Proposal for the Unification of Colonia Nova & Neufreist

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:39 pm

[quote="Beathan":3czgr72k]That said, it is a pity that you didn't see things this way back in July. If so, we wouldn't be in a constitutional crisis with large numbers of citizens leaving or threatening to leave because autocratic states are more pleasant and acceptable to our citizens.[/quote:3czgr72k]Errm, no! We had about 40 citizens back in July, 60 now. So people are coming not going. The evidence does not support your contention and running around shouting 'crisis! crisis!' is not helping. Who is leaving? Who has left? Who is threatening to leave? This is bluster, not argument.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:48 pm

[quote:2hlhft1v]Errm, no! We had about 40 citizens back in July, 60 now. So people are coming not going. The evidence does not support your contention and running around shouting 'crisis! crisis!' is not helping. Who is leaving? Who has left? Who is threatening to leave? This is bluster, not argument.[/quote:2hlhft1v]

If you had bothered to attend the SC meeting you would have heard this concern -- and not from me. Frankly, I was surprised by its depth and resonance. I, for one, love what I have found in the CDS and hope to use the democratic process of the CDS to make it better. However, I have never seen a problem solve itself -- or improve by being denied.

As for the accusation that I am chicken little, I don't see it that way. I very reluctantly use the term "crisis" -- and I use it advisedly. I did not start by observing that there was a crisis. I did not even start by seeking repeal of the judiciary act. Rather, I wanted reform of the act, even only of the act as implemented. However, as I tried to draft a reform proposal -- especially as I became more familiar with the original constitutional structure and balance of the CDS between the RA, AC, and SC -- I came to the conclusion that the judiciary act was a constitutional misstep and that it has placed in a position of crisis on the lines and terms I have described.

Beathan

Ranma Tardis · Post by **Ranma Tardis** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:51 pm

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2d0o0alk]I very much like the idea of the SC having a term of office. Flyingroc proposed such a thing last term. My recollection is that the SC indicated there was a strong liklihood of its being vetoed if it were passed. However, I'd have to check transcripts.[/quote:2d0o0alk]

I would not support term limits on the SC.
Since the Guild seems to be going away I propose that an executive branch of government be formed using the United States as a model. For those Europeans it is a system that works very well with the 3 branches of government keeping each other in line. The executive branch of government would include the Office of Chancellor who will chosen by direct election of the citizens and would be in charge with the operation of the civil service. This branch would be involved with the day to day operations of the government.
The RA will continue as the legislative branch.
The SC will return to being the judicially branch of the government. Members will be nominated by the Chancellor and confirmed by the RA.
Removal from office or impeachment can only be made for misconduct and after a trial conducted by the RA which will be conducted by the chair of the SC.
Now the RA has acquired too much power and has nothing to keep it in balance with the rest of the government. Something needs to be done. The current Judiciary is a debating club for real life lawyers and completely ineffective.
I know the next entries will say this is too â€œAmericanâ€. Well I do not like the European system of government that places all power in the hands of the parliament. If things continue there will be the RA and its sub branches. Any position that can be removed by a simple vote of the RA is not in the slightest bit independent of it. The original government was set up with provisions of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I would like to see the government restored to its original basic configuration, a return to 3 branches of the government that can act independently of each other for the common good.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:07 pm

[quote="Beathan":12992pn2]If you had bothered to attend the SC meeting you would have heard this concern -- and not from me.[/quote:12992pn2]It was at midnight my time and I had an early start today. I intend to attend the meeting tomorrow. But you haven't dealt with the facts, the numbers do not support your contention that the Judiciary Act has driven people away from the CDS. I note you haven't dealt with that.

[quote:12992pn2]As for the accusation that I am chicken little, I don't see it that way. I very reluctantly use the term "crisis" -- and I use it advisedly. I did not start by observing that there was a crisis. I did not even start by seeking repeal of the judiciary act. Rather, I wanted reform of the act, even only of the act as implemented. However, as I tried to draft a reform proposal -- especially as I became more familiar with the original constitutional structure and balance of the CDS between the RA, AC, and SC -- I came to the conclusion that the judiciary act was a constitutional misstep and that it has placed in a position of crisis on the lines and terms I have described.

Beathan[/quote:12992pn2]Strange though that we didn't have a 'crisis' until you arrived and started posting about this. (130 in just over a month, looks like a 'man with a mission' to me). Instead we had a carefully crafted compromise which the RA passed unanimously. This was after considerable effort by all concerned in the community. And yet, before the Judiciary has a chance to get started, you want to raze it to the ground and start again because it doesn't conform to your prejudices.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:25 pm

This is indeed a very American system. Direct popular election of the Chancellor was proposed , but didn't have traction at the time. Maybe it would have more traction now.

The issue of terms of office for the SC is important for one huge reason. Unlike in America or many other constitutional states, the SC can veto constitutional amendments.

In the American system on which you model, if the Supreme Court strikes down something that the people really want to happen, they can amend the constitution and by so doing overturn the court decision. That amendment process is difficult (and much of the discussion of constitutional referenda comes from those of us who think this difficulty is a virtue), but if it happens, the judiciary can't do anything to stop it.

Not so in the CDS. If the SC decides that something ought not happen, there is nothing that the RA (the only branch accountable to the citizens) or anyone can do about it. Since SC membership is permanent, that's it.

If we are really a democracy, the "buck must stop" with the people. As the system is now constructed it stops at the SC, which cannot be held accountable for its actions, except by impeachment. I view the term limit on SC members as desirable [i:rce2sejd]if [/i:rce2sejd]you wish the SC to keep its veto on constitutional amendments. I also favor some sort of referendum as a second stage of approval for constitutional change.

Ranma Tardis · Post by **Ranma Tardis** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:40 pm

Claude, I forgot to add that the method of changing the constitution will be changed. It is too easy for the RA to change the constitution and I think it is a conflict of interest for it to do so. Branches of the government should not be allowed to vote itself new powers.
I think it should be up to a supermajority of the citizens to approve any changes to the constitution. The constitution should not be changed with each new election of the RA.
About terms for the SC, hmmm it would make the process open to faction politics. If done, the election can not happen at the same time as the RA and should have longer terms. I disagree with the current method of inpeachment. Being able to remove SC members without misconduct, limits the independence of the SC. Perhaps the work of the Judiciary can be incorporated into the new SC.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:58 pm

OK, let me throw a hypothetical out there. Let's say that Justice's proposal is approved and the SC then vetoes it. The veto is not misconduct, so what then happens? Despite widespread popular support for some sort of judiciary simplification. If the SC were to do such a veto, you end up with an self selected, life-tenured group as the final arbiter of the direction CDS goes. I worry about that.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:04 pm

Claude wrote [quote:2q7vhx2g]OK, let me throw a hypothetical out there. Let's say that Justice's proposal is approved and the SC then vetoes it. The veto is not misconduct, so what then happens? Despite widespread popular support for some sort of judiciary simplification. If the SC were to do such a veto, you end up with an self selected, life-tenured group as the final arbiter of the direction CDS goes. I worry about that.[/quote:2q7vhx2g]

First, the SC recognizes that its very existence and meaningfulness is threatened by the judiciary act as passed and implemented. This should make the SC far more amenable to a consensus and popular solution.

Second, why not amend the constitution. We could, if necessary, amend the constitition in two parts -- the first to add amendment by referendum without possibility of veto by any arm of government; the second to use the referendum to pass the amendment, bypassing the veto process. This is too democratic for some of our citizens -- but democracy is what we are supposed to be about.

Beathan

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:14 pm

What I think you are proposing here is an initiative process at the constitutional level. My thoughts:

* If you are going to completely bypass the elected RA, the approval bar needs to be really high. Maybe even over multiple referenda with a delay requirement.

* What happens if two incompatible amendments are proposed and both approved?

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:22 pm

Claude wrote [quote:2mbk6c0z]* If you are going to completely bypass the elected RA, the approval bar needs to be really high. Maybe even over multiple referenda with a delay requirement. [/quote:2mbk6c0z]

That seems reasonable. Supermajority turnout and supermajority passage, with a second referendum in the next RA term. I am concerned with the delay component in the current crisis, however, because we need action now. If delay is crucial, my proposal is a nonstarter in the current context, although it might be worth pursuing in its own right.

Claude wrote [quote:2mbk6c0z]What happens if two incompatible amendments are proposed and both approved?[/quote:2mbk6c0z]

Generally, if not proposed at the same time, the later amendment would supercede and impliedly repeal the earlier one. I doubt that this would be a problem if the amendments were proposed at the same time. I think that people are smart enough not to pass inconsistent amendments by popular initiative simultaneously. At any rate, even if people are not that smart iRL, surely the SL citizens of the CDS are.

Beathan

Ranma Tardis · Post by **Ranma Tardis** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:29 pm

If a supermajority vote of the citizens is not enough, I would add that the RA has to pass the admendment firstby super majority and then send it to the citizens. This would make the procedure hard enough so the consitution is not changed often.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:42 pm

That was actually the position that someone started with (essentially, the referendum replaces the SC's approval of amendments). Here were the issues as I remember them:

* The SC wouldn't go for it

* There was a question as to how frequently referenda could be scheduled and a concern that frequent constitutional referenda would lead to voter fatigue. One proposal was to have the constitutional referendum/a occur simultaneously with the next RA election, which also would prevent an RA from benefiting from an amendment they proposed until an election had given voters a chance to replace them.