Constitutional Exposé 3: Local Government.
•
by Adam Sutler
My fellow Canadians, it is time for yet another Constitutional Exposé. We have since examined the role of the President, Cabinet and Congress in our constitutional system, and now it is time to look to the final branch in the Political aspect of our constitution: The Mayors.
Currently Mayors have very little power. They are appointed by party leaders as their party’s representatives in local elections, which are held on the 20th of each month. Mayors have only two powers in this game: the power to tax homes and businesses, and the power to purchase Hospitals from the free market. It is up to us to decide if these should be the only powers which Mayors have, or if our local representatives should bare more responsibilities. As such, the following are a variety of social, political, constitutional, economic and military roles in which Mayors could serve. Some of these ideas are exclusive, but most of them are not.
1. Legislative : In this role, Mayors would form a part of the Canadian Parliament alongside Congress. Like congressmen, Mayors would be expected to vote upon legislation, amend, and debate or propose new laws. In this form we would need a constitutional amendment which either states that Mayors who are also Congressmen do not get a second vote in regards to Parliamentary legislation; or requiring that no congressmen can run for the mayoral positions.
2. Senatorial: This role is similar to the Legislative model in that it places some substantial political power in the hands of the Mayors. In this model, Mayors would form the Canadian Senate: a deliberative body for sober second thought. In this case, Mayors would not have the power to propose or veto legislation; however they would retain the power to delay it. Say for example the President wished to raise the VAT by 5%. The President would present his proposal to Congress, which would pass the legislation. The bill to increase taxes would then move on to the Mayors, who would vote yes or no to the bill. Should they vote yes, then the President can create the tax change, and the congress would pass it in eRepublik. If the Senate votes against it, the bill would then be shuffled back to the Parliament with a recommendation that the bill be changed, or scrapped. To ensure that the Congress has greater power than the Senate, Congress may then vote to accept the changes, or force the bill through anyway. In this model the point of the Senate is not to control legislation, but to act as a safeguard against sudden, irrational decisions.
3. Constitutional: The Constitutional system would keep the financial and social powers of the Mayors intact, but grant them one extra power. In this system Mayors would not be able to vote on, or propose any new legislation. However, the Mayors would be required to cast their vote on any Constitutional Amendments. Thus if a President wished to change something in the constitution, he would have to propose said amendment to the Congress or Parliament, for it to be voted upon. Should this Amendment pass, then it would be up to the Mayors to vote yes or no to these amendments. If we believe the Constitution should be easily changed, then we can necessitate that only 50% of mayoral support is needed to pass an amendment. If we want the Constitution to remain as static as possible, then a harder formula such as 75% support from ALL mayors, or Unanimous support from all mayors would be required to change the constitution.
4. Provincial: The Mayors are the only form of local government we have in this game, and as such if a provincial role is formed for our Mayors, they would serve in a same role as the Provincial Premiers in Canada. In this case Mayors would become the chiefs of their little domains, with their own responsibilities separate from that of the Congress and the President. Mayors would be responsible for the provision of healthcare in their regions, hospital funding, defensive organization, business loans, and employment. This scenario would require that the Federal government (congress and the President) provide the mayors with a proportionate amount of the federal budget in order to provide these services. The major issue with this role is that many Mayors are inactive, while other regions may go without a mayor and in either case, their constituents would not have adequate services. This would also require a large proportion of the Population to be politically active.
5. Bureaucratic: This would serve as a reversal of the Provincial scheme. In this scenario, the Mayors would serve as the bureaucratic arm of the Federal Government. They may be given the same responsibilities as mentioned previously, but instead of governing on their own conscience, they would be required to act only on the orders of the Cabinet. For example, if the Ministry of Health wished to place a new hospital in Halifax, then the President or Health Minister would donate the necessary CAD to the City’s treasury, and the Mayor would use this CAD to purchase the hospital. It is very similar to the system that is being put in place currently.
6. Judicial: As Canada has no official judicial system, the Mayors may be used to fill this void. The Constitution could set out a judicial system which makes a Mayor the Judge and Jury for any user-user conflict within a province. In the case of conflicts which occur between users in different regions, which would likely be the case, the entirety of the Mayors would be called upon to pronounce judgement as Canada’s Supreme Court. In this model, the Supreme Court would also be required to review legislation passed by Parliament and the President in order to ensure that does not conflict with any portion of the Constitution.
7. Status Quo: In this system, Mayors have the power to tax houses and businesses, and to buy hospitals from the free market. That is all. The President and Congress cannot infringe upon these powers, and the Mayors cannot infringe upon the powers of the Congress and the President.
What do you think Canada?
Until the next Constitutional Exposé, God keep our land Glorious and Free, and once more…
England Prevails!
- Adam Sutler: Minister of Constitutional Affairs.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Hmm, I like 6, but as of now I am undecided.
After more thought, I\'m digging a mix of 1, 2, 3, and 6. Sounds crazy, but I like it.
Constitutional & Judicial would be a good mix..
Bureaucratic reinforces the idea that mayoral positions are just purely ceremonial in nature.
I hear that the Admins are going to make their own judicial system. With that in mind, I think Constitutional would work best; mixed with a little of the bureaucratic system.
Damn, these gorram things just keep comin dont they?
A mix of Senatorial and Judicial sounds good to me. Although if a judicial system is actually released, I suppose that Senatorial mixed in a bit with Provincial (if all the mayors are active) would work alright.
I\'m firm of the belief that all of these (1-6) are very bad for Canada.
Congress is congress, there\'s no place for a local MP in Federal matters.
I propose Status Quo, but Mayors (and would-be Mayors) could use points from the provincial system to promote themselves as worthy mayors.
For example, John of Party A is running for Victoria. He proposes that if he is made mayor, he\'ll closely monitor unemployment, help locals get jobs... simply act as a \'go-to\' guy. Defense org should be left to Federal.
Would you be able to substantiate your argument Cottus? You say that all of these suggestions are bad for Canada, but could you tell us why? I am willing to acknowledge that some may be improper given Canada\'s activity rates, but I would like to read the reasoning behind it.
well i dont see any problems with any of that besides many mayors are inactive that you said
Mayors being inactive is a problem, But I don\'t think that all these would be bad for Canada, I truly think that if we gave it them a chance that either both provinicial or senatorial, would work. But they may also fail depending, on who the citizens elect as their Mayors. although these two have a better chance over the others in working.
I\'m in agreeance with Cottus. Yes, we\'re from the same party, what a surprise.
I\'m aware of the reasons Cottus has, but I don\'t have to get into them. A quick log-in for me! If he doesn\'t provide them by the time I log in next then I\'ll provide them, plus my own objections & suggestions.
Now it would appear to me that if all these mayors are already congressmen or are inactive, then it would make sense to give em only a couple of powers. Judicial or constitutional would work, cause those issues dont pop up very much.
I have noted before that my personal preference is for a mix of Bureaucratic and constitutional. I don\'t believe our Mayors are active enough to be legislators or senators.
True, this year I plan to run for Mayor, and I am by far very Active, I enjoy politics and have alot of spare time, I have 100% Presence at my job and I have trained for war everyday since I have started the only problem that I must work on now is wellness as it decreases very fast, due to my training and working, anyone who sends me gifts to raise my wellness I will do the same.
Sounds like Mayor\'s a cushy job right now. Just sit around and do nothing, except when told to. I could get used to that. What say you stick with status quo and put me in one of the slots?
In my opinion a mayor should be ACTIVE, the mayor should be the one to try and keep those in his or her city active therefore should be active themselves, instead of sitting around just because they think the job is easy, The mayors job is to help his citizen not sit and watch things deteriorate in front of him.