Advertisement
by Verdon » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:30 pm
by Verdon » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:36 pm
by Agadar » Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:42 am
by 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.
.
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by Verdon » Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:26 pm
The Pacific Peace Union wrote:It has occurred constantly since August, people abusing the voucher system.
by Agadar » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:32 am
by Agadar » Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:01 am
by Alesini » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:04 pm
by 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.
by The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture » Sat Apr 30, 2016 6:35 am
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?
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.
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.
The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture
Proud Member of The Western Isles
Factbook Hub : Niederscheld International Airport
National Ideology | Economy | Military | Government
by 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.
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)
by The Pacific Peace Union » Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:24 am
by 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?
by Verdon » Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:53 am
by 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.
by 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?
The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture
Proud Member of The Western Isles
Factbook Hub : Niederscheld International Airport
National Ideology | Economy | Military | Government
by 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.
by Agadar » Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:28 pm
by Dashgrinaar » Sun May 01, 2016 6:37 am
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.
by 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."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Anxiety Cafe, Costavozka, Daphomir, Gallian Fifth Republic, Heldervin
Advertisement