by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .739740741742743744745. . .757758»

Krypton Nova wrote:Technically it's neither invalid nor a typographical mistake (according to VII.7.A and B), so this wouldn't be allowed, unfortunately.

In my understanding, the Edit Act (that is now an integral part of the constitution) was made with the intention of correcting mistakes in legislation. As the edit corrected something in the legislation that was not intended by the legislator, and he approved of it, I think the change was good. The procedure, as you pointed out was questionable however. I suggest we discuss making an official ruling by the Tribunal, either allowing or prohibiting such procedures in the future.

Krypton Nova, Smolcasm, and Galdanulia

Galdanulia wrote:Actually, in my memory, it was a typographical mistake on my part, since I thought I had put it in. We have already edited it. If you'd like, you can call for a referendum to reverse it, but I don't know how far it'd get.

The constitution also allows for the Tribunal to reverse edits, without public approval.
Section VII, 7. F. "The Tribunal may reverse an error fixed by the Council."

Krypton Nova, Smolcasm, and Galdanulia

Galdanulia

Kavarai wrote:The constitution also allows for the Tribunal to reverse edits, without public approval.
Section VII, 7. F. "The Tribunal may reverse an error fixed by the Council."

Okay, does that mean you want to reverse it? KN needs your (or Zaila's) vote to do so. If you do, I'm calling for what I think will be the most unnecessary vote in history to get that edit back in. This is a question of the letter versus the spirit of the law IMO.

Galdanulia wrote:Okay, does that mean you want to reverse it? KN needs your (or Zaila's) vote to do so. If you do, I'm calling for what I think will be the most unnecessary vote in history to get that edit back in. This is a question of the letter versus the spirit of the law IMO.

As I said, I think the change was well intended and as such I support it, but we need to clarify if such things can ever again in the future. I do not wish to reverse the edit.

Krypton Nova, Smolcasm, and Galdanulia

Galdanulia wrote:Actually, in my memory, it was a typographical mistake on my part, since I thought I had put it in. We have already edited it. If you'd like, you can call for a referendum to reverse it, but I don't know how far it'd get.

To clarify, typographical mistakes are generally related to spelling. Missing words, sentences or clauses generally can't be considered as such.

Kavarai wrote:In my understanding, the Edit Act (that is now an integral part of the constitution) was made with the intention of correcting mistakes in legislation. As the edit corrected something in the legislation that was not intended by the legislator, and he approved of it, I think the change was good. The procedure, as you pointed out was questionable however. I suggest we discuss making an official ruling by the Tribunal, either allowing or prohibiting such procedures in the future.

That sounds like a good plan :)

Kavarai, Smolcasm, and Galdanulia

Zaila two-the squeakquel

Linnuis has not been very active...

Linnuis sus????? ඞ ඞ ඞ ඞ ඞ ඞ I saw him vent

Linnuis, Kavarai, Smolcasm, and Galdanulia

As the recent edit of the Elections Amendment of 2021 has been called into question, the Tribunal has decided that an official interpretation of Section VII, Article 7 needs to be made.
The tribunal hereby declares that:
If the Council wants to make a correction to the last and recently approved legislation, and:
- it does not change the core meaning,
- it corresponds to the authors' original intent,
- it corresponds to the original interpretation by the members who voted in favour, and
- it does not change anything unconnected to the original version,
then it may do so, with a majority approval of the Council, the approval of all authors, and the approval of the Tribunal.
As specified in Section VI.1.E, a referendum may still render the edit unconstitutional.

Krypton Nova, Zaila two-the squeakquel, Smolcasm, and Galdanulia

Kavarai wrote:-snippity snip-

breathes a sigh of relief

Kavarai and Smolcasm

Linnuis

Zaila two-the squeakquel wrote:Linnuis has not been very active...

Linnuis sus????? ඞ ඞ ඞ ඞ ඞ ඞ I saw him vent

Yeah, I'm here. Apologies for the inactivity, but I've been really busy these past few days due a new course I've just started. I swear I've been more busy in lockdown than I ever was before.

So, we meet again Cyborgs and sentient machines. Seriously though, welcome back.

Zaila two-the squeakquel, Smolcasm, and Galdanulia

Linnuis wrote:Yeah, I'm here. Apologies for the inactivity, but I've been really busy these past few days due a new course I've just started. I swear I've been more busy in lockdown than I ever was before.

Don't worry about your schedule. We understand.

NEW EMBASSY REQUEST

Region: free land

My Opinion: I think the Embassy Policy sums it up well enough, but I'll try my best... AGAINST.

I think embassy requests, that clearly don't fit our embassy policy, should be just immediately rejected, no need for discussions on them. Or at least the ones that don't fit the nation count requirement.

Galdanulia

Kavarai wrote:I think embassy requests, that clearly don't fit our embassy policy, should be just immediately rejected, no need for discussions on them. Or at least the ones that don't fit the nation count requirement.

With respect, that's entirely the Council's business; I, for one, would not have their discussions stifled simply because some of us here think their course of action should be obvious. Besides which, I believe there are those in the Council who might agree with me when I say that the nation count requirement is simply too inconsequential a part of our Embassy Policy to dictate which requests should be rejected out of hand - there is the occasional region out there that can be small and still be great.

Krypton Nova, Kavarai, and Galdanulia

Smolcasm wrote:With respect, that's entirely the Council's business; I, for one, would not have their discussions stifled simply because some of us here think their course of action should be obvious. Besides which, I believe there are those in the Council who might agree with me when I say that the nation count requirement is simply too inconsequential a part of our Embassy Policy to dictate which requests should be rejected out of hand - there is the occasional region out there that can be small and still be great.

You're right, I shouldn't be involved in the Council's business, especially since these are none of my concern. I sincerely apologize and regret my statement.

Smolcasm and Galdanulia

Kavarai wrote:You're right, I shouldn't be involved in the Council's business, especially since these are none of my concern. I sincerely apologize and regret my statement.

Speaking of government business, I wasn't expecting such a groundbreaking use of judicial review so early in our resurgence. There's something remarkably elegant about the Tribunal extrapolating a common-sense measure from the law that once lacked it in response to the Council doing precisely the same thing.

Linnuis, Kavarai, and Galdanulia

Smolcasm wrote:Speaking of government business, I wasn't expecting such a groundbreaking use of judicial review so early in our resurgence. There's something remarkably elegant about the Tribunal extrapolating a common-sense measure from the law that once lacked it in response to the Council doing precisely the same thing.

We want to leave no ambiguity in our laws, and this process basically extends the Edit Act, as typographical and such smaller edits to the constitution are still perfectly allowed with a simple Council majority, it only requires Tribunal and author approval, if the change is bigger, such as in the last instance.

Smolcasm and Galdanulia

Kavarai wrote:We want to leave no ambiguity in our laws, and this process basically extends the Edit Act, as typographical and such smaller edits to the constitution are still perfectly allowed with a simple Council majority, it only requires Tribunal and author approval, if the change is bigger, such as in the last instance.

Would it be a waste of the Tribunal's time to ask for a ruling on whether changing American English spellings to British English (or vice versa) would be unconstitutional? :P

Linnuis, Krypton Nova, and Galdanulia

Smolcasm wrote:Would it be a waste of the Tribunal's time to ask for a ruling on whether changing American English spellings to British English (or vice versa) would be unconstitutional? :P

I'm working on legislation that deals with correcting and simplifying the constitution and we could actually add that, to make it more uniform (I hope I'm using that expression correct lmao).

Reason

The current constitution is an adequate document for our region, but due to its length and age, some parts of it have become meaningless, incorrect or inconsistent.

To Be Changed

All references to the position of 'Councillor' shall be updated to start with a capital 'C' (Section IV 4. B, C, D)

All references to the position of 'Judge' shall be updated to start with a capital 'J' (Section I 13. C, Section IV 1. A, 4. B, Section VII 1., 3. C, E)

All references to the position of 'Security Officer' shall be updated to start with a capital 'S' and capital 'O', respectively (Section IV 1. A, 4. B)

All separate sentences in the constitution shall be updated to end with a period. (Section I 1. C, Section III 4.)

Definition 1. "the LCRUA", shall be reviewed and updated, according to the regions and entities currently associated with The LCRUA.

Definition 4. "legal representative", shall be removed, as it not longer appears in our constitution.

Section III. 1. C shall be removed, as it no longer serves any purpose.

Section III 4. shall be divided up into subarticles according to the following criterias:
The definition of raiding and defending shall get their own subarticles (A, B).
The following sentence shall be made into a subarticle: "The LCRUA declares itself a neutral region, the region cannot join any interregional organization dedicated to raiding or defending, and if an interregional organization the LCRUA is part of is deemed by LCRUA members to have become a R/D organization, they may vote in behalf of the region to withdraw from it." (C).
The last sentence of the subarticle shall be made into a separate subarticle (D).

Section VI shall be merged into Section V, as their contents are similar and Section VI is too short to be an independent Section.

Section VII 3. D shall be changed to the following: "If the accused pleads not guilty, the Judges decide whether the accused is guilty or not based on proof presented by the prosecution."

Section VIII 'LCRUA Hall of Fame Act' shall be replaced by a readable version of the act, or if it hasn't been archived, shall be replaced by a new version, that is the same as the formerly enacted legislation.

Section VIII 'Oath of Office Act' shall be removed, as it is unneccessary and has been ignored several times.

Subarticles shall be renamed 'Clauses'. (Section VII 7. C)

Extra Notes & Links
- Current constitution

Author(s)
Kavarai
Contributor(s)
Krypton Nova

Read dispatch

Krypton Nova, Smolcasm, and Galdanulia

Galdanulia

Smolcasm wrote:With respect, that's entirely the Council's business; I, for one, would not have their discussions stifled simply because some of us here think their course of action should be obvious. Besides which, I believe there are those in the Council who might agree with me when I say that the nation count requirement is simply too inconsequential a part of our Embassy Policy to dictate which requests should be rejected out of hand - there is the occasional region out there that can be small and still be great.

Like The Embassy? We're (speaking on behalf of The Embassy here) accepting requests again, so if we (The Council) can make an exception... (I'm recusing myself from that vote jsyk)

Linnuis and Smolcasm

I got the holy egg in Eshia Smolcasm, but I'm not solving it yet. Gonna wait for TNP's big card pull event. Four eggs down!

Zaila two-the squeakquel and Smolcasm

Galdanulia wrote:Like The Embassy? We're (speaking on behalf of The Embassy here) accepting requests again, so if we (The Council) can make an exception... (I'm recusing myself from that vote jsyk)

An excellent example, yes.

Galdanulia

Smolcasm wrote:With respect, that's entirely the Council's business; I, for one, would not have their discussions stifled simply because some of us here think their course of action should be obvious. Besides which, I believe there are those in the Council who might agree with me when I say that the nation count requirement is simply too inconsequential a part of our Embassy Policy to dictate which requests should be rejected out of hand - there is the occasional region out there that can be small and still be great.

To me the only embassy policies that are completely inflexible are the policies against hate and NSFW content.

Linnuis, Smolcasm, and Galdanulia

Stretchington wrote:To me the only embassy policies that are completely inflexible are the policies against hate and NSFW content.

Absolutely. Everything else is flexible, but hate and lewd posts are unacceptable.

Linnuis and Smolcasm

Kavarai wrote:You're right, I shouldn't be involved in the Council's business, especially since these are none of my concern. I sincerely apologize and regret my statement.

Smolcasm wrote:With respect, that's entirely the Council's business; I, for one, would not have their discussions stifled simply because some of us here think their course of action should be obvious. Besides which, I believe there are those in the Council who might agree with me when I say that the nation count requirement is simply too inconsequential a part of our Embassy Policy to dictate which requests should be rejected out of hand - there is the occasional region out there that can be small and still be great.

I feel the need, as an esteemed councillor, to interject here. Whilst I do not agree with Kavarai's statement (as I do believe that there should be exception to the rule), we are a democracy and everyone is entitled to give their opinion. Karavai has no right to influence Council decisions as a judge, but is well within their rights to voice concerns or opinions. Moreover, if people in the region state their opinion freely then the Council can inform the citizenry of details that may not have been known to the person who tabled the question - such the importance of a region like The Embassy.

Stretchington, Krypton Nova, Kavarai, Zaila two-the squeakquel, and 2 othersSmolcasm, and Galdanulia

Galdanulia

Smolcasm and no E makes five! Now I can hunt for Pony Peril and Breaking the Fourth Wall of Eshialand!

EDIT How did it take me that long to notice that my tag was screwed up?

«12. . .739740741742743744745. . .757758»

Advertisement