Appeal (maybe) on the 'future mergers' amendment

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Jamie Palisades
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:56 pm

Appeal (maybe) on the 'future mergers' amendment

Post by Jamie Palisades »

There's a long thread, already, on the A-A merger bill, which was enacted last week.
Now the RA is discussing a constitutional amendment to make CDS merger rules clearer.
The RA voted on such a bill today. A re-cap of the procedural steps so far is here: ... 414#p13414

Now our CSDF senator Gwyneth seeks to kill it. She posted a long argument that the new bill ... a constitutional amendment ... if it passes ... is unconstitutional. Here's her post: ... 413#p13413 That's a new topic, so I have started a new thread here.

In case the SC is brusque enough to try to suddenly adjudicate this in 24 hours with no notice, which unfortunately I cannot rule out, as the SC has given no notice of its intent -- I feel I'd best answer that argument now.

1. To say that a validly-adopted constitutional amendment is itself unconstitutional is naive, and bad legal analysis. There are well known principles for applying successive enactments of law that are logically necessary -- for example, a later amendment is deemed to intentionally amend a prior contraindicative clause. OK, the non-lawyer way of saying that is this : a new amendment DOES change the document being amended .. that's the idea. The RA is *allowed* to change the Constitution.

If the constitution required all RA members to be Portuguese ... and we AMEND it, to say that they can be of any nationality ... then that amendment may NOT invalidated on the grounds that it violates the constitutional rule that all RA members are from Portugal! Otherwise NO amendment could EVER change ANY term of the constitution.

What the new bill does is change the constitution, so that the (older) rule on electing RA members in the general case is modified to allow the (newer) exception case of special methods for transitional RA members due to mergers. I recognize that Gwyn feels that the special transition method *should* not permit anything other than a secret ballot. But that's a political judgment, not a constitutional conclusion. To quote another citizen who wrote me privately:

the discussion is a bit moot - we could instead envisage a transitional period. After all, this is done currently by UN, who collaborates with appointed govs until democratic systems can be fully installed.

2. Gwyn also posts, as she said in the RA meeting. that she was rushed and cut off. You can see in the transcripts that she spoke at length -- and has had WEEKS to debate this. We disagree. Her words about A-A's actions and motive are incorrect, and derogatory. I do not think that is the right way to merge, collaborate or grow.

That tone reminds me too much of the old CDS. The one that says no to everything, never compromises, never listens, fights incessantly, and stiff-arms away any ideas for change. In that era, CDS grew from 1 to 3 sims, in 4 years, while Caledon grew from 1 to 45. Needless to say, I believe we should conduct ourselves in a different, positive, diplomatic way.

Having said that, it's not my job or ours to tell A-A how to pick its interim reps. I am just glad they want to join (unless Gwyn scares them off!) ... and happy to have them do whatever sort of communal town meeting thing they usually do! Even without a secret ballot! BECAUSE they are committing to JOIN our system and BECOME part of OUR DEMOCRATIC government, secret ballots and all. Isn't that a good thing?

I am going to recommend to A-A that they DO publish how they're going to select their RA members: because we're all apparently curious! But I will make this request AFTER all the foolish legal game playing is done ... and as a request from an equal ... not a sanctimonious command from someone who thinks that they're morally superior, and is trying to make A-A look bad out of spite, or kill the deal.

By the way, to be clear, the A-A reps will join our RA ... and thus each will need to caucus with a CDS faction (or create one). It's my expectation that they will do so by watching our debates, and then individually electing factions when they are seated. So existing CDS factions should think about making themselves accessible. But this is an implementation detail, to put into force the legitimate and constitutional merger law we have passed ... and the SC who supervises elections may have some ideas about how to implement it as well.

Regards, a somewhat annoyed and tired JP

== My Second Life home is CDS. Retired after three terms
== as chancellor of the oldest self-governing sims in SL.
Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”