Diagram 2 - Who makes the Laws?

Okay this is part 2 of the diagrams.

One of the best ways to study a governmental structure is through the study of laws and how they are created, modified, and ratified. I am sure al the North Americans remember that cute little cartoon about the Bill and how it becomes law in the American system. Well, my graphics are far from that level, but it's a valid and interesting exercise nonetheless.

As you can see from the diagram below, it is far from clear as to who exacttly can make laws in Neualtenburg. In the original conception (IMO only, please correct if necessary), it is the RA that is the lawmaking body and the laws are ratified by the Scientific Council by testing or adjudicating them on the basis of their constitutionality. The Artisanal Branch has a similar role but only for fiscal bills. The circular arrow is supposed to represent the action of working on a bill either fiscal or constitutional in that it should be a reciprocal "working out" of the bill (on a good day). The unelected branches cannot make law in this scenario but can advise and adjudicate the laws presented by the RA.

Because of the term "rewrite" (Art. III - Section , it seems that the Scientific Council actually has the power to make laws itself, but perhaps that is just a typo as previously discussed.

Additionaly however, statements have been made (quite regularly) to the effect that the Artisanal Branch is "responsible" for the treasury and the fiscal side of things. Similar comments have been made about the Scientific Council being the only body that can really modify or alter the Constitution.

This all seesm rather hazy and ill-defined to me, but because of that and becaue of the fact that any bills the RA did float that had anything to do with the Constitution or the Budget would not be passed without the approval of those two entities, it could easily be argued that the RA does *not* have the power to create laws on those issues, and that the SC and AB respectively *do* have the power to initiate leglislation in those areas. In fact it looks to me like they are the only ones that can.

To reflect this, the "current" diagram on the bottom shows the reality of all the "important "laws originating in the two unelected chambers, and the RA's law making ability is smaller due to the fact that they are really only allowed to make laws on more day to day kinds of issues and other "piddly crap."

When looked at this way, it makes me wonder why we have the election at all in that the role of the RA seems to be limited primarily to issues of civic management. If this is the case, (and I think it is) then it would be simpler to just hire a city manager and forget about the elections at all.

The RA as curently formulated is a sort of "toothless tiger" that takes its direction from the other two unelected bodies. It has no power to pass legislation that affects anything "serious." It does not currently have the right to have a "finance committee" or to discuss or alter finances in any real way. Similarly the Constitution is locked from any amendments that the SC does not agree with.

I would ask what serious bills or laws could the RA concievably pass in this situation and is this really a democratic government?

If the RA is so toothless, why is it currently the more powerful of the 3 branches?
Not trying to be glib here, but I fail to see how you have demonstrated the RA is without power? It seems to me all you've done is just declare your premise as if the mere stating of your case makes it fact.

From now on, if we're going to address the constitution, let's do it one article at a time (in any order). All posts should be smaller than my hand (unless they qualify as "Shazam" posts). We don't move on until everyone understands the meaning and the text in the constitution matches that meaning.

We will work this in two phases. The first phase will be clarification of the language. The second will be discussions of whether or not the relative checks and balances should be modified.

~Ulrika~

Sorry to make the same post three times across two threads, Dianne. It's just that I've realized you're talking at us, not with us. You keep posting the same information over and over with the same mistakes over and over ignoring all the points made by others in between.

If you want to contribute you're going to have to change the way you're communicating from oration atop a soapbox to a rational step-at-a-time discussion.

~Ulrika~

For the third time, this is false. The RA is the only branch that can make laws. The AC and SC only have vetos over the laws. If they veto they have the option of rewriting it (like a counter offer) when returning the bill but they don't have to. Rewrites are nonbinding. Please don't make me say this again. I beg you.

~Ulrika~

Sorry Kendra I guess I was not being as clear as I could have been. These are of course hypothetical arguments to some degree, I dont actually think there is currently a problem with inequity.

Perhaps "toothless tiger" went a bit to far as well and I apologise for that, but I dont see how you could see them as the "more powerful."

I am arguing that the way the documents are written, is out of sync with our stated purposes and that the power relations are altered by that language. Sure everything is rosy now, but I dont want to leave the door open for bad things to happen, just because we cant be exact about our language.

IMO by the way the Constitution is phrased, the RA is not the most powerful, it is subservient to the other branches by means of the veto. It also has little say over constitutional and fiscal matters by design.

.

As an example --currently the RA is exercising it's power fiscally over the Guild by not voting a budget. It's all well and good to declare that is unfair that the Guild can veto a budget submitted by the RA, but if the Guild has not even been given a budget to work with --well I trust you see my point.

:-b

Well, here goes my L$ 0.02...

1) The RA is the only body that can turn bills into laws. I'm sure Ulrika has posted this at least 5 times in the last week. I hope it's clear now

2) The RA is the only body that can approve a City Budget. Hmm, again, I think that this has been said so, at least some 3 times.

3) The RA is the only body that can make amendments or changes to the Constitution. Apparently the SC can also veto amendments. It definitely provides advice to the RA on constitutional matter.

4) The SC can veto a bill and/or resubmit it to the RA for rewriting it (to be approved again). So, either the SC or the RA can unmake laws, but only the RA can make them. Again, Ulrika said so lots of times

5) The SC is supposed to be able to disapprove the budget ("revenue bill". I understand that this "power" is probably not so well defined and we have to work a bit on that. See my other suggestions. But the AC is definitely not able to create a budget. I propose that when the AC vetoes a budget, the RA will simply follow the last one. This is a standard procedure in many parliamentary systems and/or organisations. And I think that the SC should have absolutely nothing to do with a "revenue bill".

Did you mean the "AC" here?

If so then your post looks perfect!

~Ulrika~

Yes, that's what happens when I try to write things at 2 AM trying to sound educated

I meant the AC, of course - I stand corrected. Thanks