Proposed Amendment - Referenda and SC veto of constitutional amendments

Article III, Section 8

delete "or constitutional amendment"


Add article VII - Referenda



Section 1 Scheduling

1.1 The RA may by majority vote, add one or more referendum itms to the ballot of the next RA election.

1.2 Referenda at other times must be approved by
* A unanimous vote of the RA and
*The Gildemeister and
*A unanimous vote of the chairs of the SC

Section 2 Types

2.1 All constitutional amendments must be approved by a referendum after their approval by the RA.

2.2 There may also be non-binding, advisory referenda on important city issues, at the discretion of the RA.


Section 3 Approval

Referenda are approved by simple majority vote of the citizens, with a required voter turnout of 60%+1.

The amendment proposes to eliminate the SC's ability to veto constitutional amendments approved by the RA but instead requires the electorate to approve of every single constitutional amendment.

While I sympathise with the desire to give the electorate a say in the adjustment of the "social compact" that establishes the relationship between the people and their government I fear that this proposal will lead to either of two evils:

- Future RA's will refrain from submitting necessary constitutional amendments giving up in advance as they see as unattainable the prospect of obtaining a majority of votes form 60% of the population - or the 6 month period of waiting before an amendment may be passed will be considered as too long for the referendum to be a useful instrument

- Alternatively, constitutional amendments may be passed that are in one way or other ill-advised, breaching on the rights of a minority or severely short-termed aiming to satisfy immediate needs without taking into account the broader picture

I appreciate the need to build into the constitution safeguards that can prevent one branch from blocking entirely the process of constitutional change. I do think however that the SC serves an important role in bestowing proposed constitutional amendments with additional validity and also perhaps as an independent entity, which can look upon the amendment from a perspective of relative independence from political partisanship.

I would propose as an alternative the possibility that the RA can pass a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 majority vote subject to the subsequent approval by the SC.

Should the SC however disagree on the legitimacy of a particular amendment then the RA is forced to seek a sizeable popular mandate for their proposal before it being able to come into effect.

The advantage of this proposal is in my view thatr the SC will remain a party to the process of constitutional change being able to contribute its expertise without being in a position to abuse its power and act as a blocker of a necessary change.

Also, if a referendum needs to be called on a particular constitutional amendment both the RA and the SC will then be able to advance their positions on the matter and the citizens will have a more enlightened basis upon which to cast their vote rather than if the amendment comes from only the RA.

I therefore propose instead the following text for the amendment:

Article III, Section 8:
(..)
In regards to the Representative branch:

* 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. For bills this means that the bill will have to be resubmitted to the RA with the offending phrases removed or reformulated. For constitutional amendments the RA may choose to do the same or it may petition the electorate through a referendum for a popular mandate to carry through the unmodified amendment. This referendum will take place in accordance with the guidelinees in Article VII, Sections 1 - 3.

(..)

Article VII - Referenda

Section 1 Scheduling

1.1 The RA may by majority vote, add one or more referendum itms to the ballot of the next RA election.

1.2 Referenda at other times must be approved by
* A unanimous vote of the RA and
*The Gildemeister and
*A unanimous vote of the chairs of the SC

Section 2 Types

2.1 Constitutional amendments for which there is no SC approval must be approved by a referendum after their approval by the RA.

2.2 There may also be non-binding, advisory referenda on important city issues, at the discretion of the RA.


Section 3 Approval

Referenda are approved by simple majority vote of the citizens, with a required voter turnout of 60%+1.

I think this could be tightened up with something like the following Note that I still have some issues with the whole approach, which I'll lay out at the bottom:

III,8

* 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.

In the event of an SC veto of a constitutional amendment, the following procedure is triggered:

1. Within seventy two hours of the veto notification and explanation being communicated to the LRA by the Dean, the Dean and the LRA (or their designees) will submit to the Gildemeister written arguments for the positions of SC and RA, respectively as regards the disputed amendment. These arguments (RA then SC) will be the first two posts in a forum discussion on the issue which will be locked after five days.

2. Twenty four hours after the discussion thread is locked a citizen referendum on the disputed amendment will occur, lasting seven days. Approval is by simple majority vote.






Explanation:

If we are only using the referendum for disputed constituional amendments, I don't know that it needs its own article.

If we really see this as letting the citizenry "referee" between the SC and the RA, any minimum voter turnout provision, as in my original proposal, creates a presumption in favor of the SC. Maybe we want to do that. I wrote this draft trying to be as neutral as possible.

This would do an excellent job of addressing the constitutional amendment veto issue. However, another intent of the proposal to apply the referendum to all constitutional change was to make it harder to amend the constitution. Diderot's proposal doesn't really do that. There's something to be said for making constitutional amendment a difficult process. It also makes it a carefully thought through process.

Overview

The government is comprised of three branches, the Representative branch, the Philosophic branch, and the Artisanal branch. Each branch has a governmental role, which defines how they affect policy within the city, and each branch has a service role, which defines how they perform SL-specific functions for the city.

Representative Branch

The Representative branch is democratically elected group of representatives, which hold seats in the Representative Assembly (RA). The benefit of having representatives is that allows specialization, freeing those who are not in the RA to pursue other interests.

The governmental role of the RA is to create policy (through laws) that directs the course of the city. The service role of the RA is to support the public through recruitment, meetings, and events.

Seats in the RA are chosen in a two-part election, where citizens first rank their preferred factions and then rank individuals within their faction. The first vote determines the number of seats a faction receives and the second vote determines who in the faction receives the seats. By voting generally for factions, it encourages citizens to focus on party platforms and not the individual personalities.

Philosophic Branch

The Philosophic branch is a meritocracy (rule by skill), whose members serve on the Scientific Council (SC). The benefit of a meritocracy is that it provides an avenue for those with specialized skills to review policies before they become law.

The governmental role of the SC is to ensure laws are constitutional and beneficial. The service role of the SC is to provide law and contract enforcement, as well as mediation and judicial services.

The SC is flat organization whose members are chosen internally and ratified externally. The goal is to create a diverse and skilled group of individuals in the field of law, science, finance, art, and political science, who are able to directly affect policy.

Artisanal Branch

The Artisanal branch is an ergatocracy (rule by workers), whose artisans are members of the Guild. The benefit of an ergatocracy is that it gives all those with productive skills (scripting, building, holding events) a direct role in the government. After all, in SL content is king.

The governmental role of the Guild is to act as the city treasury. The service role of the Guild is to support the city infrastructure, providing structures, scripts, vendors, and so on.

The Guild is open to all citizens who create content. Members of the Guild are organized in groups of Masters and Apprentices. Masters are those with a proven history of creating useful, attractive, and profitable content. All other artisans take the role of Apprentice and must seek out a Master with whom to work. This relationship provides a method to control what content is placed in the city by whom.

Checks and Balances

In addition to promoting fairness by spreading decision-making responsibilities over many individuals, the government also employs a series of checks and balances between each branch. The checks and balances provide mechanisms with which branches can exercise influence over the other branches. For instance, the Philosophical branch can veto laws from the Representative branch based on their constitutionality. The Artisanal branch can veto budgets or laws dealing with finance coming from the Representative branch. The Representative branch can call hearings against members of the other branches to have them ejected for unethical behavior.

The government is a well-defined system which is designed to share power, prevent abuse, and sustain the project without relying on any single individual.

The SC was created specifically to overcome the limitations of the democratic process. Binding it by democratic processes (whether of the RA or the citizens itself) fundamentally undermines its power and purpose.

No branch shall have its power reduced without having it increased in some alternative way. Despite my departure from this project (and greater SL for that matter), it seems the AC and SC have gone on permanent vacation, leaving the relatively productive RA free to expand its power.

Reread the description of the government and then ask yourself if you want it to decay into a direct democracy.

~Ulrika~

Sorry to hijack but...
WOOHOOO ZUG ZUG is back !
Carry on.

while I can see the RA proposing by a majority an amendment for review for inclusion by the SC --it is the SC only that can determine a true change to the Constitution.

It is not up to the RA to effect Constitutional changes on it's own. The final arbiter of The Constitution must remain the domain of the SC.

We don't want mob rule, but neither do we want an effective oligarchy of the Scientific Council, Ulrika. If I wanted that, I'd just get my own damned sim. (Which, fair enough, I did.)

You have it upside down. The SC is a meritocracy similar to the Judicial branch in the United States and is what prevents the sim from degenerating into what every other SL-based group, sim, or club is -- a direct democracy. The SC prevents the majority from abusing the minority. It is the antidote to the bad side of democracy and is what makes the City unique. Without it, why even have a Constitution or Bill of Rights?

Given that this bill would be a permanent evisceration of the balanced-branches concept, I thought I'd attempt to initiate a dialogue among members before it's too late.

~Ulrika~

I'm not back just yet. I've been lurking and saw these odd changes to the Constitution that would alter the balance of power in the city. Given that the SC seems to be on hiatus, there's no one to discuss the problems with the proposed legislation and worse, no one to veto it. Given that it's time critical, I thought I'd make some noise.

I do have to get away from the forums again now, as it's making that horrible tension in my neck come back.

~Ulrika~

(the post removed by Ulrika was entirely and only a verbatim quotation of her own post from January 22, 2006, located here: /103/1b/83872/1.html#post857429 )

That damn well does it, Ulrika. What in the hell do you hope to accomplish by that kind of crap?

In any case, you've got it totally backwards. There are not many direct democracies in SL. If any. Especially where private sims are concerned.

No, as designed the SC has the final say on all laws of the city, and allows the illusion of democracy at its whim. And I say this as a member of the SC.

Also, given you are no longer a citizen, and have demonstrated a tendency to blatantly ignore the very guidelines you helped to create, until the active SC can review the matter I have banned you from Neualtenburg to prevent you from pulling this kind of stunt there, too.

This I completely agree with. All these attempts lately to bypass the SC are to me wrong-headed from the start.

The idea that "the people" should be the final arbitrators in constitutional matters is foolish. If not for the Courts interpretiing the constitution in RL, we would still have segregation, and rampant racism in the States, and gays would not be allowed to marry in Canada. What people want, or all what people all democratically agree would be "good to do," is not always constitutional. That's the reason for having the SC in the first place. This however, is typical "shoot first and ask questions later" tactics.

The SC is *not* "on hiatus" and how rude of you to say so, (especially without asking first). Why, I am busy designing the cute little SC Police uniforms as we speak.

If the people do not have some say in their government, then why pretend? Sudane is the owner of record, let's just make her the boss! SURELY IT WILL BE ALL RIGHT THEN!

I don't mean that the people should not have a say. I mean on constitutional matters only.

Without the SC as arbiters of the constitution, the document is meaningless since "the people" could change it any old way they want. A constitution has to be built on the foundation of human rights and procede logically through legislation as an expression of the laws of the land. If it's at the whim of the RA or "the people" then its merely a list of things "not to do" that changes with each sucessive government.

I agree that the SC should not be involved as arbiters or adjudicators on every little detail in Neualtenburg, but on constitutional matters, it is important that they maintain the final say, otherwise why do they exist at all?

Without this power, they become merely some kind of advisory board don't they?

Clearly, Dianne, this is a matter on which we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I'm firmly in the camp of thought that government should fear their people, not the other way around.

However, I invite you to consider that as it is, the SC has effectively unlimited veto power; I think we even determined that they could veto an impeachment of the SC.

The referendum amendment actually works to make fundamental constitutional change more difficult, as opposed to "convince four members of the RA and the Dean".

Yeah, probably there is not much point in debating this in the forum right now anyway.

I am currently more concerned with the fact that Ulrika apparently can still moderate this forum even though she is no longer a member of Neualteburg.

A rather large oversight on our part, but perhaps lame forum tools are to blame.
For one last attempt at "my side" of this, I would ask you to consider that the setup I am suggesting is actually identical to what currently exists in most western democracies. You have a judicial branch similar to a supreme court that is the final arbitrator on what is "constitutional." That's all I am suggesting.

It is the idea that constitutional amendments and changes should go to referenda that is "radical" and (mostly) unused in the sense of mechanisms for government today.

I share Ulrika's healthy disdain for "direct democracy." Such setups mostly don't work IMO and (more importantly to me), demean us all. The idea that fundamental changes to the constitution should be at the whim of the general populace I find frightening. It's worth repeating that in RL, without a strong constitution that is defended and interpreted by a strong judicial branch, human rights have historically "gone out the window" or not appeared at all.

The thing that is missing or different in our setup (relative to the "typical" way in which a judicial branch is set up in RL), is only the way in which the "judges" of the SC are appointed or chosen and the degree and type of controls placed upon them. Currently the SC is kind of self-appointed for life with only one hazy phrase referring to the fact that "impeachment proceedings *may* be started" (or words to that effect) but no descriptions of under what circumstances that might happen or how it would be accomplished.

As a sitting member of the SC I am in favour of clarifying all that. Who gets appointed, what the qualifications are, for how long, what they have to do to quit, for what reasons can they be chucked out, how that is done etc...

But government by referendum, or worse by simple default (if the SC isn't sitting or doesn't respond in time), ... not so much.

Ulrika's first extended quotation in this forum topic did not include the beginning of the page from which it came. Allow me to quote the first sentence .



Notice the term "democratic republic". The word democratic appears repeatedly in the city's descriptions of itself. Let's start there.

Democracy is from the Greek roots demos (people) and kratos (authority). In the writings of Locke, this got extended to a very specific concept, that authority rested with the people and that government only existed when the people voluntarily granted their personal authority to the government in exchange for something (often security). Locke furthermore argues that this grant of authority can be revoked.

This last bit is particularly important in SL. While emigrating to a new RL nation is time consuming, expensive, and difficult, an SL resident who doesn't like the way their environs are being "governed" can Take their objects and be gone in minutes.

Accordingly, I read the Neualtenburg materials and was exicted by what I saw as an opportunity for true virtual democracy.

For Neualtenburg to be a true democracy, final authority must rest with the people or their elected representatives. I think Ulrika clouds the issue here, perhaps unintentionally, by using the term base democracy instead of direct democracy (as a contrast to representative democracy). Using base in this way carries, in my opinion, a pejorative tone, which Ulrika may or may not intend.

When looked at carefully in its present form, Neualtenburg is not really a democracy. The SC:

can veto anything

cannot be overridden in that veto

is self selected

has no term of office

My read is that the SC, given the broad and lightly checked powers awarded to it by the present constitution, has within its structure the real possibility of becoming one of



I found another of Ulrika's statements to be very telling



Implicit in this paragraph is the assertion that the people cannot be trusted and must be protected from themselves by the philosophic elite. If you really believe that, why have elections or an RA at all? Just let the SC govern the city.

Dianne then said:



With due respect , I think this misses the issue that's really under discussion. There is no desire to eliminate the SC's role as a constitutional interpreter. In most democracies with an explicit constitution, there is a mechanism by which the people, their representatives, or the two working together can change the constitution itself, usually after a long complex process. This, among other things, places a check on the courts if they go off the deep end (judges/chairs are human too). Many of the decisions Dianne cites stopping segregation in the USA were based upon interpretations of the fourteenth amendment, not originally part of the constitution. Neualtenburg's current system would allow a change averse SC, hypothetically, to prevent such language from ever getting into the constitution. The changes under discussion only alter the manner in which the constitution itself might be changed.

As it now stands, those who disagree with an SC decision have no option but to either grin and bear it, or leave. That means that Neualtenburg is in fact ruled by the SC. Such a system is a valid governmental choice, but is not a democracy. If that's truly how the city is to operate, let's call a spade a spade and remove all those references to democratic republics and systems from our website.

I agree with a lot of your points here, and my only angle was the constitutional one like I said.

I think we should all consider that one of Ulrika's favorite forum tactics is to post something divisive and then stand back and watch people argue about it. With one post she has got us all arguing with ourselves here and getting mad over things that we mostly all agree on.

I am a sitting member of the SC and I agree that there are not enough limits on the powers of the SC in general or that as a governmental organisation it is ill-defined. I am in favour of changing that as I think most members of the SC are.

Whatever Ulrika thinks about it is inconsequential, since she is not a member of Neualtenburg. I for one am going to stop posting on this thread as I think I see the strings of our favorite puppet master dangling above my head.

I would only ask that a bill as contentious as this one can be be debated and passed at an RA that *all* members of Nburg can attend. I find it disturbing that I can no longer attend RA's at the time they are held. It means that endless debates have to be aired in public on the forums.

This is especially bad when Ulrika kind of started this hornets nest and also retains the ability to delete and edit every post on the forum.

Respectfully, such a thing is a logical impossibility. Considering only the citizens whose RL location I know, there are citizens in six time zones with a time difference from earliest to latest of ten hours. I was hoping this thread would allow all interested citizens to read the proposals carefully and make considered comments asynchronously.


To clarify something, I would ask the following questions.

"In your opinion, should it be possible to change the constitution without the assent of the SC? If your answer is no, can you explain why Neualtenburg is a democracy rather than an oligarchy with rule by the SC?"

Since you've indicated a preference not to post here, feel free to respond privately, if you wish.

Well yeah, but as close as we can get to "including everyone" is obviously a goal to shoot for. To always have them during weekday working hours in North America is not a good policy IMO. Perhaps we could rotate them a bit?


Direct questions deserve a response, I just feel that we shouldn't be playing into Ulrika's hands by arguing with ourselves when we have discussed a lot of this before and come close to agreement.

I am not the expert that you are perhaps on political systems, but it seems to me that in most western democracies there is a judicial branch that has the last word on all things constitutional with the exception of the US, where the "executive branch" (basically the presidents office) can overrule.

Here in Canada, this resulted in gays being allowed to marry recently even though if left "to the people" to decide, that would likely not have happened. The idea is that the judicial branch ruled that it was unconstitutional to disallow gay marriages and what the people wanted (or didn't want), had nothign to do with it. It was a matter of interpretation of the law and the constitution and associated bill of rights.

Perhaps I am talking at cross purposes or using inexact language, but that is all I am referring to. The idea that in the final analysis an elected assembly cannot pass laws that are unconstitutional because the SC has to rule on whether they are okay or not. If you remove that power then you might as well disband the SC.

The process of constitutional reform is different from ruling on the constitutionality of a proposed law or bill, so perhaps I have confused the two there. I would think at the very least to not *include* the SC in the process of Constitutional reform as a *central* player (given their supposed expertise on the constitution and the way in which their judgements effectively "write" the constitution to a great degree) would be a big mistake. I also think that to eform the constitution of any government without the assent of all the different branches of that government is probably a big mistake.

So yes, I guess I think that the assent of the SC (as constitutional experts) is necessary to change the constitution, but no I am not sure if it should be codified in that exact way. I see the role of the SC for constitutional reform in the same way as I see it for adjudications and review of "regular" bills, as that of constitutional arbiters. If the proposed reform of the constitution violates the bill of rights on which the constitution is founded for example, the SC should rightfully say so and hopefully have the power to stop it from happening.

The SC is designed to supercede democracy when it enacts laws that are in violation of the founding documents (Constitution and Bill of Rights). It exists to ensure that minorities are protected against the majority regardless of public opinion. I point you to the U.S. Judicial Branch as an example, which can strike down any law at any time regardless of the will of the public or its representatives, if that law violates the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Whoa! Did you just revoke a person's right to visit Neualtenburg because you're afraid they'll commit virtual terrorism? Am I officially on the watch list?

In all my years spent on this project I never knew it would come to this. The unraveling of the Judicial system and the banning of foreigners due to threat of terrorism. This project has failed.

~Ulrika~

Sadly. I agree with you.

First I am no legal expert. I believe I know as much about law and government as a well educated citizen ought to.

First let me clarify USA procedure.



Canada has a similar procedure in Part V of the 1982 Constitution Act. It requires the assent of the federal parliament and either all or a majority of provincial parliaments (depending on the nature of the amendment) to change the constitution.

It sounds as if you and I are going to disagree on this. My contention is that the existence of a mechanism to change the constitution without the consent of the judiciary places an important, albeit rarely used, check on judical authority. Absent such a mechanism, the judiciary (in Neualtenburg the SC) become the de facto rulers of the government because their decisions cannot be appealed or overridden in any way.