Proposed Amendment Removing the Artisanal Branch

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Proposed Amendment Removing the Artisanal Branch

Post by Jon Seattle »

[b:od1nthfr]Proposed Amendment Removing the Artisanal Branch[/b:od1nthfr]

[b:od1nthfr]Preamble[/b:od1nthfr]

With the establishment of the executive branch, the governmental role of the Artisanal Branch (Guild) is no longer needed or appropriate. This amendment transfers all Artisanal Branch powers to the other branches, ensuring that the balance of powers remains sound.

For clarity this amendment also removes all references to the Artisanal branch from the constitution.

[b:od1nthfr]Implementation[/b:od1nthfr]

This amendment will remain in force only if the executive is confirmed as set out in amendment 11 section 10 establishing the office of the Chancellor.

[b:od1nthfr]Deletions[/b:od1nthfr]

Article I:
From section 6, remove:

The Artisanal branch may veto a revenue bill or resubmit a modified
revenue bill for vote.

From section 7, remove:

In regards to the Artisanal branch:
The RA sets taxation rate and the city budget.
The RA can seek impeachment of members of the Artisanal branch for
failing to support the city fiscally.
The leader of the RA sits as the leader of the Artisanal branch if the
Artisanal branch seeks to impeach a member of the Philosophic branch.
The RA can override an Artisanal veto with a 2/3 vote

The leader of the RA sits as the leader of the Philosophic branch if
the Philosophic branch seeks to impeach a member of the Artisanal
branch.

Article II is removed in its entirety.

Article III:
Section 8, remove:

The SC can seek impeachment of members of the Artisanal branch for
violating the constitution or acting illegally.

Article V:
From section 1, remove mention of the Artisanal branch.

From section 2, remove:
Members of the Representative Assembly and the Scientific Council may
be members of the Artisanal Collective but may not vote nor hold
elected positions in the Artisanal branch.

[b:od1nthfr]Additions:[/b:od1nthfr]
Article I, Section 6, add:

The Scientific Council may veto a revenue bill or resubmit a modified
revenue bill for vote.

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

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

Ahh, you forgot the parts of Article VII (the Judiciary) that refer to the Artisanal Collective.

Also, what about stipulating that the article of the constitution providing for a Chancellor shall henceforth be known as Article II, since it currently has no article number, and Article II will be spare?

[i:36i465gl]Edit[/i:36i465gl]: Also, as to:

[quote:36i465gl]The Scientific Council may veto a revenue bill or resubmit a modified revenue bill for vote.[/quote:36i465gl]

What does this add to the combination of the Chancellor's power of veto over revenue bills, and the Scientific Council's existing constitutionality veto? Why should the constitutional oversight body be performing what is in effect an executive function?

As I understand it, the Chancellor replaces the old governmental functions of the Guild, and expands on them. One of those functions was vetoing revenue bills. The Chancellor now has the power to veto [i:36i465gl]any[/i:36i465gl] bill, on any grounds. The Chancellor is a position whose power is checked by democratic controls: he or she is appointed by the legislature. The Scientific Council has no such check. Its present veto powers are expressly limited to where bills conflict with the constitution or the founding documents. Do you [i:36i465gl]really[/i:36i465gl] want an unelected body to have the power to over-ride a particular category of legislative action for [i:36i465gl]any reason at all[/i:36i465gl]?

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 »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":pkr07vzk]Do you [i:pkr07vzk]really[/i:pkr07vzk] want an unelected body to have the power to over-ride a particular category of legislative action for [i:pkr07vzk]any reason at all[/i:pkr07vzk]?[/quote:pkr07vzk]That argument doesn't wash. The (unelected) Guild Master has the power to veto a finance bill.

BTW, I take it you're in favour of a wholly elected second chamber in the UK (as opposed to our unelected House of Lords)? We wouldn't want an unelected body having power to over-ride an elected legislature, would we? :)

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

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":2i7l5mau]That argument doesn't wash. The (unelected) Guild Master has the power to veto a finance bill.[/quote:2i7l5mau]

I thought that the whole point of this bill was to end that position?

[quote:2i7l5mau]BTW, I take it you're in favour of a wholly elected second chamber in the UK (as opposed to our unelected House of Lords)? We wouldn't want an unelected body having power to over-ride an elected legislature, would we? :)[/quote:2i7l5mau]

The House of Lords does not have the power to veto bills from the House of Commons (except for bills to delay elections beyond five years); it only has the power to delay them.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
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="Patroklus Murakami":2n162f0h]That argument doesn't wash. The (unelected) Guild Master has the power to veto a finance bill.
[/quote:2n162f0h]

Technically, the GM *is* elected, but by the master-rank of the Guild.

As has been pointed out with the scenario of a single SC member, this can be problematic.

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

My point was that the transfer of a power (ability to veto revenue bills) from the unelected Guildmaster to the unelected Scientific Council is hardly a massive change in constitutional proprieties. As an argument against this proposal it is paper-thin.

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="Patroklus Murakami":3985efck]My point was that the transfer of a power (ability to veto revenue bills) from the unelected Guildmaster to the unelected Scientific Council is hardly a massive change in constitutional proprieties. As an argument against this proposal it is paper-thin.[/quote:3985efck]

Oh, true enough, although I don't think the transfer is necessarily needed - the treasurer is now a civil servant under the Executive, and the executive veto should suffice.

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

I have resubmitted this proposal to the Representative Assembly for consideration during this legislative term.

Now that the Executive Branch (Chancellor) has been made a permanent part of our constitutional set-up it is time to complete the removal of the Guild from the institutions of government and establish a New Guild with a clearer focus and a renewed purpose.

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

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

Some comments here:

First the Chancellor permanence amendment passed last week renumbered things, making the exec Article II, AC Article III usw. So I assume you'd need to change that to delete article III.

Given that the Chancellor has a veto power broader (it applies to any act of the RA other than one to remove a Chancellor from office) than the AC, I don't think the AC power to veto revenue bills needs to [i:19jdpp4w]go[/i:19jdpp4w] anywhere.

The other change this makes is regarding impeachment. I believe the AC has the power to bring impeachment proceedings on fiscal grounds. Since the only place for this to go is the SC, which can already initiate impeachment proceedings, I don't see it as a big problem.

Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”