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

As per your request, I thought I'd give your proposal a glance and I have to say it is brilliant! Absolutely refreshing. It protects the founding documents, raises the bar for amendments, and involves the general populace.

When I write another constitution, I will be sure to put more procedural barriers between the RA and the Constitution in regard to passing amendments. I should also note that I am not a citizen either.

~Ulrika~

I'd just like to point a couple of obvious things out from the constitution itself.

1. Claude is qualified to submit proposed amendments to the constitution by mere fact of being a citizen of Neualtenberg.

2. Ulrika, on the other hand, is not because she is not a citizen of Neualtenburg, and therefore is not qualified.

I'd like to suggest to Ulrika that given her interest in the project she should become a citizen of Neualtenburg, or instead perhaps found her own project (OldAltenburg?,ZugZugia?).

Hmm. Perhaps I should buy a parcel of land! I could get something really tiny.

~Ulrika~

IMHO, Patroklus' suggestion deals nicely with the issue of SC & RA working in tandem to quickly change the Constitution, by placing the final ratification in the hands of the people through the referendum (which could, additionally, be only called upon the next RA elections).

However, it doesn't address the issue of an "unruly" SC that blocks all RA's attempts of proposing amendments, by making wild and false claims of "violation". I'm assuming that this is to be dealt with plain and simple impeachment instead?

How do you prevent frivolous impeachments? I almost faced one based on the fact that I was participating in unpopular speech, having not broken a law nor blocked an RA amendment. There should be clearly defined reasons for an impeachment hearing to be called.

~Ulrika~

The issue was not merely the locking of threads, etc., however, that was the one that made me angry enough to consider calling for an impeachment (I wasn't part of the government back then). Ok, what follows is some of my recollection of the time, tinted, of course, by my own biases.

One of the things that struck me at the time was how Ulrika seemd to be using her position as the sole authoritative interpreter of the constitution (gwyn was part of the Sc at the time, but did not have a vote there) as a tool to badger the rest of the government into submission.

This is Ulrika's style, she likes to use declarative statements as if her opinions are fact. Note how she uses the same rhetorical tricks in the current discussions: she has said many things along the lines of "When I wrote the constitution, this is what I meant..." -- giving the illusion of authority -- and "that is absolutely wrong" -- giving her statement the illusion of irrefutable universality.

That is her rhetorical style, which while abrasive and annoying to many is usually just that. Abrasive and annoying (sorry, that's how I feel). However, when coupled with her position of actual authority as the sole interpreter of the constitution, it had the ability to cow people into submission. She had a chilling effect on dissenting opinion... "how can we argue against the one who has the final say on everything?" was the mood at the time.

I don't know if Ulrika set out to deliberately create the mood, or that she was even aware of the mood of the people in Neualtenburg at the time. She was rarely in-world, you see, for many valid reasons. Nevertheless, I seem to reacall, that *was* the mood, everybody seemed afraid to be the object of Ulrika's ire.

So, this, finally is why none of the available constitutional tools were used -- nobody wanted to have a face-off with Ulrika.

Certainly part of that is because debating with Ulrika is an exhausting endeavor if, like me, you are not so gifted in verbal and logical acrobatics. But, I argue, the fault was not Ulrika's, nor was it the lack of courage of the rest of nburg. The fault is that her position gave her too much power (yes, there I go again):

If we were to pass a law limitng the moderation power of the SC, she could veto it.
If we were to pass a constitutional amendment limiting the power of the SC, she could veto it.
If we were to impeach her, her defense had the weight of the sole authoritative interpreter of the constitution

Thus any lawful act that would pit any other person against her had the odds stacked decidedly toward her.

I apologize for focusing too much on Ulrika, but one of the purposes of this amendment was to prevent the sort of atmosphere that we had when Ulrika was the Dean of the SC. Even Kendra has acknowledged this in the previous RA meeting:



So....



The answer --to me-- is that your proposal preserves the power of the SC, which, I believe the history of Neualtenburg shows, is too powerful.

actually --I wasn't so much acknowledging it as calling Aliasi's bluff.

My support of it was, unfortunately for me, based on the assumption that the proposal was not designed to weaken the SC , but to streamline the amendment procedures.

I'm going to have to do my homework better.

We actually have super affordable microplots (16m2) either for sale or on the drawing board. It's just the thing if you want citizenship on a budget. Land purchase/immigration is as you know the domain of the Guild. Just contact Sudane Erato, guildmaster, and I'm sure she'd be happy to sell you a plot.

When hell freezes over.

So the obvious way around this is to buy 16m2 from Kendra.

If you are referring to the impeachment I was about to call, I must stress again that it was not because of your participation of unpopular speech. It was because I believed you were supressing mine.

This is a weak excuse built around a straw-man attack. This excuse relies on the creation of a caricature of an individual, whose power is exaggerated to justify a state of fear that prevented the government from following proper channels.

Be responsible for your own actions.

~Ulrika~

If The RA finds your speech to be harmful to the image of N'burg, they should have the power to set standards for officers and throw you out. In the real world the members of the USSC must abide by certain standards that are set forth in the law, as passed by the legislature, even on their off-time. If a USSC member where to be recorded making a racial slur, for example, he/she would surely face impeachment.

In the USA, the reasons for calling an impeachment hearing is reserved to the House of representatives, for any reason they feel is worthy. Remember, impeachment is like an indictment, it's not a conviction. Clinton was impeached but not removed from office.
Once a person is impeached the Senate hears the case and rules on the merits of the case, declaring guilt or not.

Oh. I didn't realize that! That would be valid then.

~Ulrika~

More to the point it's illogical. What better way would there have been to topple a supposedly tyrannical Dean of the Scientific Council than by using Constitutional Tools?

It also raises the point of exactly why the Constitution shouldn't be mucked with willy-nilly.

This isn't really about the debate per se, just an observation on style of governance. When I was a university student in the early 90's I went to a very left-leaning progressive school. There was much agitation and it was decided to oust the commerce students in the Gov't and elect a radical socialist lesbian government.

There was much writing and speechmaking and protest. We had never had a gov't anything like this, things were gonna change, they were gonna "fight the man" and get justice. As a socialist, I looked forward to it.

What ended up happening was:
Constant boat rocking
Lack of dissent allowed to that which was not PC
Zero consensus building with the broader university

As a result, *NOTHING* got done without a provincial court order and the student gov't ground to a halt. They had little to show other than rancor and poor external relations (people get mad when you sue) and were voted out never to return.

The commerce students took over, ruled by consensus, moderation and pragmatism. Much was accomplished. The students were happy.

Any of this sound familiar?

Moral of the story: You must rule from the center and accomodate or nothing gets done.

Ha ha! That was hysterical. Although, denying someone the right to purchase land would be wickedly unconstitutional. You're right. I better go through Kendra.

~Ulrika~

I never bluff.

If you like you can run the Ulrio concession and live above the store

Great point.

~Ulrika~

as a radical socialist lesbian I resent the implications

What, we're telling each other fairy tales now?

Seriously thought, that's a rhetorical piece based on an anecdotal story that does nothing to solve answer whether or not the RA should be allowed to override the SC veto.

~Ulrika~

Not sure where the constitution currently stands on that. It lays out who is eligible, but no one has a constitutional right to citizenship until the land is purchased. Seeing that the GM handles the deed transfer, I don't see how the GM (as things currently stand) can't freeze a potential immigrant out forever, whether he tries to buy from the City or from a private citizen. Interesting, thoughts?

Am I wrong here? This never really came up...

I'm not sure of the recent amendments, and surely immigration is something that needs some legislation. Please feel free to move this post somewhere more appropriate.

Looks good. What's the land fee and rent?

~Ulrika~

1L per meter and 10% commission of your sales from my store.

So L$16 per month and 10%, eh? Is there room for a single vendor? What's the prim limit? (Just drawing out the suspense a little.)

~Ulrika~

<ooops meant to quote instead of edit...original post remains untouched--KB.>

*shrug* If you think me weak for backing down, so be it.

I believed then that the constitution invested too much power on the SC (and therefore you). And insofar as the SC is still invested with all that power, I believe the SC, while now composed of more moderate people (I am, after all in the SC now ), still is too powerful.