Constitional Congress discussion continued

[Sirotnikov]

I support the idea.

Moreso, I'd like to suggest myself as a member of those 4.

I promise to clear time for it.

[Sirotnikov]

I think that we should make laws defining the general structure of power - not the exact seats and ways and such.

[Sirotnikov]

I also think that the drafts should be regularly published and discussed.

[Epistax]

<Awaits the next thread concerning this>

[jdjdjd]

I must reiterate, that it may be best to amend and improve what we have, creating this new CoL is going to be time consuming with many polls and thats months from now after the initial set up is done, and this committee, will they commit to months and months of being involved?

I don't mean to sound negative, I'm trying to be practical...what you create months down the road may no longer be pertinent....we already have a code of laws that allows flexibility and improvement and can be made to match what is currently pertinent so long as those who wish change are willing to do the work...and it can be done, just like was done for the Court and Impeachment amendments.

[UnOrthOdOx]

While I agree with jdjdjd on the theory that we shouldn't need to rewrite the whole thing. Perhaps this commitee would be the best at focusing on what needs to be changed. An organized group where currently we only have a few individuals trying their own ideas. Have these guys appointed to working out the changes that need to take place.

[Sirotnikov]

I am willing to commit to being involved.

I think that the CoL shouldn't consist of a single document.

It should have 3 parts.

Constitution:
The most basic definition of the game, the goals and the spirit of law.
Can not be changed, but ammended with a great majority of the people (80%?) and the court. once accepted, the court must defend it.

Basic Laws:
Laws definind the most important things, like government positions, elections, currency and civil rights.
demand a large majority (60%?) and the court can demand change if they are unconstitutional.

Laws:
simple laws which do not have a huge and significant effect on game play. could be many in character laws, which have little real meaning. demand a regular majority. can be cancelled if they are unconstitutional.

[Sirotnikov]

I also agree that we shouldn't necessarily give the comitte a right to define everything, but rather they will be 100% incharge of giving recommendations.

[GodKing]

I would suggest, that even it it was rewritten, the meat would still be the same, only how it is organized.

There might be some radical changes - for example, I can easiely see the minister of imperial expansion position being deligated some day to say... the city planner.

But many other things, such as term limits, will still be the same, only it will be easy to find and much easier to understand.

Does this rambling make sence....

If OPD wins the election, and not I, for City Planner, then I would be more than happy to donate the time I would have spent as CP helping on this. I do suspect however, that jdjdjd is correct, if it occures, it will take a long time to do it right.

[notyoueither]

I guess I'll brush it up and put it to a poll later this pm if there is no consensus for revision.

jd, I agree that throwing out what we have and starting over from scratch would be unproductive. Hence All significant clauses of the original Code of Laws and it's amendments should be addressed and included in the new Constitution, it's amendments and any accompanying Code of Laws

I view this as a search and discovery mission to find the problems we have not yet encountered, to generalize the case specific nature of the current supreme law, and to break out those aspects which would be better placed in subordinate rules and statutes.

It would taske 7 days to enable the process, 7 more for nominations, 7 more for the poll to finalize the select committee. Except... The nominations thread could begin the day after the enabling poll if support seems to be there. So that's down to 2 weeks to get the ball rolling.

From our experience, it would be reasonable to conclude that the committee would take a week or 2 to sort itself out and get down to issues. A couple of weeks (or 3) after that they might be able to come back to us with some product. There isn't that much there to review and revise. 2 weeks after that we most likely will have the new system in place.

In the mean time, certainly the game can continue. Amendments that are needed can be passed. No reason why not.

To summarise. I agree, amend and improve. That is the intent. It is just that to me it seems that a comprehensive amendment would suit our purposes better than a piece meal approach. I for one would like to put this material behind us and get on with the game.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I also agree that we shouldn't necessarily give the comitte a right to define everything, but rather they will be 100% incharge of giving recommendations.

Exactly. And a very good reason why they should come back with a main body that is sure of passing and amendmends that can be picked and chosen from.

Also why there is provision for discussion.

[civman2000]

I like siro's idea.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GodKing
I do suspect however, that jdjdjd is correct, if it occures, it will take a long time to do it right.

Anyone who accepts a nomination should be prepared for a long haul. As the court has experienced, once you get into these things any given issue may require careful consideration.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by civman2000
I like siro's idea.

Yes, I do too.

Constitution > Laws > Regulations.

Regulations would maybe be passed by the executive and subject to protest over turning by 51% poll?

[civman2000]

I see no reason to not just let the people pass laws and regulations alone...it's been like that all along and there's no need to change that.