Constitutional Cleanup

[Gulliver]

So there's been some talk of an entirely new constitution going about the Senate. I don't think this is necessary and am reluctant to just keep incrementing through republics, but I do think there are some things that need to be touched up after the, I believe rightful, decision to return to the old volunteer Senate model.

Firstly, right now the language for voluntary membership is defined by the Senate and Court Membership Act. I believe it would be more appropriate for it be included directly in the body of the Constitution.

Secondly, since the Senate is open again, I do not believe the referendums system is redundant and needlessly complicates matters, and should be scrapped.

Thirdly, if we do scrap the referendum system, we need to revise the separation of powers section of the Constitution to permit members of the execute and judiciary to sit in the senate again. I don't believe such an absolute separation of powers is necessary for our case.

Fourthly, the quorum clause might need to be revised. Right now it's a majority which could be impractical if the Senate grows large and has lots of rarely participating members. A third might be better.

Also, while we're at it, I'd like to overturn what I believe was my own ruling and have people swear an oath to obtain citizenship. Not that it really matters.

It will also probably be necessary to update the Senate's procedures. Right now I don't have actual language to present and am too tired to write it right now, but I'd like to get this discussion rolling.

[McMasterdonia]

As a whole it sounds like a good idea.

Though I think that there is some merit to a whole constitutional convention so that we can figure out what balance we want struck between the Delegate and the Senate etc. I think that some of these suggestions should be delayed a bit until we start recruiting?

There is no reason to have a Senate if it has little to discuss - so it might be good to wait for new members as a way of getting them involved.

[Eluvatar]

So there's been some talk of an entirely new constitution going about the Senate. I don't think this is necessary and am reluctant to just keep incrementing through republics, but I do think there are some things that need to be touched up after the, I believe rightful, decision to return to the old volunteer Senate model.

I'd rather not throw out the constitution just now either, though once we have a dozen or two Senators a wholesale rewrite should perhaps be considered.

Firstly, right now the language for voluntary membership is defined by the Senate and Court Membership Act. I believe it would be more appropriate for it be included directly in the body of the Constitution.

I think we should add something like this to the constitution:

1. The membership of the Senate will be determined by law, either through a uniform process of admission or through proportional election simultaneously with the Delegate.
2. In the absence of law regarding Senate membership, the Senate will be composed of all citizens who choose to join it.

Secondly, since the Senate is open again, I do not believe the referendums system is redundant and needlessly complicates matters, and should be scrapped.

I think that the Senate should be free to experiment with itself for a bit, but that means that I think there should ultimately be an ability to bypass it if absolutely necessary. (This also means the Senate alone should not, in my opinion, be able to unilaterally change the Constitution). As the plan is to induce people to become citizens pretty much as soon as they join the region, I think it's likely we may have some citizens who aren't Senators. The constitutional law regarding referenda is clearly separated from the rest of the constitution so I don't think it complicates things. (Excepting amendments to the constitution, but I do think those should be serious business).

Thirdly, if we do scrap the referendum system, we need to revise the separation of powers section of the Constitution to permit members of the execute and judiciary to sit in the senate again. I don't believe such an absolute separation of powers is necessary for our case.

Again, no to the first, YES to the second. The separation of powers section should apply only to the Speaker, not to the entire senate.

Fourthly, the quorum clause might need to be revised. Right now it's a majority which could be impractical if the Senate grows large and has lots of rarely participating members. A third might be better.

Well I would expect the Senate to keep its membership active -- the old system had the Senate remove those who failed to vote X number of times in a row.

Also, while we're at it, I'd like to overturn what I believe was my own ruling and have people swear an oath to obtain citizenship. Not that it really matters.

I don't think that's necessary. A clear affirmation of being Taijituan and understanding one's subject to Taijitu law is I think enough.

It will also probably be necessary to update the Senate's procedures. Right now I don't have actual language to present and am too tired to write it right now, but I'd like to get this discussion rolling.

Yes. Not being in the Senate, I won't comment further right now.

[Delfos]

I've tried to address the Quorum problem, you're free to suggest things to the senate: Senate Quorum Call

We haven't reached any decision on the subject.

[McMasterdonia]

I would definitely scrap the referendum system.

[Eluvatar]

What does it harm to leave it be?

[Delfos]

What does it harm to leave it be?

I think Gulliver's point is that, if everybody has access to the Senate, doesn't make sense the Delegate or Senate proposes a Referendum to the People, the People supposedly already have access to the Senate where they can vote on stuff.

TBH if this is what Gulliver is suggesting, then it's pretty much the Council idea All Senate's decisions count as referendum, they are final and fully democratic.

  please say yes, the Council is a great idea

[Lapeirousia]

I agree with most of what has been said.

This is what we have:

A Delegate
B Ministers
C Chief Justice
D Speaker
E Senate
F Sworn Citizens
G Registered Users
H Resident Nations

There will always be some (H) who are not in (G).  They are not represented unless they telegram or rmb post, which I must let you know, many of them do put forth political opinions, whether they are spies or not, it can't be proven.  Limiting their say can be justified on the grounds they in 90% of cases have the ability to get into (G) (F) or (E) without any serious obstacle.

There will always be some (G) who are not in (F).  These are newbies who are not noticeable, or they are long time members who don't care about the political system.  Limiting their say can be justified on the grounds that they chose not to participate.

The same argument can be made for those (F) who are not in (E) but a different degree of involvement.  The current constitution gives them political power, in the referendum, but does not require them to be active in order to keep their political power.

Now (E) is the most important group I think, because they need to reform the system to make it work properly.  Under our constitution they are the ones who have to make the reform, but it is impossible to do it without (C) and (A).  If (C), (B) and (A) are excluded from this body, their number is too small to thrive and be representative.

Excluding (D) from (B) makes sense, but it would be beneficial to lose that restriction in emergency situations.

Excluding (E) from (B) would be fatal.

In a freer system, (B) would not need to be taken from within (F), they could be taken from (G) or (H) as well.  It's not neat but it does open things up.

The trouble we had is there were no (B), people were denying being in (E), hesitant to appoint (D), (C) was AWOL, (A) was against the system and so was most of (F).  Calls for reform were coming from all sections of society that were not completely incapacitated.  The loudest voice heard was for monarchic revolution though.

I think your ideas are going the right way, am not trying to derail them, just filling you in with how I see things.  The referendum was seen as a bane due to the above difficulties, but mainly due to the fact the delegate did not co-operate.

[Eluvatar]

Well, let's do the stuff we're unanimous about first, I imagine.