NOW FOR A NEW CONSTITUTION
Day 795, 17:43
•
Published in Canada 
•
by
•
by olivermellors
Text of a proposed new constitution is here:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AS6KE5EqCUSOZDhrOXY0al8waHF3N3d4ZHc&hl=en
and on the forum here:
http://ecanada.ws/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5247
The proposed constitution: coles notes version
The general ideas:
1. All authority comes from the people
2. The legislature makes the laws
3. The executive carries out the laws
4. The courts interpret and enforce the laws
5. The root administrator manages our environment.
6. Citizens have rights. These are limited by reasonable limits prescribed by law.
7. Citizenship is determined by in-game status.
8. Canada is a bilingual country
Some refinements:
1. There is no way to prohibit the president or a congressman from using the in-game voting mechanisms. There is a way to make it orderly however.
2. Order has to include the ability to quickly change rules. Therefore the legislature, the Court, the Root Administrator and the Executive have to have a way to make rules. The new constitution specifically provides for this. No additional constitutional amendment will be required.
3. The veto power needs a specific procedure associated with the “coming into force” of a law. This is provided for by means of specific procedures to “proclaim” a statute.
4. “emergency powers” need a specific procedure and safeguards. This is dealt with through the “executive orders” section. Executive orders are ALWAYS emergency measure. “ Ordinary” rule making power of the executive is dealt with by “regulation”. The power to make regulations is given to the president by the legislature when it passes a law.
5. The forums and IRC are critical components of our lives. These are therefore specifically provided for, and the “constitutional” status of Root Administrator is created.
6. Business in government can be transacted “heterolinguistically”, statutes will be published in both official languages.
7. The “bill of Rights” has been reworke
8. The existence of the armed forces and intelligence services are recognized and subordinated to civilian control.
9. The Supreme Court is made independent.
10. There is a process for constitutional amendment. It is not “easy” but not cumbersome and attempts to provide input from all stakeholders.
11. The proposal needs a French language translation.
What is with the Prime Minister AND president stuff? And there is a Congress AND a House of Commons?
1. When you elect a president in-game you also elect the same person as Prime Minister. When you elect a Congressperson you also elect a member of the House. They are the same persons.
2. The Prime Minister can do everything a President can do. A member of the House can do everything a Congressperson can. BUT it doesn’t work the other way. A president or congressman can ONLY do what is specifically permitted in-game. I.E. a president or congressman CAN use in-game voting for limited purposes. So what is the point?
3. The use of “improper” in game voting is the point.
4. The House can discipline its members. Since the Prime Minister is ALSO made a member of the House, he is subject to discipline as well.
5. The PRESENT situation is that congressmen have the in-game right to make “improper” proposals. It is VERY doubtful that Congress can discipline a member for exercising a right given by the ADMINS.
6. In short, the slight added complexity of having a Prime Minister/President and Congress/Parliament and Congressperson/ member, is designed to give in-game rules the most restricted effect possible whilst giving our Forum the greatest latitude.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AS6KE5EqCUSOZDhrOXY0al8waHF3N3d4ZHc&hl=en
and on the forum here:
http://ecanada.ws/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5247
The proposed constitution: coles notes version
The general ideas:
1. All authority comes from the people
2. The legislature makes the laws
3. The executive carries out the laws
4. The courts interpret and enforce the laws
5. The root administrator manages our environment.
6. Citizens have rights. These are limited by reasonable limits prescribed by law.
7. Citizenship is determined by in-game status.
8. Canada is a bilingual country
Some refinements:
1. There is no way to prohibit the president or a congressman from using the in-game voting mechanisms. There is a way to make it orderly however.
2. Order has to include the ability to quickly change rules. Therefore the legislature, the Court, the Root Administrator and the Executive have to have a way to make rules. The new constitution specifically provides for this. No additional constitutional amendment will be required.
3. The veto power needs a specific procedure associated with the “coming into force” of a law. This is provided for by means of specific procedures to “proclaim” a statute.
4. “emergency powers” need a specific procedure and safeguards. This is dealt with through the “executive orders” section. Executive orders are ALWAYS emergency measure. “ Ordinary” rule making power of the executive is dealt with by “regulation”. The power to make regulations is given to the president by the legislature when it passes a law.
5. The forums and IRC are critical components of our lives. These are therefore specifically provided for, and the “constitutional” status of Root Administrator is created.
6. Business in government can be transacted “heterolinguistically”, statutes will be published in both official languages.
7. The “bill of Rights” has been reworke
😛some things removed some things added. The idea is to describe the citizens’ relationship with their government. Inspired by William Duncan, I have included a new right to expect “fidelity” from government including a deemed affirmation/oath. Rights are, generally subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law. Thus there is no need to specifically imagine each necessity. Our law can be developed by the legislature, the Root Administrator and the Courts as need arises. Many disputes which would otherwise be “constitutional” will now be dealt with by laws passed by the House, codes of conduct on IRC etc. In short, we don’t have to deal with everything in the constitution.
8. The existence of the armed forces and intelligence services are recognized and subordinated to civilian control.
9. The Supreme Court is made independent.
10. There is a process for constitutional amendment. It is not “easy” but not cumbersome and attempts to provide input from all stakeholders.
11. The proposal needs a French language translation.
What is with the Prime Minister AND president stuff? And there is a Congress AND a House of Commons?
1. When you elect a president in-game you also elect the same person as Prime Minister. When you elect a Congressperson you also elect a member of the House. They are the same persons.
2. The Prime Minister can do everything a President can do. A member of the House can do everything a Congressperson can. BUT it doesn’t work the other way. A president or congressman can ONLY do what is specifically permitted in-game. I.E. a president or congressman CAN use in-game voting for limited purposes. So what is the point?
3. The use of “improper” in game voting is the point.
4. The House can discipline its members. Since the Prime Minister is ALSO made a member of the House, he is subject to discipline as well.
5. The PRESENT situation is that congressmen have the in-game right to make “improper” proposals. It is VERY doubtful that Congress can discipline a member for exercising a right given by the ADMINS.
6. In short, the slight added complexity of having a Prime Minister/President and Congress/Parliament and Congressperson/ member, is designed to give in-game rules the most restricted effect possible whilst giving our Forum the greatest latitude.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
~hyuu~ \o/
Refinement #6 happens to be in the platform of a minor league party and it has not passed democratic scrutiny at this point.
Hardly qualifies for inclusion in the constitution.
We are just starting.
only atoms refers to bilingual nature of the country and indicates that since it has not been subject to democratic scrutiny it should not be included.
You miss the point that NOTHING in the proposal has yet been subject to democratic scrutiny.
The proceedure for amending the constitution IS democratic scrutiny. To become a new constitution the proposal must go through a number of steps, in which all stakeholders have a voice.
This is the time to debate and scrutinize. Objections based on substance, other alternatives, suggestions for change etc are all welcome.
I invite commentators to also post in the forum, at the link contained in the article, or here in the comments section.
I am quite pleased to see this come to fruition!