the second most endorsements in the region. The Vice Delegate is not an officer position. If the Founder exists, the Vice Delegate shall serve in cooperation with the Founder and the Non-Executive Delegate. If the founder does not exist, the Vice delegate fills the role of assistant to the Executive Delegate. The Vice delegate is at the service of the other officers. If the Vice delegate acts contrary or is seen as likely to act contrary to the orders of the President and the other officers, as determined by the supreme court, then all effort possible should be expended in removing the Vice delegate from his/her position.

Noted.

by **Doppler** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:53 pm

Hodgsonistan wrote:I would like to Submit the following Constitutional Amendment to the Senate
Vice Delegacy Amendment (2015)

An amendment to the constitution to safeguard the region from delegacy coup

Article II, Section 11

(1) Changes the title of the current Article II, Section 11 to Article II, Section 12

(2) Establishes the new section titled The Vice Delegate as Article II, Section 11

The New Article II, Section 11

(1) Shall read as follows:
The Vice Delegate shall be the nation with the second most endorsements in the region. The Vice Delegate is not an officer position. If the Founder exists, the Vice Delegate shall serve in cooperation with the Founder and the Non-Executive Delegate. If the founder does not exist, the Vice delegate fills the role of assistant to the Executive Delegate. The Vice delegate is at the service of the other officers. If the Vice delegate acts contrary or is seen as likely to act contrary to the orders of the President and the other officers, as determined by the supreme court, then all effort possible should be expended in removing the Vice delegate from his/her position.

I don't really see the need for a vice delegate at the moment.

by **Hodgsonistan** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:57 pm

Doppler wrote:
Hodgsonistan wrote:I would like to Submit the following Constitutional Amendment to the Senate
Vice Delegacy Amendment (2015)

An amendment to the constitution to safeguard the region from delegacy coup

Article II, Section 11

(1) Changes the title of the current Article II, Section 11 to Article II, Section 12

(2) Establishes the new section titled The Vice Delegate as Article II, Section 11

The New Article II, Section 11

(1) Shall read as follows:
The Vice Delegate shall be the nation with the second most endorsements in the region. The Vice Delegate is not an officer position. If the Founder exists, the Vice Delegate shall serve in cooperation with the Founder and the Non-Executive Delegate. If the founder does not exist, the Vice delegate fills the role of assistant to the Executive Delegate. The Vice delegate is at the service of the other officers. If the Vice delegate acts contrary or is seen as likely to act contrary to the orders of the President and the other officers, as determined by the supreme court, then all effort possible should be expended in removing the Vice delegate from his/her position.

I don't really see the need for a vice delegate at the moment.

Is my proposed amendment open for debate?

by **Vancouvia** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 9:16 pm

Currently on Libra's law, which I motion to dismiss until he addresses our concerns

by **Dashgrinaar** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 9:36 pm

Seconded.

by **Vancouvia** » Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:47 pm

Vice Delegacy Amendment

1. Does this legislation fix a real problem? Is it necessary?

No. Vice Delegates are normally seen in GCRs with no founder--where having a vice delegate is essentially having a vice president. There isn't anything that the delegate (me) really needs help with concerning the delegacy.

2. Does this legislation positively or negatively affect member nations in general?

Doesn't really do anything but create another unique position.

3. Does this legislation make The Western Isles a more attractive region for others to join?

Not significantly in either direction.

4. Does this legislation increase the degree of fun and enjoyment for member nations?

Being delegate may be considered fun but I almost ways vote with the majority of the region. Being vice delegate would be no fun because they wouldn't do anything.

5. Is this legislation written straightforwardly, accompanied by adequate reasoning, and free of error?

No. The vice delegate couldn't act contrary to orders because they have no power, either with or without a Founder.

by **Verdon** » Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:14 pm

Hmm, not sure I see the point in a Vice-Delegate position. Although, I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to be.
Since Vancouvia is regularly active, I don't the position is necessary.

by **Dashgrinaar** » Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:56 pm

I agree. It is unnecessary currently, so I move to dismiss it.

by **Verdon** » Sun Dec 20, 2015 10:36 pm

alright, second the motion to dismiss.

by **Dashgrinaar** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:32 am

The legislation has been dismissed, there is currently nothing on the docket.

by **Vancouvia** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:04 am

Increasing Representation Amendment (2016)

“An amendment to decrease the number of vouchers it takes to become a Senator"

(1) Changes all mentions of "five" in Article IV, Section 4 to "three"

Long overdue, in my opinion. I thought about four, but I think three will enable even more representation, allowing groups with more different opinions to actually be represented. This will also hopefully increase the overall activity and involvement of nations in our politics.

by **Dashgrinaar** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:09 am

I would have to agree with you, Vancouvia. This would certainly enlarge the Senate, as well as encourage more representation. I am not against it.

The Senate now moves to discussion of the Incresing Representation Amendment, as proposed by Vancouvia.

by **Verdon** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:08 am

Taking into account the current number of vouchers across all senators & non-senators, dropping the vouch requirement to 4 would result in 4 senators, and dropping it to 3 would result in 6. I'd argue that gaining one more senator is not enough of a change so 3 has to be the magic number.
I'd also predict that with a smaller prerequisite number, more nations will even attempt to gain senatorial spots.

I know when most of us imagined the new senatorial system while it was being created, we were not expecting it to only result in three senators. I think this will help shape the senate into something more congruent to what we expected.

by **Dashgrinaar** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:14 am

Seeing that we all agree upon this amendment, I move to vote on it, and consecutively send it to the court for processing.

by **Vancouvia** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:34 pm

I uh, vote Yes

by **Verdon** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:18 pm

second the motion and vote yes.

[TWI ONLY] The Senate of the Western Isles

Who is online