New Constitution: First Draft

[Funkadelia]

-Charter of the Guardianship of Taijitu-

Preamble:
We the people of Taijitu have come together to form a Guardianship of our region under the principles of direct action and democracy.

Article 1: Citizens
Section 1: Obtaining Citizenship
1.   Any person possessing a resident nation in the region of Taijitu and a World Assembly nation may apply for citizenship by providing the names of both nations.
2.   Any application for citizenship may be denied by the High Guardian for any reason. 
Section 2: Rights
1.   All citizens may access the Regional Forums to the extent necessary to exercise their other rights.
2.   All citizens will be guaranteed access to the Court and a swift, fair and public trial if accused of a crime.
3.   All citizens will have the privilege of participation in Taijitu Role Play unless it is abused.
4.   All citizens will be guaranteed the right to freedom of political speech.
5.   All citizens will be guaranteed the right to freedom of association.
6.   All citizens will be guaranteed the right to participate in any election or referendum.
7.   Any citizen who has registered on the Regional Forums may run for and hold public office.
8.   All citizens will be guaranteed equal protection under the laws and Constitution of Taijitu.
Section 3: Responsibilities
1.   All citizens will abide by the policies of the Regional Forums and the rules of Nationstates.
2.   Personal attacks on any forum member that go beyond the functions of gameplay will not be considered political speech and will be subject to review from the forum’s moderation team.
Section 4: Loss of Citizenship
1.   Any person whose World Assembly nation ceases to be a World Assembly nation or ceases to exist, whose resident nation voluntarily leaves Taijitu or ceases to exist, who changes their resident or World Assembly nation without notifying the Delegate or appropriate minister, or who fails to abide by their responsibilities will forfeit their citizenship.
2.   Any citizen whose citizen nation continues to reside in Taijitu and whose World Assembly nation continues to be in the World Assembly may not lose their citizenship except by order of the Court.

Article 2: The Chamber of the Four Winds
Section 1: Powers and Limitations
1.   The Chamber of the Four Winds may enact, amend, or repeal laws by a majority vote.
2.   The Chamber of the Four Winds may override a legislative veto of the High Guardian by a two-thirds majority vote.
3.   The Chamber of the Four Winds may not enact any law which declares a person guilty of a criminal offense.
4.   The Chamber of the Four Winds may not enact any law retroactively.
Section 2: Structure and Procedures
1.   The Chamber of the Four Winds will not have a limit on membership.
2.   Any citizen may apply to be a member of the Chamber of the Four Winds.
3.   The first session of the Chamber of the Four Winds will be chosen by popular consensus of the region’s active membership.
4.   All future members of the Chamber of the Four Winds will be selected after an interview process with existing members of the Chamber of the Four Winds. The members will question the applicant for two days to judge the applicant’s character and allow both the applicant and the members of the Chamber of the Four Winds to become familiar with each other.
5.   After the questioning period the members of the Chamber of the Four Winds will vote on the new applicant’s status. If the applicant receives more Yay then Nay votes after a period of a day the new applicant will ascend to the Chamber of the Four Winds.
6.   The results of any vote taken in the Chamber of the Four Winds will reflect the number of members voting.
7.   The Chamber of the Four Winds will elect a Master of the Four Winds to administrate the affairs of the Chamber of the Four Winds.
8.   The Master of the Four Winds shall only cast a vote in the event of a tie at the end of any voting period.
9.   In cases of ambiguity or where no procedures exist, the Master of the Four Winds will use their own discretion.
Section 3: Immunities
1.   No member of the Chamber of the Four Winds may have their access to the Chamber of the Four Winds restricted without the consent of the Master of the Four Winds.

Article 3: Chamber of Elders
Section 1: Powers and Limitations
1.   The Chamber of Elders may not enact, amend, or repeal laws.
2.   The Chamber of Elders shall debate and vote upon the laws that pass through the Chamber of the Four Winds.
3.   The Chamber of Elders may override the veto of the High Guardian with an absolute majority vote.
Section 2: Structure and Procedures
1.   The Chamber of Elders shall have no more than twenty members.
2.   The members of the Chamber of Elders shall be chosen by the Chamber of the Four Winds.
3.   The Chamber of Elders shall elect a Master of the Elders to administrate the affairs of the Chamber of Elders.
4.   The Master of the Elders shall only cast a vote in the event of a tie at the end of any voting period.
5.   In cases of ambiguity or where no procedures exist, the Master of the Elders will use their own discretion.
Section 3: Immunities
1.   No member of the Chamber of Elders may have their access to the Chamber of Elders restricted without the consent of the Master of the Elders.

Article 4: The High Guardian
Section 1: Powers and Limitations
1.   The High Guardian will be responsible for upholding and enforcing the law and Constitution.
2.   The High Guardian will be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
3.   The High Guardian may negotiate treaties with foreign powers.
4.   The High Guardian may approve or veto any proposal to enact, amend or repeal a law passed by the Chamber of the Four Winds and the Chamber of the Elders.
5.   The High Guardian will, as the World Assembly Delegate of Taijitu, have access to regional controls.
Section 2: The Chamber of Guardians
1.   The High Guardian will appoint a Chamber of Guardians to assist them in their duties.
2.   The High Guardian may remove any guardian.
3.   The guardians of the Chamber of Guardians may be regulated by law.
Section 3: Election
1.   The High Guardian will be elected once every three months.
2.   The High Guardian will be elected by a simple majority vote.
Section 4: Impeachment
1.   The Chamber of the Four Winds may impeach the High Guardian by a majority vote.
2.   If the Chamber of the Four Winds votes to impeach the High Guardian then the High Guardian will be removed from office with the absolute majority vote of the Chamber of Elders.
Section 5: Continuity of Government
1.   Any person running for the office of High Guardian will publicly choose a candidate for Hand of the Guardian.
2.   If the person running for the office of High Guardian is elected, their choice of candidate will assume the office of Hand of the Guardian.
3.   If the High Guardian is absent, removed prematurely, or unable to perform their duties, the Hand of the Guardian will assume the office of High Guardian.
4.   Further offices in the line of succession for the office of High Guardian may be defined by law.

Article 5: The Court of Balance
Section 1: Powers and Limitations
1.   The Court will try criminal cases under the law and civil cases between citizens.
2.   The Court will arbitrate disputes relevant to Taijitu between any citizens seeking arbitration.
3.   The Court's power to try civil cases and arbitrate disputes may be regulated by law.
4.   If a suit on the matter is brought, the Court may rule on the legality or constitutionality of a law or government act and annul any laws or acts deemed unlawful or unconstitutional.
5.   If an ambiguity in the Law or Constitution arises, the Court will be responsible for its resolution.
6.   The Court will administer all elections.
7.   Justices may not try cases in which they have any personal involvement.
Section 2: Structure and Procedures
1.   The Court will be composed of a Master of the Balance and a number of associate oracles.
2.   The number of associate oracles will be two unless determined otherwise by the Master of the Balance.
3.   The Master of the Balance will administer the affairs of the Court
4.   The procedures of the Court will be determined by law.
5.   In cases of ambiguity or where no procedures exist, the Master of the Balance will use their discretion.
Section 3: Appointment
1.   If there is a vacancy on the Court, or there will be a vacancy in 14 days, the High Guardian may appoint a citizen to be Master of the Balance.
2.   All oracles will be chosen by the Master of the Balance.
3.   The Master of the Balance will serve until they resign.
Section 4: Removal
1.   The Chamber of the Elders may remove the Master of the Balance with a majority vote.

Article 6: Amendments
Section 1: Proposal
1.   The Chamber of the Four Winds may propose an amendment to this constitution by a two-thirds majority vote.
2.   After such a vote the Chamber of the Elders may approve the Amendment by a simple majority vote.
Section 2: Ratification
1.   The High Guardian may approve or veto the Amendment after it has been approved by the Chamber of the Elders.
2.   If the High Guardian approves the Amendment then the Charter is amended.

Article 7: General Provisions
Section 1: Charter Superiority
1.   This charter will be the supreme law of Taijitu and no other law may contradict its provisions.
Section 2: Separation of Powers
1.   The Chamber of the Four Winds and the Chamber of Elders will constitute the Legislative Branch.
2.   The High Guardian, Hand of the Guardian, and Cabinet will constitute the Executive Branch.
3.   The Court of the Balance will constitute the Judicial Branch.
4.   No person may serve in the leadership of more than one branch of the government simultaneously.
Section 3: Resignations
1.   Any person may resign at any time from any government office they hold.

[Funkadelia]

Thanks to Prydainia for writing up this draft for us

[Gulliver]

I'm at work so I haven't really read this over in detail since I'm at work but my initial first thoughts:

I don't think an upper chamber is necessary, and complicates things unnecessarily.

The term "simple majority vote" is ambiguous. In fact it might be better to leave the method of election of the executive up to law and adapt it as our resources and requirements allow and demand.

I am interested in the East Asian theme naming, though I'm not sure these are the best final names to use.

I am wondering if we can get away with having no court, or no classical style court, since those never seem to work and are a terrible bore for the person in them.

[Sovereign Dixie]

I am wondering if we can get away with having no court, or no classical style court, since those never seem to work and are a terrible bore for the person in them.

I support that.

[Sovereign Dixie]

This is the original post that I made in the private gov't chambers outlining what we were trying to do.

Ok, so. Some stuff has been gone over already. Now that we've got the gov't in place, and we know that it's secure form external threats, it's time to roll up our sleeves and get down to the nitty gritty.

For the constitution as a whole, my idea is not to actually even approach it from a "governmental document" standpoint, but rather have us ask ourselves "what makes for interesting game play?" What mechanisms can we put in place that can be interesting, compelling, encourage activity, and most of all be *user friendly* No complicated legalese, enough procedure to have structure, but not so much as to be overwhelming to a new citizen.

I want ppl to come here, look at our forums, find everything to be easy to navigate, be intuitive and inviting. I want ppl to be able to jump in on day 1 and immerse themselves in our *community*. I want us to be more than an NS region, I want us to be a place where ppl can join, meet ppl of similar interests no matter what they like, and, say, if they want, post a thread looking for Battlefield players, or wtf ever. I want joining taijitu to be as meaningful for them, as it was for us! I want a cultural rebirth.

We need to perhaps change our mindset a bit, in how we view the machinations of a region, lets all of us think back, to our most fond NS memories, what made them special? What made everything feel exciting when we first started playing? Or found that region where we finally felt like we fit in? How can we curate that kind of atmosphere?

We need opportunities to get involved for as many as possible. And do our best to make it *feel* rewarding, but also challenging at times.

For example. Take the Lexicon. The first region most of us here were part of. When I first joined, there were so many avenues of opportunity that it was just crazy. You had the senate, you had deputy minister positions fairly easily available, but with enough of a screening process that you felt like you'd done something when you got approved. I know we've had these things in the past, but lets revisit them, think on them differently, if we can. for example...

A bicameral legislature, where to become a senator, you simply undergo basically a formality of a screening process. Let us get to know them, them get to know us, not just us in gov't, but anyone, any citizen can take this chance to get to know someone. Then we have a voting for said senator, everyone can vote, simple majority passes.

Then, an upper house, a bit more exclusive. Where the senate elects these individuals, limited seats available.. dunno how many... but fairly easy to get into, just, as I said, a bit more exclusive, those who were politically astute and involved would most likely be those who got to that upper tier, but still wouldn't be minister levels of involvement.

Recruiting has always been extremely vital, and even more so for us now. Can we think of ways to recognise those who do well? In game achievments are silly, and yet we're always happy when we get one. How can we bring that model into what we're trying to do, and apply it? The same thing goes for the military, things like medals, ribbons, etc for actions a player was involved in. Something to say "hey, I did stuff".

I know some of this has nothing to do with the constitution, I'd never write in shit about ribbons and such, but I'm trying to be as comprehensive as I can here, and communicate what I have in mind.

On to the theme thing... so, Funk and I had some discussions early on in this endeavour (feels like forever ago) and so, he said something about taijitu, and spirituatlity and such. So, a couple of hours and many many beers later (y'all know how I get) I came up with some base concepts.

Taijitu, the ying yang thing... balance... kind of a mysticism/fantasy deal...

Senate = Chamber of the four winds

Delegate = The High Guardian - The protector of the region, ensures the balance, blah blah yakkity

MoD = Guardian of The Sword.... Sword/war etc....

MoEA Guardian of The Dove... the opposite of the Sword, the MoEA tries to prevent wars by bolstering taijitu's reputation, fostering good will, and negotiates relationships which can deter agression.

MoIA/Community/Culture Guardian of the Scroll... scroll, paper... things are wrote on it... culture/literature...

Minister of Propaganda (if a delegate chooses one) Guardian of Truth ... Just for pure irony, and a bit of that Dystopian feel that I love so much

Speaker.. Master of the Four Winds?

Chief Justice....

And incomplete and imperfect starting point, but it can at least maybe be a starting point maybe to springboard other ideas off of.

So, that's what I've got right now. I hope that's presented in a manner that lets you follow my train of thought and see where I'm coming from with it. Pick it apart, offer suggestions, criticism, etc... we're all friends here so let's have at it!

[Eluvatar]

I haven't read in detail yet either, for the same reasons as Gulliver, but two things jump at me:

1. It might be wise to discuss the naming scheme separately from the structure, to avoid tying ourselves into knots.

2:

I am wondering if we can get away with having no court, or no classical style court, since those never seem to work and are a terrible bore for the person in them.

What may be worth exploring is having some sort of pool of potential judicial officers that we would select from as the need arises. (Randomly among disinterested parties).

We could either do a qualified pool (currently myself, Gulliver, Limi, and if he gets back Imzogelmo, but we could expand it) based on grueling examinations of Taiji law or just a pool of anyone interested in that sort of thing, something in between, or both (a randomly selected presiding officer from the qualified pool and two or more randomly selected additional panel members to help make the final ruling).

[Funkadelia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ussCHoQttyQ

[Eluvatar]

Having reviewed the text, I think it can be split into the following changes:

1. Referendums are removed, instead there is a senior chamber elected by the (renamed) Senate whose approval is also needed for laws, amendments, and impeachment. (Citizens still have a right to vote in referendums though )
2. The Delegate can also veto amendments.
3. The Chief Justice chooses their own Associates.
4. The Delegate appoints the Chief Justice, rather than nominating them to the Senate for confirmation.
5. Senators access to the Senate can be denied with the approval of the Speaker instead of the Senate as a whole.
6. Senators require the affirmative approval of the Senate to join it (following an application process).

And in terms of renaming:
1. The Senate becomes the Chamber of the Four Winds.
2. The Delegate becomes the High Guardian.
3. The Cabinet becomes the Chamber of Guardians.
4. The Speaker becomes the Master of the Four Winds.
5. The Lieutenant Delegate becomes the Hand of the Guardian
6. The Court becomes the Court of the Balance
7. The Chief Justice becomes the Master of the Balance
8. Associate Justices become Oracles of the Balance.

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about any of these changes

I'm prepared to go along with getting rid of referendums, but I'm worried that adding bicameralism would lead to conflict between the two legislatures, particularly as Elders apparently must by definition be members of the C4W.

I don't care either way about whether the Delegate can veto amendments. I am curious as to why this change is suggested, though.

Having the CJ choose the Associates strikes me as a bit odd: doesn't seem to actually limit their power.

Having the CJ appointed without any confirmation process strikes me as seriously iffy. Particularly given the previous.

Letting us block Senate/C4W access with just the permission of the Speaker strikes me as dangerous also. The Speaker could consent to blocking their opponents from the Senate, and then they'd never be voted out... Just seems messy. Having it be the consent of the Senate leaves room for the Senate to specify sensible procedures for blocking disruptive Senators.

I have no objection to making the Senate self-selecting. The confrontational Senate Application process was often great fun, and it'd be interesting to see it come back. That said we'd want to keep the confrontations from becoming actually unpleasant: they should be fun on both sides.

I do however have a problem with the Senate being self-selecting and the Senate selecting the Supersenate. If the Senate's self-selecting, the Supersenate / Chamber of Elders should, I think, be selected by the citizens as a whole.

Edit: Re: Names

I'm dubious of the name changes because I think people might find them confusing, and difficult to abbreviate. "Master of the Four Winds" is much longer a title than "Speaker" for instance.

[Khem]

I approve of the names... I'll get back to you on the rest.

[Gulliver]

I've had more time to look at this and have some more thoughts about this, in no particular order:

1. I don't like that the [Executive] has absolute power to block citizenship requests. I think there should be an option to appeal it, possibly to the [Upper House] as part of their security related powers if we go that route (more on this later).

2. We might want to make any transitional clauses like selecting the initial [Lower House] membership self-deleting, but this not necessary.

3. I don't think the interview process for the  [Lower House] should be specified in the constitution. It should just say they can let citizens enter by a majority vote, and let the actual process of that be in the procedures.

4. Speaking of procedures, I don't think it currently says that each house decides their by an internal majority vote.

5. I don't think the clause that there is no limit on the size of the [Lower House] is strictly necessary.

6. I think instead of the Speaker breaking ties it should just clarify that a tied vote is not considered a majority.

7. Access restrictions or removal from each house should be by a super-majority vote of its membership, not by the [Speaker].

8.  If we're going to have the [Upper House], I think it could function in the same way many do in real life, as an elected body of a limited number of more experienced individuals who deal with more grave matters. Powers could include approving treaties, declaring war, reviewing denied citizenship applications, removing [ministers], reviewing laws from the [Lower House] for gross unconstitutionality or delaying bad laws, etc.

9. I don't think it's necessary to place a cap in the constitution on membership, it's sufficient to say the size is determined by law.

10. We would need to clarify qualifications for election the [Upper House] and whether they also can be in the [Lower House] at the same time.

11. Methods of election should just be determined by law so we can adapt and debate this moving forward.

12. Maybe we should elect the [Lieutenant Executive] separately like many U.S. states do and other regions do, because sometimes making sure people had someone running on the same ballot has them was a hassle in the past.

13. SD mentioned he wanted things people could work towards. Being a member of the pool of qualified [judicial officers] who try cases as needed could be one such thing if we're okay with it being a bit restrictive.

14. I don't think the [Executive] should be able to veto constitutional amendments.

[Khem]

in reply to #11: Condorcet voting?

[Eluvatar]

in reply to #11: Condorcet voting?

There being strong opposition to Condorcet voting, the IRC consensus is to support Approval voting for [Executive]:

Approval voting is pretty darned simple.

You vote for whichever candidates you approve of. You can vote for any number of candidates. The candidate who gets the most votes, wins.

This is the system NationStates uses to elect Delegates (except that it does this twice daily and votes carry over until withdrawn, and everyone in the electorate is always a candidate whether they like it or not).

This is almost as good as Condorcet voting at selecting the candidate most preferred by the voters over the alternatives and is really simple. (The downside is that there is a small degree of tactical voting in play: If you like both Alice and Bob as candidates but you know that one of them will win, you have an incentive to not vote for the one of them you don't prefer. This is nowhere near as bad as Plurality voting however, where if you know Alice and Bob are most likely to win, you should rationally only vote for one of them and ignore the other candidates entirely).

[Khem]

I give it my vote of approval.

[Sovereign Dixie]

I don't care either way about whether the Delegate can veto amendments. I am curious as to why this change is suggested, though.

I'm not married to it. We can take that out. Amendments take a good number of votes to pass anyway. Alternatively, the exec can have the power to, instead of veto, call for a referendum open to the citzenship at large for a vote at that point. Not married to that alternative either, just floating it out there.

Having the CJ choose the Associates strikes me as a bit odd: doesn't seem to actually limit their power.

Having the CJ appointed without any confirmation process strikes me as seriously iffy. Particularly given the previous.

I will concede that as well. Though I don't care how the associates are chosen, it just seemed logical.

Letting us block Senate/C4W access with just the permission of the Speaker strikes me as dangerous also. The Speaker could consent to blocking their opponents from the Senate, and then they'd never be voted out... Just seems messy. Having it be the consent of the Senate leaves room for the Senate to specify sensible procedures for blocking disruptive Senators.

I'm ok with your suggested change. Or alternatively have it require the consent of the Speaker and the Del? Eh, whichever.

I have no objection to making the Senate self-selecting. The confrontational Senate Application process was often great fun, and it'd be interesting to see it come back. That said we'd want to keep the confrontations from becoming actually unpleasant: they should be fun on both sides.

Agreed. And I don't think we should have an issue with that.

I do however have a problem with the Senate being self-selecting and the Senate selecting the Supersenate. If the Senate's self-selecting, the Supersenate / Chamber of Elders should, I think, be selected by the citizens as a whole.

I'm open to alternate means of selection/election for the Elders

Edit: Re: Names

I'm dubious of the name changes because I think people might find them confusing, and difficult to abbreviate. "Master of the Four Winds" is much longer a title than "Speaker" for instance.

Your reasoning has merit. But I feel pretty strongly on revamping this a bit, even if only as a trial. I'm quite open to more friendly names that will fit what we're going for.

[Sovereign Dixie]

I've had more time to look at this and have some more thoughts about this, in no particular order:

1. I don't like that the [Executive] has absolute power to block citizenship requests. I think there should be an option to appeal it, possibly to the [Upper House] as part of their security related powers if we go that route (more on this later).

I'm ok with an upper house appeal

2. We might want to make any transitional clauses like selecting the initial [Lower House] membership self-deleting, but this not necessary.

what? dumb it down a bit please lol

3. I don't think the interview process for the  [Lower House] should be specified in the constitution. It should just say they can let citizens enter by a majority vote, and let the actual process of that be in the procedures.

Fair enough.

4. Speaking of procedures, I don't think it currently says that each house decides their by an internal majority vote.

Ok, that can be changed too then

5. I don't think the clause that there is no limit on the size of the [Lower House] is strictly necessary.

that also can be fixed.

6. I think instead of the Speaker breaking ties it should just clarify that a tied vote is not considered a majority.

and what good would changing that phrasing accomplish?

7. Access restrictions or removal from each house should be by a super-majority vote of its membership, not by the [Speaker].

See my reply to Elu's concerns about this.

8.  If we're going to have the [Upper House], I think it could function in the same way many do in real life, as an elected body of a limited number of more experienced individuals who deal with more grave matters. Powers could include approving treaties, declaring war, reviewing denied citizenship applications, removing [ministers], reviewing laws from the [Lower House] for gross unconstitutionality or delaying bad laws, etc.

I'm very fond of this idea!

9. I don't think it's necessary to place a cap in the constitution on membership, it's sufficient to say the size is determined by law.

eh, fair enough. *shrugs*

10. We would need to clarify qualifications for election the [Upper House] and whether they also can be in the [Lower House] at the same time.

I had actually thought about that last night, but shit was kinda crazy. Well, shit was crazy today too, but yeah. I think that maybe should be flexible? It really depends on how many ppl we have, I guess. Though I could see being in both as a possible conflict of interest.

11. Methods of election should just be determined by law so we can adapt and debate this moving forward.

The main reason for putting that in, at least as it applies to the exec, was to preclude the possibility, nay, the thought, of condorcet from being thrust upon us. we've got that sorted already, so I'm fine with w/e on that now.

12. Maybe we should elect the [Lieutenant Executive] separately like many U.S. states do and other regions do, because sometimes making sure people had someone running on the same ballot has them was a hassle in the past.

I disagree rather strongly on this. This could cause disharmony in the executive in the event ppl get elected who.. well, don't get along. and could cause issues.

13. SD mentioned he wanted things people could work towards. Being a member of the pool of qualified [judicial officers] who try cases as needed could be one such thing if we're okay with it being a bit restrictive.

Agreed!

14. I don't think the [Executive] should be able to veto constitutional amendments.

See my reply to elu about this
[/quote]