Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Panessos Regional Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.

Panessos is a region within the politics-related, nation simulator, NationStates. A freely available, browser-based game, Panessos is a region of steady growth focussing on quality role-play (RP), literature, imagination and fun. While we are limited in who we invite to join us, we welcome any expressions of interest to the region itself and invite you to join our forums to have some fun, regardless of whether you're in the region or not.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Panessos Constitution [ABANDONED]
Topic Started: Sep 7 2013, 08:50 PM (1,272 Views)
Nerod
Member Avatar
Emperor of the GNNE.

When will this poll end?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ghant
Member Avatar


Libraria and Ausitoria
Sep 21 2013, 02:58 AM
Aye.

I would like to register my nation's opposition to the principle of an exclusive legislature: it is much better to include all of us as equals instead of creating two tiers of citizenship. Everybody should have a right to suggest changes to laws.

This. One legislative body that consist of each player who wants to participate.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Libraria and Ausitoria
Member Avatar
Prime Minister & Speaker of the Senate

I would suggest that if the Senate is going to set its own rules for proceedings and have more independence from the executive (which I agree with) then it would be best if the rules about the Speaker are not included in the Constitution.

In addition we should really be allowed to change our votes while the debate is still going. Maybe we should have people vote in these posts and someone - the speaker eventually - keep of tally as a votes change?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ghant
Member Avatar


Libraria and Ausitoria
Sep 22 2013, 01:48 AM
I would suggest that if the Senate is going to set its own rules for proceedings and have more independence from the executive (which I agree with) then it would be best if the rules about the Speaker are not included in the Constitution.

In addition we should really be allowed to change our votes while the debate is still going. Maybe we should have people vote in these posts and someone - the speaker eventually - keep of tally as a votes change?

Yes, that's the way it is currently intepreted. So far, the vote for a unicameral legislature is 5-0, with Gillenor, Paddy, Loufe, Pensalum and myself having spoken in favor of it. More may have voted beyond my knowledge.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nerod
Member Avatar
Emperor of the GNNE.

I want Bicameral. xD
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Libraria and Ausitoria
Member Avatar
Prime Minister & Speaker of the Senate

Well the poll above suggests 5 people were in favour of bicameralism. I am also for unicameralism.

I'd suggest we put together a new thread to vote in with a quick sum-up of the arguments on both sides?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gillenor
Member Avatar
Administrator

Yeah, I second the new thread.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Urenus
Member Avatar
Senator

Just my position, I agree with Ghant etc. as a bicameral system would just overcomplicate things in my opinion.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Naybra
Member Avatar
Minister of Internal Affairs

Version III of the Panessos Constitution.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Libraria and Ausitoria
Member Avatar
Prime Minister & Speaker of the Senate

I do feel duty-bound to point out a long-standing contradiction inherent in all the drafts of the constitution.

Take a look at subsection 2.02 and 4.05. 2.02 implies that nations are not required to do anything mandatory, while 4.05 implies that the Senate could micromanage anything up to and including national budgets, broadband requirements, postal services, nuclear power plants, and so on if it chose.

I must call therefore for a proper debate on which powers Panessos nations should keep. Should we be like a unitary state like the US, with little individual powers? Should we be like nations in the EU, with more protected powers? Or should we be like the UN, with the regional government having practically no powers?

If our nations are to maintain their independence, I would suggest that every nation be given the right to opt-out from any laws that they choose to opt-out of. I think this would be the most workable solution?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Naybra
Member Avatar
Minister of Internal Affairs

Libraria and Ausitoria
Oct 6 2013, 03:57 PM
I do feel duty-bound to point out a long-standing contradiction inherent in all the drafts of the constitution.

Take a look at subsection 2.02 and 4.05. 2.02 implies that nations are not required to do anything mandatory, while 4.05 implies that the Senate could micromanage anything up to and including national budgets, broadband requirements, postal services, nuclear power plants, and so on if it chose.

I must call therefore for a proper debate on which powers Panessos nations should keep. Should we be like a unitary state like the US, with little individual powers? Should we be like nations in the EU, with more protected powers? Or should we be like the UN, with the regional government having practically no powers?

If our nations are to maintain their independence, I would suggest that every nation be given the right to opt-out from any laws that they choose to opt-out of. I think this would be the most workable solution?

I meant to retain membership. Good eye though. Edited to: Member Nations of Panessos shall not be required to pass any test or pay dues as a means of acceptance of membership, nor any mandatory conditions imposed upon them to retain that membership.

I agree that the powers of the Legislative should be debated. I second that action.

As for the opt-out-rule, there is no point to drafting laws if a nation can just ignore it. Therefore, I placed Article VIII.Section 8.01.G: Each nation shall retain the right to not participate in regional government affairs, and are therefore not subject to its laws.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ghant
Member Avatar


Naybra
Oct 6 2013, 04:05 PM
Libraria and Ausitoria
Oct 6 2013, 03:57 PM
I do feel duty-bound to point out a long-standing contradiction inherent in all the drafts of the constitution.

Take a look at subsection 2.02 and 4.05. 2.02 implies that nations are not required to do anything mandatory, while 4.05 implies that the Senate could micromanage anything up to and including national budgets, broadband requirements, postal services, nuclear power plants, and so on if it chose.

I must call therefore for a proper debate on which powers Panessos nations should keep. Should we be like a unitary state like the US, with little individual powers? Should we be like nations in the EU, with more protected powers? Or should we be like the UN, with the regional government having practically no powers?

If our nations are to maintain their independence, I would suggest that every nation be given the right to opt-out from any laws that they choose to opt-out of. I think this would be the most workable solution?

I meant to retain membership. Good eye though. Edited to: Member Nations of Panessos shall not be required to pass any test or pay dues as a means of acceptance of membership, nor any mandatory conditions imposed upon them to retain that membership.

I agree that the powers of the Legislative should be debated. I second that action.

As for the opt-out-rule, there is no point to drafting laws if a nation can just ignore it. Therefore, I placed Article VIII.Section 8.01.G: Each nation shall retain the right to not participate in regional government affairs, and are therefore not subject to its laws.

That sounds good. I didn't notice that either.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Libraria and Ausitoria
Member Avatar
Prime Minister & Speaker of the Senate

I think that the most effective way to get the Constitution agreed on would be to start to pass bits of it and make amendments as we go. Possibly for that reason we should initially make the Constitution be able to be amended by a simple majority?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Naybra
Member Avatar
Minister of Internal Affairs

The final version of the Constitution! Give it a nice look over, and then we're on to a vote. The vote shall begin Monday (October 14) and last until midnight of Friday (October 18), meaning Friday is the last day to vote. Because of its importance, please post your vote with any reasons "For" or "Against" the Constitution. You also have the option to "Abstain." As per Section 11.01, 19 (nineteen) Member Nations (including Ministers, Senators, WA Delegate, and the Prime Minister) are required to ratify this constitution. Thank you.

*Changes from last version: Edited "Nation" to "Member Nation," Changed "The Courts" to "The Regional Courts," edited veto policy, fixed capitalization and spelling errors, and changed date.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Libraria and Ausitoria
Member Avatar
Prime Minister & Speaker of the Senate

A few grammar mistakes are visible: in particular Section 7.02, 6.03, although the other cases are probably only a matter of style.

However, I would like to speak out against this version: my first complaint is that since it requires a two thirds majority to be amended, any things we wish to change later may be outrageously difficult to do so in the future when we have say a hundred members and a quarter of them can't be bothered to vote.

My second complaint is that it is so complicated and convoluted. It has been approached wrong: it is a wish list of everything we think at the moment that we might need, not a list of rules that we cannot do without. It is too long, going into boring details (which we might easily want to change later) like when people can declare their candidacy for office.

Finally, it is still vague at best and contradictory at worst. How can the Judiciary settle 'civil cases between nations' and the Senate 'regulate policies among member nations' when neither are allowed to interfere in 'internal operations' or 'sovereign rights'? Doesn't jurisdiction and customs/border policy count as a sovereign right?

I would prefer it if we start with a simple clearly defined constitution with only the most important skeleton, and add flesh slowly as it becomes necessary; rather than trying to do the whole body in one go.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Legislative Library · Next Topic »
Locked Topic