Since much of Dianne's lengthy discussion with Gwyneth over the Judiciary seems to be taking place in the "Scientific Council announcements" forum in which only members of the SC can post, I am forced to reproduce it here in order to participate in the debate about the system that I proposed.
[quote="Dianne":3otakn7g]My issue is exactly that. I completely disagree that it is "clear" (let alone "quite clear"), that this bill is really about a major revision to the constitution. It reads like a rather minor alteration in the way trials are conducted and is put forward as such by Ashcroft, yet it actually envisions radical changes to the structure of the state itself.
It seems really bad form to me to have (as you yourself mention), the bills going through the house sometimes referred to as bills and sometimes referred to as constitutional amendments. They are either one or the other as there is a different legislative requirement for each. To have bills go through the house that seems to be "a bit of each," is unclear at best.
A constitutional amendment is a different thing entirely from simply passing a law about what colour the houses in the main square should be or some such piffle, and I would think that the many hours of debate that has ensued over the topic would inform everyone in government by now that constitutional amendments are indeed a touchy subject with a sizable percentage of the population.[/quote:3otakn7g]
You really are making quite unnecessary assumptions. To the best of my knowledge, not a single person was in doubt that what was proposed was a significant change in our constitution (and very much a change for the better), and that the Bill was in the form of a constitutional amendment. There is no rule requiring constitutional amendments to be in any particular form. If you think that that is bad, propose a constitutional amendment stipulating such a rule. Without such a rule, it is wholly wrong to complain that such a non-rule has not been followed.
[quote:3otakn7g]We have had many debates about this before and had many SC meetings where this exact thing (being clear about the difference between the two things) was brought up. We eventually decided that a constitutional amendment was a different order of beast altogether, requiring of more than just a simple majority vote.[/quote:3otakn7g]
That, of course, the Judiciary Act had.
[quote:3otakn7g]We even pushed around the idea that a popular referendum should be called on all Constitutional amendments. I didn't agree with that, but many of our citizens thought it was the way to go at the time.[/quote:3otakn7g]
That is not currently the law, so what point, exactly, are you making here?
[quote:3otakn7g]To say now that we can just mix the two objectives together in a single bill and not get to upset about differentiating the one from the other, or even being that clear about what is being proposed is to ignore hours of debate on the subject.[/quote:3otakn7g]
If the hours of debate did not result in a binding rule, written in the text of the constitution, that set out the proposition for which you contend, then we are entirely entitled to ignore it.
[quote:3otakn7g]Excuse me for being dumb, but I didn't realise that this was a revision to the constitution, at least not on first sight.[/quote:3otakn7g]
Well, really, if you did not think that an Act one of whose first lines states, "[i:3otakn7g]The following section shall be inserted at the end of the Constitution, but before the table of amendments[/i:3otakn7g]", was a bill establishing a constitutional amendment, then, whatever the reasons for you not so understanding, the wording of the Act cannot possibly have been one of them.
[quote:3otakn7g] This bill should have had "Constitutional Amendment" at the top of the page in big letters and be structured so that it's *only* concern was the specific amendment to the Constitution required to make the Judicial changes work.[/quote:3otakn7g]
There is no requirement in the Constitution that an amendment be so headed or structured. I was following standard UK legislative drafting practice.
[quote:3otakn7g]It should (IMO) also contain a full explanation of the ramifications of the proposed change.[/quote:3otakn7g]
Again, this is a wholly unfair complaint. I posted no less than [i:3otakn7g]two[/i:3otakn7g] threads doing [i:3otakn7g]exactly[/i:3otakn7g] that. It was on the basis of those threads that much of the debate occurred.
[quote:3otakn7g]A separate second bill that dealt with the details of the Judicial system that need not be contained in the constitutional amendment should then follow it.[/quote:3otakn7g]
Why? Anyone who read the text of the Judiciary Act with sufficient care would be under no illusions as to the effect of it. Why should two separate bills be presented to achieve one objective? The idea of breaking it down into separate bills was discussed and rejected, partly because it would be an unmitigated disaster if one was passed, but not the other.
[quote:3otakn7g]There is also a difference in scale here. A constitutional amendment that simply clarifies a "fuzzy" passage in our constitution (and this is indeed the nature of most of the constitutional amendments made so far) is one thing. A constitutional amendment that goes to the heart of the very structure of the government is something else entirely.[/quote:3otakn7g]
Nobody was under any illusions that this was of the latter sort.
[quote:3otakn7g]My point is that a wise government, and a just government, would not think of doing such things without first garnering the almost unanimous support of the population either through a referendum or a constitutional convention.[/quote:3otakn7g]
I have already explained why this is not a proper model of good government.
[quote:3otakn7g]We have had several discussions amongst ourselves about this fact.[/quote:3otakn7g]
Resulting in a constitution that pointedly allows amendments to be made using the procedure that was in fact adopted in thi scase.
[quote:3otakn7g]I am of course completely aware that constitutional amendments have been passed before and that there is no requirement in the constitution for the RA to seek a proper mandate from the people to put forward even the most radical of changes. This is sad, and I think dangerous, but it's the way it is. It's not illegal, it's not even completely without precedent in RL, but it is (IMO) shocking, and terribly unwise.[/quote:3otakn7g]
For reasons already given at some length, I disagree.
[quote:3otakn7g]As to the three parts or branches of government not being the "foundation of our state" I respectfully disagree. The constitution is of course the foundation as you suggest, but the constitution is not a blank piece of paper.[/quote:3otakn7g]
Just as fundamental as any of our organs of state is the power of the RA to amend the constitution. That is no less an enshrined and established part of our democracy than any other, and it should be respected as much as any other.
[quote:3otakn7g]The constitution primarily lays out the form and structure of the government of Neufreistadt. It's main descriptive phrases and the majority of its substance is devoted to describing the three lobed governmental structure and a very few of the practical details of that structure. That *is* (for better or worse), the structure of our government. Since the majority of the constitution itself is about this structure how can that structure not be the foundation of our state?[/quote:3otakn7g]
It is a foundation that is designed, by the power to which I have made reference above, to be able to be changed if there is need to do so, with the safeguard of requiring an enhanced majority. In this case, there was most certainly a need to change that foundation, and we have changed it very much for the better - even you earlier agreed with that proposition.
[quote:3otakn7g]Adding "extra lobes" or cutting off old ones is indeed radical constitutional surgery, worthy or more than a simple .."oh, and this part of this bill means we change this part of the constitution." It's tantamount to saying in the US that a single bill can wipe out the House of Representatives and establish a new branch of government called the "business branch," that now has equal power with the executive branch, or any other radical nonsensical thing you can think of.[/quote:3otakn7g]
What the US government does or does not have the power to do I do not know (not being a citizen of the US), and is not relevant to this debate. This debate is about what our RA has the power to do, and passing a constitutional amendment - even a radical one - is certainly one of those powers.
[quote:3otakn7g]Because I have been in error over missing information and my inability to read the voluminous material on the subject I will refrain from further comment on this subject until the next SC meeting, but this whole thing is just looking more and more ridiculous to me.[/quote:3otakn7g]
I really must disagree, and this is a wholly unfair comment to those who have spent a great deal of time working on it and discussing it - and all its ramifications - as openly as possible. Our new judiciary has the potential to bring us great benefits, and I find it very sad that you are concentrating instead on a largely mis-informed criticism of the way in which it was enacted.
[quote:3otakn7g]Think of it this way. Why would anyone ever trust their business or their money or their criminal proceedings to a government that could change from a democracy into a dictatorship or from a matriarchy into a federation or any number of a hundred other forms in such a short time? What if we decide next month that the Guild was actually kind of a good idea and we want it back?[/quote:3otakn7g]
Because we have proper checks and balances on the powers of the RA to make those changes: universal sufferage, a Scientific Council with the power to veto (as we have seen) for violation of human rights, and, soon, a fully independent judicial system. That, of course, always [i:3otakn7g]has[/i:3otakn7g] been the structure of our state. With adequate checks and balances, it is a good thing, not a bad thing that a state can, if necessary, undertake radical reform of its structures. A state that cannot adapt and change as the circumstnaces change around it is equally a state that nobody can trust to continue to be viable in the future.
With our new judiciary, we have indeed changed radically - for much the better.
[quote:3otakn7g]IMO there has to be some stability to the structure of the state and it should of necessity be a slow and difficult process to change it. If we are in fact engaged in a process of radical constitutional revision then the appropriate forum for that is a constitutional convention.[/quote:3otakn7g]
That idea was discussed and rejected. The RA acted within its powers. All other things being equal, stability is of course better than intability, but it is not the only valuable objective of a state. Other objectives, such as economic success, ability to expand, justice, and the enforcement of rights are also important, and, sometimes, more important than stability.
Let us not be radical for the sake of being radical, nor conservative for the sake of being conservative: let us change everything that needs to be changed, and nothing that does not.
