Smaller Pieces - 1 (Art. 3, Sec. 8)

I propose that Article III, Section 8 of the Neualtenburg Constitution:


Should be changed to read:


Motivation: This would bring this one section into line with the language in the other sections of the Constitution in regards grounds for impeachment and clarify the legal status of the council in regards the aplication of the law to themselves. It removes the assumption (not found elsewhere in this document) that the SC can examine broader issues of legality beyond the constitution.

Note: This rewording leaves intact the concept of the veto only because it is a seperate issue, not becasue I believe in it.

Smaller than *my* hand (not including quotes)

The SC is a philosophic branch and not simply a judicial branch. Provided it has well-stated reasons, it can veto any law which violates sound philosophical reasoning. The U.S. Supreme Court does this as well by rejecting bills not just on the basis of the constitution, law, or precendence but on philosophical grounds as well. Further, the U.S. Executive branch doesn't even need a reason to veto a bill. It can simply veto a bill because the President doesn't like Mondays.

It states in the constitution:

~Ulrika~

I agree with the first two suggested changes but not the second three.

The first rejected change is because the constution has in its preamble:
Thus, the founding documents are a component of the constitution. Do you seek to remove the phrase to limit the scope of the SC or because you recognize the other documents are already a part of the constitution?

The last two rejected changes are because the SC is the judicial system as well. It's responsible for prosecuting illegal activity. If you remove that from the constitution, then who will remove criminals from office?

~Ulrika~

If the other documents are a part of the Constitution, we should make that more clear since it's not obvious. In that case, stating that "is in violation of any of the founding documents" is redundant. So, the preamble should end with ", which are part of the constitution."



Agreed

BTW, as I posted on another thread, I think I'd like a clarification on what "local laws" are. I never questioned that before (last year) because I assumed we were talking about "local Neualtenburg laws" (since, technically, Neualtenburg has no jurisdiction elsewhere). But lately I have started to question almost everything (always my scientific training surfacing in these dire moments ) so I really, really wish to have this item cleared.

Thus, I propose the amendment to the preamble emphasizing "local Neualtenburg laws".

I was thinking only of the Constitution, which up until now has been the one document I thought.

If I have to pick one of those two options I guess I would say that I seek the clause to limit the scope of the Scientific Council but it's kind of a loaded way to put it. I don't think it is the role of the Council to be enforcing the TOS or local (California) laws for instance, both of which are possible given the wording about "acting illegally" (because of the vagueness of the term).

I dont think the wording in the preamble is relevant in this regard. We all "uphold" the principles etc. contained within these documents (this is one of the reasons I am getting so picky about them as a matter of fact), that is not the same as being responsible for policing them.

The idea of including them as part of the constitution is interesting but a constitution traditionaly just sets out the structure of the government, whereas parts of the Nburg TOS for instance, go into great detail about specific little ordinances. The Nburg TOS also has reams of legal boilerplate text in it, which is not in keeping with typical constitutional documents. I am not sure they really "merge" that well.

I would say keep them seperate, each targeted to its specific purpose, and then simply decide if it is the role of the Scientific Council to be policing any or all of these documents. I would say it is their role with only two exceptions:

1) - I think its presumptuous (and none of our business) to be enforcing the SecondLife TOS except to the degree that we all do that as individuals anyway.
2) - local California law should be specificlly excluded from the scope by using better wording than "illegality," especially since local California law *is* mentioned in other parts of the same document.

Not to stir it up again too much but the Nburg TOS has some pretty wide ranging powers in it, so I would not want to see it just tacked onto the constitution as law without a thorough review of its provisions also.

For instance this scary one:
I am personally not in favour of having a clause like that in any legal document with my name on it.

This provision is technically not valid as it violates the TOS both in spirit and also specifically in the way in which it seems to allow for the recording of individuals and their interactions, at least that is my reading of it.

The is because in the same document it says:
But I think it would be a good thing to review that document as well.

Well as I say above, if this is kept it needs to be more specific about what "illegally" means. Laws of California, Constitution, TOS? etc. etc. ...

That's one of the reasons I think we should stick to just policing our own Constitution and not try to pass judgement on every right or wrong that exists. Personally, I think its fair for the SC to be policing "local Nburg laws," and upholding the Constitution, but that's about all.

I am also not always sure what we are talking about when we talk about these "local laws" though. Most serious criminal activity that I can think of is covered by criminal law or the Linden TOS and is already "above our heads" sort of speak. A local police function would merely act in an intelligence gathering capability in those cases I would think. The "removal of criminals from office" mentioned above seems to be covered by the impeachment provisions.

This is ridiculous. It's like saying you can veto any law any time you want.
What Philosophy will you use?
What Philosopher for that matter?

Are we going to be vetoing the work of the democratically elected Assembly on the basis of Nietzsche or Kant this week?

Also, if you have an argument about the US President having this absolute and arbitrary veto power that you are constantly ascribing to him, please quote the factual basis of it. At least I quoted the Wiki to back up my assertion that this "veto" is far from absolute and more in keeping with the concept of sober second thought. I mean it was kind of weak but at least it was a reference.

.

It really doesn't matter. The constitution is done. The only thing you can do at this point is to help clarify the existing wording, provided it doesn't change the meaning. The only group that can modify the constitution at this point is the RA with approval from the SC.

Is the SC too powerful? I dunno. Is the RA like Godzilla? Beats me. Will the AC turn into an evil corporation and choke the city? Who knows. The point is we have an excellent framework based on U.S. and European models of government that's better than some nation's constitutions. Let's roll with it and see how it works!

So help with the wording if you must but your spontaneous effort to rewrite the constitution is eight months too late.

~Ulrika~

There is virtualy no similarity that I can see between what we have and any existing Euorpean or American Government that I have ever heard of.

If you dont want to discuss it anymore, just say so, don't blame me for a lack of answers.
I am probably (almost), as fed up with talking here, as folks are fed up with listening to me.
.

I've been giving you examples for the past two days on exactly how our system compares to the U.S. and some European systems. Search the forum for the words "U.S." and "~Ulrika~". Seriously.

It's like you're not even reading the posts.

~Ulrika~

Yes.

That is my plan.

HEY!!! Let's not forget John Stuart Mill

Actually, given that we finally have an RA elected by the current inhabitants of Neualtenburg, it's far from too late, in a manner of speaking. But if she wants to modify the constitution, she can do it in the proper, legal manner - ask a rep to sponsor the changes, have a vote.

I refrain from offering opinions on how likely or how wise such a course of action may be, but it can be done, can it not?

Oh yes! I'll accept changes in wording (for clarification) at any time but all changes in law have to go through proper channels.

Sure! If individuals are interested in modifying the constitution they should pick one part and focus on it, present the argument to the RA (to both parties as a 2/3 vote is needed) and have them vote on it.

~Ulrika~

Here goes a request for clarification by the SC: is a "Constitution change" a bill or another thing entirely? (ie. the budget is not a bill, so a budget cannot be deemed "unconstitutional"

Besides that, I second Ulrika's suggestion: let's clarify the wording where it's unclear, and let's only change the balance of power later. As a member of the RA I think I can safely assume that I won't be easy to persuade that the current "balance of power" needs to be addressed in any way, although I'm much more concerned about the incorrect wording on so many points discovered and pointed out by Dianne. But let's have the RA discuss those points. After all, it's also their job to make amendments to the Constitution

I did a little reading on constitutional amendments and in our system it looks like it would not be a bill, because, to pass, the vote requires a supermajority (2/3 of the RA), which differentiates it from a bill. I couldn't find the term for a potential amendment to the constitution, so if no one else knows the term we'll just call them amendments for now.

~Ulrika~