Proposal: Praetor

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Proposal: Praetor

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

Section 1 Purpose

This act creates the position of Praetor of Colonia Nova

Section 2 Duties

The Praetor shall be charged with the enfocement of covenants and law in the Colonia Nova sim.

Section 3 Powers

The Praetor shall be empowered to bring charges in a court of common jurisdiction if he or she believes a resident of Colonia Nova has violated the covenants applicable to his or her Colonia Nova land.

The praetor shall furthermore have the power to appoint one or more colonia nova residents to serve in an advisory capacity.

Section 4 Selection

The praetor shall be elected by residents of Colonia Nova simultaneously with each RA election. All candidates must maintain residence in Colonia Nova.

Section 5 Removal

The CDS Executive may bring removal proceedings against the Praetor for dereliction of duty. Removal requires a 2/3 or greater majority vote in the RA.

The Executive or SC may bring impeachment proceedings against the Praetor in the case of violation of the law or constitution.

Section 6 Exclusivity

The Praetor may hold no other office.

---------------

Explanation

The idea of a Praetor goes back to the original CN proposal. This bill seeks to codify it.

User avatar
Fernando Book
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Post by Fernando Book »

I agree with Claude's proposal, but, if Colonia Nova has a Praetor, shouldn't Neufreistadt have a Burgmeister?

I mean, or Neufreistadt is (as a city) a kind of federal district under the direct rule of the RA and the Chancellor (in Spain we have a say: the best mayor is the king), or every sim under the CDS should have the same local government institutions.

User avatar
Pelanor Eldrich
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:07 am

Yes...

Post by Pelanor Eldrich »

I kind of see Ali (Chancellor) currently also wearing the Burgermeister hat. I think each region (new sim or franchulate) should have such a local administrator (LA).

They should probably be locally elected for large sims and chosen according to custom on smaller franches.

Pelanor Eldrich
Principal - Eldrich Financial
Ranma Tardis

Post by Ranma Tardis »

I am sorry Claude is this some sort of sick joke? The residents of Colonia Nova elect but the non-residents of the RA can remove?
Sorry but the Praetor would be a pawn to the RA. As history shows us it is easy to get a 100 percent vote of the RA. The removal process is too easy and can be done if the Praetor does not follow the commands of the RA. How about making the Praetor subject to removal only for misuse of office after a trial of the new judiciary system?

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

Two points:

[list:1cuq8drl][b:1cuq8drl]Is this a bill or a constitutional amendment?[/b:1cuq8drl] It seems to me that if you want to establish a Praetor for Colonia Nova "charged with the enfocement [i:1cuq8drl](sic)[/i:1cuq8drl] of covenants and law in the Colonia Nova sim." then this is incompatible with the powers of the Chancellor, as set out in Constitutional Amendment 11 (and amended by the Judiciary Act) to read "to determine the use to which any and all land in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators shall be put" and "to enforce such regulations in accordance with law". [Explanation: the Chancellor was originally given the power "to determine the use to which any and all land in Neufrestadt shall be put". The Judiciary Act says that "Any reference in any Act of the Representative Assembly passed before the date on which this Act comes into force to "Neufreistadt" or to “Neualtenburg” shall be taken to be a reference to the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, unless the context, or any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly passed after the date on which the Judiciary Act was passed, otherwise so requires." As a result the Chancellor has these powers for the CDS and this cannot be unpicked by the establishment of a Praetor for CN without a further constitutional amendment.]

[b:1cuq8drl]Why is this needed?[/b:1cuq8drl] As I have posted in another thread, this proposal is entirely premature. Why can't the citizens of CN decide whether they need a Praetor? Why is this proposal the best means for dealing with the supposed need for local autonomy? I think it would make more sense for us to wait until citizens have moved into CN and we know whether a different political or community culture develops which needs a Praetor (or some other arrangement). Better yet, why don't we try to actively foster a united political culture across the CDS rather than taking the pessimistic assumption that separatism will be the order of the day?[/list:u:1cuq8drl]

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Re: Proposal: Praetor

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":29z8pmqx]Section 3 Powers

The Praetor shall be empowered to bring charges in a court of common jurisdiction if he or she believes a resident of Colonia Nova has violated the covenants applicable to his or her Colonia Nova land.[/quote:29z8pmqx]

"Charges" is not the correct term for our court system: "proceedings" is more accurate.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Ashcroft wrote, with regard to actions involving allegations by a public official that a private citizen violated a covenant, that
[quote:1n4yolvi]Charges" is not the correct term for our court system: "proceedings" is more accurate.[/quote:1n4yolvi]

Personally, I would prefer to have a concept of "charge" as well as of "proceeding." A "charge" implies a charging document, in which the person accused of a breach of public rules is told the nature and details of the alleged breach. "Proceedings" then result, to evaluate and adjudicate the charge. This process is, I think, necessary to preserve civil liberty and the rule of law. The skipping of charges straight to proceedings is deeply problematic, as Kafka's exploration of such a process in [i:1n4yolvi]The Trial[/i:1n4yolvi] shows.

Personally, I would prefer unfettered anarchy to a Kafkaesque "due process".

Beathan

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":2yhrqqno]Personally, I would prefer to have a concept of "charge" as well as of "proceeding." A "charge" implies a charging document, in which the person accused of a breach of public rules is told the nature and details of the alleged breach. "Proceedings" then result, to evaluate and adjudicate the charge. This process is, I think, necessary to preserve civil liberty and the rule of law. The skipping of charges straight to proceedings is deeply problematic, as Kafka's exploration of such a process in [i:2yhrqqno]The Trial[/i:2yhrqqno] shows.

Personally, I would prefer unfettered anarchy to a Kafkaesque "due process".[/quote:2yhrqqno]

"Bring proceedings" does not mean "start judicial proceedings without any proper formality", but "start judicial proceedings in whichever way that the law requires that they be started". "Charge" is inappropriate because it is not a term of art in our system, but is a term of art in criminal courts in some countries, such as the US and the UK, where its meaning is very specific. We will not have a concept of a "charge" in that sense: we will have pleadings in the way of civil courts instead.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Ashcroft wrote [quote:1oq9ocxt]"Bring proceedings" does not mean "start judicial proceedings without any proper formality", but "start judicial proceedings in whichever way that the law requires that they be started". "Charge" is inappropriate because it is not a term of art in our system, but is a term of art in criminal courts in some countries, such as the US and the UK, where its meaning is very specific. We will not have a concept of a "charge" in that sense: we will have pleadings in the way of civil courts instead.
[/quote:1oq9ocxt]

I concur completely. However, my primary concern remains unaddressed -- what is the nature and extent we require of pleading a claim. I think that there should be a distinction between public claims, brought by an instrument of government, (whether we call it a "charge" or not) and private claims, disputes between and among private citizens. Further, I think that we should require complete specificity of the elements and nature of a public claim, but that we should be more lenient with regard to pleading private claims. In American jurisprudence, this distinction is called "claim pleading" (in which the elements of a claim must be alleged with specificity) and "notice pleading" (in which the claim must merely be sufficiently stated to give a party notice of the general nature of the claim and allow the party to conduct meaningful discovery and investigation of the claim).

Beathan

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":3iwl3oa3]I concur completely. However, my primary concern remains unaddressed -- what is the nature and extent we require of pleading a claim. I think that there should be a distinction between public claims, brought by an instrument of government, (whether we call it a "charge" or not) and private claims, disputes between and among private citizens. Further, I think that we should require complete specificity of the elements and nature of a public claim, but that we should be more lenient with regard to pleading private claims. In American jurisprudence, this distinction is called "claim pleading" (in which the elements of a claim must be alleged with specificity) and "notice pleading" (in which the claim must merely be sufficiently stated to give a party notice of the general nature of the claim and allow the party to conduct meaningful discovery and investigation of the claim).[/quote:3iwl3oa3]

I do not agree that the identity of the party bringing proceedings should alter the substantive nature of the pleadings brought. However, perhaps discussion of the finer points of procedure should be postponed until the Code of Procedure on which I am working is published.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

Beathan, Ash. I think your discussion of charges v proceedings could usefully continue in the Judicial Discussion sub-forum.

This thread is about the proposal for a Praetor for Colonia Nova, about which I repeat my two questions above and hope a supporter of this idea will come back with some answers:

[b:2jh4u6cq]Is this a bill or a constitutional amendment?

Why is this even being proposed?[/b:2jh4u6cq]

Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

Pat, please don't shout, it's not very becoming.

1. This is a bill

2. In the original CN proposal a praetor position was proposed to handle local covenant enforcement. The totality of the proposal was approved, but this bit wasn't discussed much at all. It's very possible that the needs the Praetor position was designed to meet have been otherwise addressed since the proposal was written. I hope that someone from the original proposing group might speak to this.

If the RA decides that the Praetor is unnecessary and not desirable, another question arises. If we have no Praetor, why have a Praetorium? Couldn't that almost 2Km2 be generating land fee?

User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2p1abgjg]
2. In the original CN proposal a praetor position was proposed to handle local covenant enforcement. The totality of the proposal was approved, but this bit wasn't discussed much at all. It's very possible that the needs the Praetor position was designed to meet have been otherwise addressed since the proposal was written. I hope that someone from the original proposing group might speak to this.

If the RA decides that the Praetor is unnecessary and not desirable, another question arises. If we have no Praetor, why have a Praetorium? Couldn't that almost 2Km2 be generating land fee?[/quote:2p1abgjg]

Or, for that matter, the Schloss, or the current unfinished state of old Altenburg.

That said, I think the Chancellor position handles any need for a praetor at present, although this could change as we expand - for now, I believe one person would be ample for both sims. But I am of course biased.

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":o8rx54a9]

Or, for that matter, the Schloss, or the current unfinished state of old Altenburg.

[/quote:o8rx54a9]

Though those are older builds which have fallen into disuse. The potentially underused (lacking a Praetor) Praetorium is brand new.

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":3pvybevk]1. This is a bill[/quote:3pvybevk] Then it automatically falls. I've just shown how, in my earlier post in this thread, how this proposal is incompatible with the Constitutional Amendment which established the Executive Branch and which was amended by the Judiciary Act. I note that you haven't addressed that argument at all.

[quote:3pvybevk]2. In the original CN proposal a praetor position was proposed to handle local covenant enforcement. The totality of the proposal was approved, but this bit wasn't discussed much at all. It's very possible that the needs the Praetor position was designed to meet have been otherwise addressed since the proposal was written. I hope that someone from the original proposing group might speak to this.[/quote:3pvybevk]So did you consult with the group that put forward the CN proposal before proposing this? As I've pointed out in my earlier post and again, you haven't addressed this, this is entirely premature. We don't know if the CN residents want this. Why don't we wait to ask them?

Aliasi is right, the Chancellor can just as easily handle two sims' worth of covenant enforcement as one. That is, after all, what the RA has agreed by passing CA 11 and the Judiciary Act.

[quote:3pvybevk]If the RA decides that the Praetor is unnecessary and not desirable, another question arises. If we have no Praetor, why have a Praetorium? Couldn't that almost 2Km2 be generating land fee?[/quote:3pvybevk]Yes, that question does arise. But we don't need to have a Praetor because we have a Praetorium!

Claude, don't patronise me by telling me not to shout and how unbecoming it is. I posted on this issue in the thread you started two days ago, I posted twice on this issue in this thread before anyone came back to answer the points I made. Meanwhile various other discussions around the main point and off at various tangents were being made. [i:3pvybevk][b:3pvybevk]And you still haven't addressed any of the points I made! [/b:3pvybevk][/i:3pvybevk][b:3pvybevk]When citizens put forward questions about a proposal made by the Leader of the Representative Assembly and you refuse to address them EXPECT US TO SHOUT![/b:3pvybevk] (and that, by the way, was me shouting :))

Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”