When I ranked the DPU second of three last election, it was with the hope that they would free the city from the obstructionism of the MPP and finally expand the sim, pulling more people into the project. Instead, despite the rapid growth of many other competing projects, four months later there is still just a single sim. Additionally, despite that individuals can incorporate in the city, the transformation of the sim through commerce has not yet materialized. Perhaps more progress would have been made, if there wasn't so much effort being spent in an attempt to alter the Constitution. Right now some members of the RA are seeking to rewrite the Constitution which could both change the balance of power permanently and allow amendments that violate the Bill of Rights.
It seems that politicians are no longer serving the people who elected them but instead are playing politics with the founding documents, attempting to consolidate power. Even more disturbing is that those who are drafting the amendments seem to lack a full understanding of the constitution itself, let alone the ramifications of their proposed amendments. Additionally, given the many small changes the Constitution needs, it is disturbing that a portion of the RA is focusing specifically on text which directly affects the power of the RA itself. It appears to be an attempt to consolidate power without providing a benefit to citizens (in fact it will be harmful).
If I were still a citizen, which I am not, would I still rank the DPU second? No way.
What do you think?
~Ulrika~
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
DPU Undermining the Constitution? |
|
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
04-15-2006 12:15
_____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
04-15-2006 23:59
While doing research for a topic in another thread, I came across a transcript that shows there was interest in modifying that single line in the Constitution since the beginning of their term in 29 Jan 2006. What is interesting is that Sudane (MPP) seems to support the removal of one of the most critical phrases in the constitution as well (which is not surprising).
The thread with the complete transcript is here. Gwyneth Llewelyn: Item #5, the constitutional revision. ... Gwyneth Llewelyn: "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." ... Sudane Erato: that is looping logic ... Flyingroc Chung: yeah, the constitution is a founding document Dianne Mechanique: its a bit of a loophole Sudane Erato: exactly Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol yes. Diderot Mirabeau: I'd consider it a safeguard ... Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... we might need to approve it... Gwyneth Llewelyn: but on forthcoming revisions, if the RA changes that bit... Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... we might have no saying in it. Flyingroc Chung: shouldnt it undergo a ratification processs byall citizens? Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah no, FR. Gwyneth Llewelyn: N'burg is a representative democracy, not a base democracy. Flyingroc Chung: well I guess that's subject towhatever's written in the next consti ... Dianne Mechanique: well i was imagining a role where we would not approve it if it was obviously logical gobbldygook taht made a mockery of the existing documents or whatevver Dianne Mechanique: not likely to occur really Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes indeed, Dianne. Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think that the idea was... like on the bills... Gwyneth Llewelyn: we cannot propose changes or nills Gwyneth Llewelyn: *bills Dianne Mechanique: yes Dianne Mechanique: well i am sure the RA will come up with good stuff anyway Gwyneth Llewelyn: but we can say "ok, that's reasonable; or no, you need to rewrite it" Gwyneth Llewelyn: So do I. Gwyneth Llewelyn: Right. _____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
|
Claude Desmoulins
Registered User
Join date: 1 Nov 2005
Posts: 388
|
04-16-2006 00:49
I rise to a point of information . None of the statements you quoted in your post alleging extensive planning by the DPU was made by a DPU member,
|
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
04-16-2006 09:22
I rise to a point of information . None of the statements you quoted in your post alleging extensive planning by the DPU was made by a DPU member, ~Ulrika~ _____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|