Amendment: Integration of Minister of Economy

Timeline · July 19, 2002, 22:39

This Amendment will remove the Minister of Trade and Minister of Finance sections of our Code of Laws, and replace it with this:

Quote:

Minister of Economy:

The Minister of Economy ensures our nation's commercial market progresses smoothly and efficiently. This officer advises the people and President on the budget of our nation and is the principle authority on all international trade involving currency and resources.

This Minister must approve any and all trades involving Gold, Luxuries, and Strategic Resources before they may be carried out. The Minister of Economy is also directly responsible for managing the Tax and Luxury sliders.

Trade Embargos must first be approved by both the Minister of Economy and Foreign Affairs Minister before they may be enforced.

Also, to maintain constitutional coherency, the Minister of Foreign Affairs section will be reworded to the following:

Quote:

Minister of Foreign Affairs:

This minister is given the power to enter into diplomatic negotiations with other countries, however should refrain from making commitments until approved by the people.

The Foreign Advisor is granted the power to make peace, accept Mutual Protection Pacts, offer Right of Passage Agreements, and forge Military Alliances.

The exchange of all items, except Luxury, Gold, or Strategic resources falls on the broad shoulders of the Foreign Affairs Minister. It is, however, strongly recommended that the Foreign Affairs Minister consults with other ministers whose office may be affected by such trades.

This Minister is required to consult the Minister of Economy when Luxury, Gold, or Strategic resources are involved in a trade.

Trade Embargos must first be approved by both the Minister of Economy and Foreign Affairs Minister before they may be enforced.

Poll Expires in 3 Days

July 19, 2002, 23:33

No use leaving it outdated. In fact, was a poll really necessary for this?

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 00:05

Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

At least this way I can be cursed for polling the people and asking them what they think, rather than being accused of pursuing a personal agenda or exhibiting despotic tendencies, or something or other.

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 00:06

Ermm... being that's what amendments are for, this would only ruin the original document. If we can liberally 'replace' sections of the Constitution instead of simply make amendments, then things previously may be omitted, and other unplanned chaotic things arise...

In fact, this isn't really even Constitutional... the Constitution can only be amended, not edited.

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 00:10

Who says?

We make the rules here, we can do whatever we want.

Besides, this isn't a constitution, it's a Code of Laws.

Kramerman · July 20, 2002, 00:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Edrix
No use leaving it outdated. In fact, was a poll really necessary for this?

Absolutely. We shouldn't take changing the code of laws lightly, I mean it may just be something minner now, and something miner tomarrow, and before you know it the Administration has completely changed the code 'o laws with out civilian approval. Call me paranoid, but I'll just admitt that I am

. Besides, little changes like this won't take much flak, if any, and these changes could be put into an effect shortly. Good call Timeline

.

Kman

Kramerman · July 20, 2002, 00:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Timeline
Who says?

We make the rules here, we can do whatever we want.

Besides, this isn't a constitution, it's a Code of Laws.

What!? How speaketh thou this blaphemy? The Code of Laws is fundamentally the same thing as a constitution, most even refer to it as the Constitution. I'm with Trip on this one. And no, you don't make the rules here, the citizenry makes the rules here. We are a direct democracy and should be run as such. I have only read parts of the Code of laws, but I am certain it must specify how things are changed, may it be an ammendment or some other method. And we must follow what the document says, honor its words, or it becomes worthless. If the code of laws becomes worthless, then no one would respect it and chaos would arise. Anarchy. My mortal enemy.I won't have it

.

Kman

Kramerman · July 20, 2002, 00:24

I think the ammendment is fine by the way.

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 00:27

KMan, se already have an amendment, check the first and only amendment at the bottom of the Constitution.

Quote:

Amendments:
Amendments to this Constitution can be submitted by any member of our nation. An amendment is passed and made official by a 2/3 or greater vote on the amendment's inclusion.

The definition of the word 'amendment' is: "The The process of formally altering or adding to a document or record."
Also notice the wording of the statement: "inclusion".
If this replaces anything, then it is unconstitutional.

UnOrthOdOx · July 20, 2002, 00:32

THIS WAS ALREADY DONE!!!

We must preserve the original document to ensure that some unethical President in the Future does not alter it to his hearts desire. ADD to it to change the meaning, do not replace. Ugh, see more of my opinon in your other "amendment" thread. I'm too pissed to repeat here.

Ninot · July 20, 2002, 00:43

Im making a quick second ammendment that states everything in the Foreign Minister's stuff that refers to the Trade minister is hereby changed to reflect upon the Economy minister, good?

Kramerman · July 20, 2002, 00:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
KMan, se already have an amendment, check the first and only amendment at the bottom of the Constitution.

The definition of the word 'amendment' is: "The The process of formally altering or adding to a document or record."
Also notice the wording of the statement: "inclusion".
If this replaces anything, then it is unconstitutional.

What? I don't understand why you are telling me this. Perhaps you misunderstood something that I said? I know what an amendment is, I may go to public school, but Im not slow...

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 00:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

What!? How speaketh thou this blaphemy? The Code of Laws is fundamentally the same thing as a constitution, most even refer to it as the Constitution. I'm with Trip on this one. And no, you don't make the rules here, the citizenry makes the rules here. We are a direct democracy and should be run as such.

Kman

Whoa whoa, calm down please sir

.

First, when I said *we* make the laws, that's exactly what I meant, WE make the laws. That means all of us.

We all decide weather we wish to create long and drawn-out documents, or clear and efficient ones.

Second, it is called a Code of Laws, and yes, you are right, many call it a Constitution. But, this is *our* constitution, and we can make it into anything we desire.

I am just saying it's best to keep it simple and concise. Easy to understand and to follow.

The people voted for a limited constitution, not a long drawn out and confounded document.

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 00:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman
What? I don't understand why you are telling me this. Perhaps you misunderstood something that I said? I know what an amendment is, I may go to public school, but Im not slow...

No, what I meant was that we already have an amendment for this, so you supporting this one is a non-factor.

The definition stuff was in response to Linney saying that nothing said we couldn't erase things in the Constitution.

Kramerman · July 20, 2002, 01:05

ok, well then. I misunderstood everything. I didn't realize we already had this ammendment

. Though the poll at the top saying ' shall we adopt this ammendment' and people saying they should just change it (which I interpreted as passing what I thought was an ammendment without public consent) and Timeline didn't need a poll was all kinda misleading. I apologize.

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 01:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman
ok, well then. I misunderstood everything. I didn't realize we already had this ammendment

. Though the poll at the top saying ' shall we adopt this ammendment' and people saying they should just change it (which I interpreted as passing what I thought was an ammendment without public consent) and Timeline didn't need a poll was all kinda misleading. I apologize.

It's alright, I didn't specify who I was talking to.

Timeline · July 21, 2002, 08:22

I am gonna be fair and bump this, even though it would probably win if I let it drop.

This is a good amendment, experts like Spffor agree, so vote YES for it. We don't want this to pass with only 16 voters, come on! Make it a land slide!

Kuciwalker · July 21, 2002, 08:47

Abstain. I'm not quite sure what this is about. I thought that these amendments had already passed. If you want to replace earlier things instead of being tacked on at the end, then make an amendment that says that you can do that.

Spiffor · July 21, 2002, 11:28

I offcially support this amendment. It rewords greatly the "Ministry of The Economy" amendment (who passed on a 84% majority), and keeps all its original meaning.
Vote for this

Kuciwalker · July 21, 2002, 11:35

It's not winning.

Timeline · July 21, 2002, 11:45

Sure it is, remember, abstains are not figured into the final percentage.

Kuciwalker · July 21, 2002, 12:00

They AREN'T?????

Yes they are!

Timeline · July 21, 2002, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
They AREN'T?????

Yes they are!

Abstains are neutral votes, they are not counted in the final percentage. That is the point of abstain.

If you wanted your vote to count you should've voted no.

UnOrthOdOx · July 21, 2002, 12:08

Should this not wait until the 'rewording the CoL' vote? If THAT vote goes down, then this one would need to be re-evaluated, no?

Timeline · July 21, 2002, 12:10

:sigh:

I just wanna see if it passes. The REAL issue will be decided in another vote, and I am not talking about the "rewording the CoL" poll.

Timeline · July 22, 2002, 00:22

We need more yes votes please! Just 1 or 2 more....

Timeline · July 22, 2002, 16:38

This is the last day of the poll, and it will be expiring tonight. So I'm giving it it's last bump.

GodKing · July 22, 2002, 17:05

abstain - as I havn't followed the rational behind all of this terrably close. I don't have any objections.

Timeline · July 23, 2002, 08:16

Poll Closed.

Voting Results:
Yea: 19 (70.37%)
Nay: 8 (29.63%)

This amendment passed (just barely), but I recommend we wait to add it to the constitution until we have decided on it's structuring.

civman2000 · July 23, 2002, 08:28

No, it only has 65.52%. Abstain votes must be included