[Citizens Toolbox] [Immigration] |
| No Running elections |
Parent message | ||||
| Justice dal Navâ | February 23, 2005 - 04:07 | |||
| G. Voldemort goes 1 for 10!(#1141), posted by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h, [IP Hidden], February 23, 2005 - 23:03. Viewed 516 times. |
| User Info | Text |
| Gödafrďeu Válcadác’h Group: admins (3164 posts total) (last post: March 14, 2008 - 15:24) Citizen #6: Gödafrďeu Válcadác’h | First of all, if putting typos in this post was inappropriate, I apologize. > > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 1 > > > > Currently, §1.1.3a says, "The population, by means of elections, exercises this authority". > > > > This line conflicts with §2.2.19 that says "...shall present that bill to the people in a referendum" > > > > Therefore, §1.1.3a shall be stricken from the Draft Constitution. > > Wha--? How is this a conflict? §1.1.3 says the population exercises its authority by means of elections, assuming an election means when a person is elected. §2.2.19 refers to the people having referendums, that is, PGC-style votes on pieces of legislation or other matters not related to electing humans to office. §1.1.3 does not allow for referendums. The sentence I cited is redundant because elsewhere in the Constitution, the ways in which the people effect their authority are already spelled-out. Why should this sentence be in the Constitution. > > > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 3 > > > > The capitol of the Republic needs to be an actual city, not just a building. > > > > Therefore, §1.1.8 shall be stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following: > > > > §1.1.8a: The capital of the Republic of Talossa shall be Cüf City, named after Republic Citizen Bill Cooper. > > > > §1.1.8b: The boundaries of Cüf City shall be defined in a future version of the Law of Territory. > > > > §1.1.8b: The capitol building of the Republic of Talossa shall be the Mitchell Building in the province of Port Maxhestic. > > ABsolutely not. 1) It's creepy to name something after someone who is still alive and 2) No offense to Coop, but what has he done so significantly in the Republic? I can see where you are coming from in regard to the name. Coop's renunciation inspired a lot of the impetus towards the Republic, and yes, using his name is creepy, now that you mention it. Good call. :-( Unfortunately, my unfortunate naming convention has overshadowed the fact that our capital city is no more than a single building, even if that building is very beautiful and dignified. Let's make it the whole city block or section of the city in which it stands, and have done with it. This part you have not addressed. > > > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 4 > > > > Currently, §1.1.9 reads in italics as follows, with my comments interspersed throughout: > > > > §1.1.9: The political parties of the Republic participate in the formation of the political spirit of the people. > > > > This sentence is redundant. Who is the government to define what a political party says and does so long as that party conforms to the rule of law? > > How is it redundant? Because it is already obvious what a political party does. While obvious things should be spelled-out anyway at times, this is not one of those times. > > > Their internal organization must conform to democratic ethics. > > > > Who gets to define "democratic ethics"? This section is a breeding ground for Ben-esque abuses. > > How? Is every passage that is not explicitly defined a problem for you? What if a second Ben Madison comes forth with a vendetta? Imagine Talossa in early 2004 and the damage Ben could have done with the gigantic loophole created by being able to give the Uppermost Cort a new definition of "democratic ethics"! > > > They must openly report their finances." > > > > To whom? > > Take a wild guess. To the same creature that allows them to exist: the government. The government or the people?? > > > §1.1.9 is intended to foster democratic behavior in political parties, but this section, as it currently stands, could be abused by people with less-than-honorable intentions to shut down opposition parties. > > > > Therefore, §1.1.9 is stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following: > > > > §1.1.9: Political parties shall openly report their finances to the people. The frequency and manner of such reporting shall be determined by law. > > Someone's being a little too anal retentive here. I don't think I am out-of-line here. :-) > > > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 5 > > > > §1.1.11 is vague. Therefore, it shall be stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following: > > > > §1.1.11: All officials and civil servants, elected or otherwise, of this Republic, be they federal-level or otherwise, are, in spirit if not in letter, servants of the entire community. To all these persons, freedom of political opinion and association are assured. > > How is it vague? "servants" in spirit or in letter? To whom do officials and civil servants report then? All of the people or just the PM or whomever is spelled out in the constitution? > And are you proposing that everything YOU find vague be stricken and replaced? Yes. > > > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 6 > > > > In §1.4.13, the phrase "with the criminal laws" is vague in that the word "the" does not clearly state what legal jurisdictions are at play. > > > > Therefore, the entirety of §1.4.13 shall be replaced with the following: > > > > §1.4.13: Associations, the objects or activities of which conflict with the criminal laws of the home country of the person in question or of the Republic of Talossa, the former taking precedence over the latter, or which are directed against the constitutional order or the concept of international relations, are prohibited. > > Yeah, that's WAAAAAAAAAY clearer. Not. Hmmm... Let me think on what you have said... I agree with you!! lol > > > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 7 > > > > The last sentence of §1.4.18 invites abuse and trouble: who gets to define "common danger"? And let's define "common danger". > > No. Common danger pretty much defines itself. And if they're any question down the line, it gives the High Court something to interpret. Name a constitution in which every term is defined IN the constitution. I'll wait. Ben Madison would have defined "common danger" as "Chris Gruber". Yes, the Uppermost Cort of that time would have struck him down, but what if the Cort was populated by Ken Oplinger (who voted MN in the last Kingdom election), Mark Hamilton, and, say, Dan Lorentz? > > > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 8 > > > > The final dependent clause of §1.4.19 is ambiguous. What are the implied "duties"? > > > > Therefore the phrase "but implies duties" shall be stricken from §1.4.19, which shall now read thusly: "The right to ownership of and the protection of property shall be guaranteed." > > Why? "Vague" is not a reason to strike or redefine passages. Yes, it is when necessary. What are the "implied duties"? > > G. V. 3rd Constitutional Draft - Amendment 10 > > > > §2.1.1 shall be stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following: > > > > §2.1.1a: The President of the Republic (in the national language: el Prüm Citaxhien) is the Head of State of the Republic and the defender of the Constitution. > > > > §2.1.1b: The Deans of the Provisional Governing Council shall be recognized as having been Heads of State. > > Fine. No problem there. Well, at least I got one second. :-) > > > * * * > > > > Typo in §1.4.30: Capitalizing the word "Courts" implies the existence of an particular organization or body bearing the name "Courts". Not capitalizing this word solves this problem and lets the whole of the judiciary of the Republic in on the fun. > > What part of "no nitpicking on spelling and punctuation" in Daph's instructions did you not understand? I felt this was substantial enough to warrant its inclusion with these amendments. I just wish I had put it in as an amendment. G. V. www.icantbelieveitsnottonal.com The Talossan Wiki at www.talossapedia.com |
| |||||||||
|