How about some actual discussion on that referendum amendment, eh?

What make them the most powerful branch?

They know how to pop and lock.

~Ulrika~

These threads are hysterical. Most of all it amuses me that N'burgers are using alts to argue policy positions, pretending to be noncitizens. This project just gets stranger and stranger.



~Ulrika~

And I though that was one of your alts.

They control the treasury and they build all the stuff. Der.

The House of representatives hold the power of the purse in the USA, does that mean the Congress is the most powerful branch?

By the way, saying "Der" is or should be against the forum rules, especially coming from an officer. Just sayin'

Before we get derailed once more, I'd like to take a moment to voice my support for the latest compromise solution put forth by Claude.

The new solution of: RA approval --> Referendum (50% + 1) --> potential SC veto --> RA decides to hold new referendum --> Guild decides to hold new referendum --> new Referendum (66% + 1):

1.) Makes the process of making further constitutional amendments more difficult.
2.) Puts the power of approving constitutional amendments ultimately to the citizens
3.) Gives sufficient (in my view) safeguards against a "tyranny of the majority"

Gwyn raises the "hitler" scenario where a charismatic demagogue gets elected into office and tries to railroad constitutional changes that will make him dictator for life. In this case, "hitler" has to go through, the RA, the SC, the Guild, and two referenda to pass his amendment. I believe these roadblocks are sufficient.

Evidence please...

Equating an RL Government's functions with an SL Government's is a huge waste of time. They meet decidedly different needs. Der.

Then I guess there is no need for the SC to have power to veto amendments to the constitution or veto impeachments.

Claude, I didn't know that the compromise proposals were the results of several people's input. I stand corrected.

I can see that they provide a greater safeguard against abuse of the constitution by a determined majority, as Flyingroc has noted, but I don't think it's enough! Here's why:

Imagine that an anti-democratic group decide to infiltrate N'burg. Their goal is to establish a totalitarian theocracy, expel all female avs from within the walls of the city and launch griefing raids across the grid. Slowly but surely, over a period of several months they move in to the city. They infiltrate all active factions in the RA, the Guild and manage to take one or two seats on the SC while keeping their true intentions secret.

They would be able to achieve their goals under the compromise proposals if they:
-had acquired more than 2/3 of the seats on the RA and were able to retain them in a subsequent election
-had a majority in the Guild
-could achieve more than 34% of the popular vote in two referenda (66% of 50% of the population.)

It is my contention that, with N'burg the current size that it is, a determined group of griefers would be able to achieve this.

Alternatively, retain the SC as the custodians of the Constitution, be very careful who you appoint to this important body, and N'burg cannot be taken over in the way I've described.

It is wrong to argue that the SC is 'all controlling'. The SC only has power in a negative sense, it is able to stop the abuse of the constitution and the democratic process. Without this limited power there really is no point in having a SC at all. Is the intention to replace the system of three branches with safeguards, checks and balances with some form of direct democracy? If so, Gwyn's warnings regarding elected dictators is highly relevant. People *can* be persuaded to vote for dictatorship whether this be fascism or an islamic republic. Those designing a constitution (or seeking to amend it ) need to ensure that their proposals guard against this possibility.

If the SC has the power (as does the USSC) to rule laws unconstitutional, and has the power to veto any amendment to the constitution, and has the power to veto any impeachment, it has absolute power.

Example, the people find the SC has too much power and seek to reduce it. The people seek to amend the constitution, but the SC vetoes it. The people decide the SC has stepped out of it's constitutional power base, and seek to impeach its members, the SC simply vetoes the impeachments, disallowing any removal of its officers.

While it's true the SC has no power to add new laws, it can define laws as it sees fit, and no ruling body has power to defeat their opinion.

This gives the SC unlimited, unchecked power to control every aspect of N'burg.

If you're not going to contribute anything to this conversation than please leave.

As this has been discussed numerous times. It doesn't give the SC unlimited power at all. Not even remotely. Please read the threads before coming to knee-jerk reactions.

Clearly we differ over what constitutes 'absolute power'! The SC, even if it were abusing it's power, would only be able to stop future legislation and further amendment of the constitution. In other words, worst case scenario: deadlock. Under those circumstances, as others have argued elsewhere the RA or the Guild would be able to impeach the SC and remove them from office. The process is explained in post 124 of this thread /103/ab/98524/5.html

(Btw do you really think the US Supreme Court has 'absolute power'? I thought one of the major problems in current US politics was the power of the executive!)

The proposed referendum amendment, and its variants, could lead to a legislative tyranny. Far more of a threat in my opinion.

So far I find myself in agreement with all your posts. So much so that I suspect you are my alt.

No, I don't, because the USSC has no power over amendments to the constitution or over impeachment.

But I do think the power to declare what the constitution and laws mean, even against all common sense understandings of the documents is troubling. For example, finding a right to abortion in the privacy clause and other examples too numerous to list here I find disturbing.

Impossible, he actually discusses issues.

I can't remember where the constitution is, would you please post the URL for it, so I can verify the statements coincide with the statements of the posters? Thanks

Thank you very much.

I will read it all in its entirety tonight.

From the first glance I see under ...

Section 9 - Limitations of the SC

Any member can be voted out with a 2/3 majority.


This is the only limitation? Is that 2/3rds of all members, or of the SC?

Next I noticed this "Members of the Philosophic branch are not bound by a strict literal
interpretation of the Bill of Rights, Founding Philosophy,
Constitution, or the strict adherence to legal precedence.
Rather members of the SC are required to draw upon their
individual fields of expertise to solve complex social issues."

This means the SC WILL interpret all documents to fit their personal "fields of expertise" as they see fit. In other word, they don't have to accept the original intent.

Next we read...

"The Philosophic branch may veto or rewrite and resubmit a bill or constitutional amendment if it is in violation of any of the founding documents."

Or their "interpretation" of the documents. They can rewrite laws as they see fit, according to their own interpretation. Imagine the USSC doing that. The courts can only review and block unconstitutional laws. They can't rewrite laws. The USSC must interpret according to "Bill of Rights, Founding Philosophy, Constitution" unlike the SC.

Next....

"The SC can seek impeachment of members of the Representative branch for violating the constitution or acting illegally."

Or their "interpretation" of the documents. That's scary.

"The SC can seek impeachment of members of the Artisanal branch for violating the constitution or acting illegally."

Or their "interpretation" of the documents.

The SC gets to interpret, without regard to intent, all laws, future and passed.

I haven't read enough to comment on the forum link you provided (post 124) but I will read more tonight.

Thanks

Patroklus,
Your griefer example was very insightful. I'd be interested in what others thought about it. Particularly in the possibility that a griefer group could move into the sim and take de facto control by outnumbering the existing populace.

"The Scientific Council (SC) is a self-selected meritocracy. Its
governmental role is to interpret and enforce the constitution. "


"Professors are chosen at the recommendation of current members
based on demonstrated skill and desire to uphold the constitution
without bias."

"Section 8 - Powers of the SC

Members of the Philosophic branch are not bound by a strict literal
interpretation of the Bill of Rights, Founding Philosophy,
Constitution, or the strict adherence to legal precedence.
Rather members of the SC are required to draw upon their
individual fields of expertise to solve complex social issues. "

This should scare you.

Under the proposed amendment, the SC will retain the power to stop abuse of the consitution and the democratic process in *all* but one case; the case where a constitutional amendment is passed by the RA. Even here, the SC has the power to force the amendment back to the RA, the Guild, and then another referndum, this time with higher standards for approval.



I think this opinion has also been expressed by Ulrika, and I don't understand really where it comes from. As far as I understand, the US Constitution does not allow the Supreme Court to block constitutional amendments; yet I'm sure most people believe that there is *still* a point to having a Supreme Court in the United States.



I don't think so, we are simply introducing referenda on *one* (albeit important) thing: constitutional amendments. In fact, the original proposal would disallow binding referenda on any other legislation. I do not think anybody is calling for referenda on judicial decisions (other than the veto on constitutional amendments). Nor is there any call for "people's initiatives," or recall elections.



As I've expressed before, I believe the safeguards in the latest proposal are enough; we obviously disagree on this point. But I will throw one more thing into the mix: our current voting system makes it more likely that minority parties get a voice in the RA.

I don't have time right now, but if somebody wants to take it up, what would a griefer group have to do to ensure that its members have at least 2/3 of the RA? (currently, needs 4 out of 5 of the RA seats).

It is something to think about. I've always understood the 2/3 requirement to be of members present and voting. Therefore, if a faction could gain an absolute majority, hold an RA meeting without telling anyone, and pass the amendment, they could start the ball rolling. Or could they?

SC?