The Scientific Council (publication of transcripts) Bill

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2gga0a76][i:2gga0a76]Why[/i:2gga0a76] would you prefer to have an unelected body that can veto legislation for any reason that it pleases? Why is such a body preferable to a body that upholds - and is bound by - the rule of constitutional law?[/quote:2gga0a76]That's a misrepresentation of the previous situation Ash. The SC was able to "veto or rewrite and resubmit a bill or constitutional amendment if it is in violation of any of the founding documents". The controversial aspect, which the Judiciary Act removed, was that "Members of the Philosophic branch are not bound by a strict literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights, Founding Philosophy, Constitution, or the strict adherence to legal precedence. Rather members of the SC are required to draw upon their individual fields of expertise to solve complex social issues." That is what has been lost, or clarified, depending on your point of view.

I happen to agree with the change; it is better for the SC to interpret documents (Constitution, Laws) rather than something as amorphous as the 'Founding Philosophy'. But please don't claim that the SC were able to veto legislation for any reason, it misrepresents the previous situation.

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":d9p05z39]
[i:d9p05z39]Why[/i:d9p05z39] would you prefer to have an unelected body that can veto legislation for any reason that it pleases? Why is such a body preferable to a body that upholds - and is bound by - the rule of constitutional law?[/quote:d9p05z39]

As Pat so ably said, that wasn't the situation at all; quit flogging that strawman.

The SC was bound to a loose definition of a "founding philosophy"; it could not veto legislation simply because the members of the SC took personal offense at it - or rather, an SC which did so would be ripe for impeachment. One may say that "this is far too loose", and I would consider this a reasonable argument.

As for why? Under the current setup, if the RA passes an absolutely boneheaded constitutional amendment, there's no one to say "hey, wait a second..." save the Executive. However, since an amendment merely needs an extra vote under the current RA makeup and an vetoed bill requires the same, that's all it amounts to, and I'm less enthused about having [i:d9p05z39]one[/i:d9p05z39] person say that, as opposed to a council, even if I'm the one person at this moment.

Which is to say, a representative democracy is the best way to insure the voice of the people is heard, this is true. But sometimes the representatives are bought, the people are worked up into a frenzy of voting themselves bread and circuses without considering SOMEone has to pay for it, or someone's astroturfed their way into making an issue seem controversial... and having a body that is ultimately bound by nothing but common sense is not a bug when this happens; it is a feature. Would such a thing work? That's what we were trying to find out!

Given the historical record of the Scientific Council (surprisingly good, even under Ulrika) I may well propose to give it its' old role back, but with better controls. The SC should probably always have a minimum of three. I could probably go for mandating that at least one seat on the council be appointed from the outside, rather than self-selected from within. Term limits are a good idea, too. But taking the analogy that's been oft-used (the SC as a 'supreme court') and making it the reality seems a silly thing when the SC has never been selected on the basis of judiciary ability. It's a role the SC took on as the most-appropriate branch and the reason why your Judiciary Act was ever more than glanced at. I would prefer the judiciary relieve the SC of having to judge every little business dispute and griefer attack without neutering their ability to act as a brake on runaway government.