NewCon loopholes, issues, etc.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Togas
There's some good suggestions in here of potential loopholes we're going to close up, but .... come on! This level of dissection is self-serving pomposity.

This is not simply "self-serving pomposity" and I take offense to that wording being used in context to myself. I'm honestly just trying to provide some constructive criticism regarding a constitution that will come to affect the entire citizenship of Apolytonia if it passes. Doing that is just as much of an act of civic responsibility as authoring the constitution to begin with and, consequently, both are just as "pompous" if either is.

I would hope that we can all respect each others' involvement in this as a matter of civic responsibility and respect each other as fellow concerned citizens... such rhetoric as the above has no place here.

This is a Constitution not a volumous code of laws, policy, procecure, and definitions. This is a framework document that will be colored in by both the Senate and the Court. This document is already 8+ pages long, which is far too much for any newbie to digest, and people want us to add more to it?

Secondly, how hard is it to figure out what "or" means? I'm baffled by this. If I said, "You have to get permission from John or Harry to go to the party" what does that mean? There's no ambiguity there. Either John OR Harry can say yes. You don't have to ask both, and if one says no, you can ask the other and still go to the party. How much more obvious do you need it to be?

--Togas

Togas,

I was working under the assumption that it could be agreed that ambiguous lines of responsibility was best avoided. Obviously, that assumption was invalid

You actually MEANT for the "or" lines to give the FAM the ability to pick whether he liked the response of one minister or other other better and choose the one he likes... I now understand that that is actually what you meant, but here is where I must very strongly disagree with this on principle.

Most of the cases where this occurs are under the FAM and Domestic Minister. Here are the three main examples:

* The FAM must ask the President OR the SMC to sign a peace agreement.

* The FAM must ask the Senate OR the President before giving away any money.

* The Domestic Minister must ask the Senate OR the President before rushing a project.

The problem with all three of these is precisely the RL example you brought up, Togas. The kid wanting to go to the party can ask both and take the answer he likes... Perhaps you don't have a problem with this, but I'm near certain that I'm not the only one that finds this type of thing very uncomfortable. I'd much rather have a clear line of authority.

For the "Senate or the President" ones, it seems that simply changing the wording slightly and inserting a reference to Article I, Section 7 about the supremacy of Senate laws over Executive decisions. This would mean that in cases of "Senate or the President", the FAM or Domestic Minister would be forced to abide by the Senate's decision if the Senate actually acted on the matter (which is far from certain) and only follow the President if the Senate does NOT act on it. This is workable.

As for the case where the FAM can ask the SMC or the President on when he can end a war, my personal opinion on this is that the FAM should have to:

1. Get the approval of BOTH (not just pick the answer he wants to hear...)
2. Get approval from the President only (delete the SMC from this line)
3. Get approval from the SMC only (delete the President from this line)
4. Delete the entire approval issue from this line and place the decision on the FAM's shoulders.

I personally prefer #4, but any of these four are perfectly workable.

That's all for now... gotta run.

[Togas]

Originally posted by Arnelos
I would hope that we can all respect each others' involvement in this as a matter of civic responsibility and respect each other as fellow concerned citizens... such rhetoric as the above has no place here.

Of course I and the others respect everyone's involvement and we have asked for everyone involvement. Some loopholes and mistakes have been found and we've made a numer of corrections this past week, which is the direct result of the people's involvement.

What bothers me are these long editorial pompous critiques. No rhetoric on my part, I just hate them. I'll admit, this is somewhat due to the fact that I'm the guy who took all of our Con Con ideas down and wrote out the Con, so I'm a bit more sensitive than most, but I don't feel that a 3 page disseration helps me or any of us do our job. It just shows what great attention to detail and legal insight the individual who wrote it has.

Short comments on actual errors that are to the point and include suggestions for revision help us. Long posts about the ambiguity of the use of "or" just annoy me. Sorry. That's just me.

Originally posted by Arnelos
You actually MEANT for the "or" lines to give the FAM the ability to pick whether he liked the response of one minister or other other better and choose the one he likes

Yes. We meant that. See NYE's comment:

What is the problem with making some decisions by a committee of 3, with one of the members having a veto?

That is the effect of the 'or' in many cases.

Get one of two to agree. It's a way to somewhat limit a power, but not put the Minister at the mercy of another Minister or branch. This way the Minister can't run wild, he has a check. But in essence, the check is two other individuals (or the Senate) both disagreeing with him.

--Togas

[ruby_maser]

I suppose this would be workable, but it could easily be a contentious issue if not everybody got their opinion heard about the matter prior to implementation. And in the case of serious splits, could lead to some nasty stepping on toes and interparty politics.

I like it

[DAVOUT]

Togas,

You said : we've made a number of corrections this past week

Would not it be useful to publish a revised version of the New Constitution ?

[Togas]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Would not it be useful to publish a revised version of the New Constitution ?

We will. The latest draft was finished Monday and is circulating via email to the Con Con members at this very moment. Once everyone approves the latest draft we will publish it. We expect that this will be the last draft of the Con prior to a ratification vote, so we're being extra careful with it, making changes from suggestions we've received and also correcting mistakes and ambiguities.

--Togas

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Togas


We will. The latest draft was finished Monday and is circulating via email to the Con Con members at this very moment. Once everyone approves the latest draft we will publish it. We expect that this will be the last draft of the Con prior to a ratification vote, so we're being extra careful with it, making changes from suggestions we've received and also correcting mistakes and ambiguities.

--Togas

Sounds good. Keep up the good work

And even better, that rather effectively will shut me up on the subject for now

[Sheik]

I posted this in the other con thread also but figured it wouldn't hurt to post it here too:

Shouldn't the new constitution have a statue of limitations for bringing cases to the court?

[notyoueither]

I replied in the other thread.

[GodKing]

One thing, if it is to be reposted, I would like the right to comment on it with the idea that if there are issues, that they will be addressed and not just 'vote on this or else'. I know that attitude is not what was intended, but that is how it reads.

Peace.

GK

[Togas]

Everyone has the right to comment on anything, but it needs to be made clear that after this next revision, we're putting it up for a ratification vote.

We're not going to constantly keep retooling it until everyone agrees on it, because everyone is not going to agree on it. Amongst the four of us, we have disagreements, and that's only four people.

If the New Con isn't ratified, we'll have to step back and take a hard look at it and decide if a few more revisions would make it more acceptable. But I have to be honest -- we may also decide to just scrap it. Getting to a finished document that made us all happy took a lot of work and energy. Getting to a document that makes everyone happy may take more work and energy than we're prepared to give, and it may well be impossible to do.

If the New Con is ratified, it will undergo changes through Senate bills and future amendments. If it's just a few things that you don't like in the New Con, amendments and bills might be a more productive way to make changes than to vote against the entire document's passage.

--Togas