Preservation of the Code of Laws: Discussion

UnOrthOdOx · July 20, 2002, 00:43

In light of recent proposed ammendments by our electd officials, I propose that we act now to preserve the original document, leave it topped, and allow present and future presidents to alter it through AMMENDMENTS, not edits.

The current proposed changes will EDIT and CHANGE the original text as opposed to adding ammendments to change its meaning. Why should this matter, you ask? There are several reasons.

First:

Changing is unneccessary(sp), ammendments could have been added ala the Minister of Economy ammendment to alter the original meaning. Future presidents could have simply REPLIED to the old thread with an ammendment.

Second:

It would preserve as a historical reminder of whence we came, and how our Code of Laws changed as we grew.

Third:

It would provide easy access for us to ensure that no changes were made without aproval. Imagine an unethical President changing a word or two. Our court would need to sort through all our pas threads to find the original just to see if it happened, but would first need to NOTICE it in the first place.

notyoueither · July 20, 2002, 00:45

Good points.

Ninot · July 20, 2002, 00:45

I completely and whole heartedly agree

i just need some consensus on what im supposed to do with our Foreign minister, who still has some stuff in his little article about the Trade minister, which no longer exists.

Ninot · July 20, 2002, 00:51

My only dillema currently is when the Economy minister was ammended, the Foreign Minister was left with references to the now non-existant trade minister

that, and as Timeline has pointed out, nothing was ever ammended about how the SAV is distributed.

now, i can ammend these things NOW without a 3 day wait, or...

UnOrthOdOx · July 20, 2002, 00:52

The Minister of Economy ammendment already states that the job became a part of him. This covers that when the FAM needs to talk to MoT it is now the MoE...is it really that confusing?

Looking at the old thread, however, I change my stance a bit. We need a thread dedicated to the code of laws. The only way to change it is to reply with an ammendment. Leave who is what in another thread. We must do this now, however, before it is changed beynd recognition.

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 00:53

I also agree... things cannot be erased... that's why we add amendments to the end. If people are too lazy to get through reading to the bottom, then they probably didn't or shouldn't be read the thing in the first place.

UnOrthOdOx · July 20, 2002, 00:55

Timeline is proposing REPLACEMENTS, not amendments. DO NOT REPLACE CLAUSES, let them stand and be changed by ammendments so that in thousands of years we will know where our past errors were, and therefore no make them again.

Ninot · July 20, 2002, 00:56

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
The Minister of Economy ammendment already states that the job became a part of him. This covers that when the FAM needs to talk to MoT it is now the MoE...is it really that confusing?

Looking at the old thread, however, I change my stance a bit. We need a thread dedicated to the code of laws. The only way to change it is to reply with an ammendment. Leave who is what in another thread. We must do this now, however, before it is changed beynd recognition.

Ok, i can see how it might be simple to see that all occurances of Trade and Finance would be replaced with Economy. But we still gotta ammend this SAV thing.

the way it is now is that if it has to be ammended.. I ammend it threw editing. That works fine and dandy, as long as you know where it is (yeah, i know.. ill make it its own thread). But ammendment threw editing works better than ammendment threw additional posts, IMHO.

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 00:58

If it's amended, add it to the bottom. Simple as that. That's how they've been specified to be added to our Constitution, that's how it should go.

Ninot · July 20, 2002, 00:59

allright! im adding it, cuz its been voted on and blah blah blah, lol.

UnOrthOdOx · July 20, 2002, 01:04

What about a topped Code of Laws thread NEVER to be rewritten by future presidents, just added to with ammendments?

Ninot · July 20, 2002, 01:07

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
What about a topped Code of Laws thread NEVER to be rewritten by future presidents, just added to with ammendments?

thats what I was thinking. I would prefer it was edited to add the amendments rather than posting the ammendments underneath, but that would mean a new thread every month.

UnOrthOdOx · July 20, 2002, 01:07

btw

Quote:

These independent agents are bestowed the great privilege of keeping the people informed on the happenings of the game and government, as well as the general environment around us. They should strive to obtain accurate facts, and state things how they are, free of political involvement. The reporters act as a window into the game, serve as a government watchdog, and are general tool of the people.

Just doing my job.

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 01:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Ninot
thats what I was thinking. I would prefer it was edited to add the amendments rather than posting the ammendments underneath, but that would mean a new thread every month.

Maybe we can talk to Markos about addressing this problem?

Aggie · July 20, 2002, 01:08

I agree with trip. Also if something is made obsolete by an amendment, it just stays in, kinda like an outdated historical reference. We simply can't make a "new" constitution for every amendment. The amendment will cover any relevant changes. Similar to how we still have the 3/5 person(encouraged by northern states) written into our constitution, but it is long since been outdated. So there really is no reason to change the reference to trade minister. Those are already handled by the amendment.
Aggie

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 01:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
That's how they've been specified to be added to our Constitution, that's how it should go.

When, where?

I don't remember any such vote being held. Can you back this up with a previous thread?

UnOrthOdOx · July 20, 2002, 01:09

Rewriting would provide an opportunity for some future, unethical president, banana forbid, to alter it in small, unnoticed at first, but signifcant ways.

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Rewriting would provide an opportunity for some future, unethical president, banana forbid, to alter it in small, unnoticed at first, but signifcant ways.

This could happen no matter what you do.

To avoid this, all Justices should have a copy, to cross reference during hearings.

Also, such an offense would mean impeachment.

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 01:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Timeline
When, where?

I don't remember any such vote being held. Can you back this up with a previous thread?

Remember the original Constitutional ratification? You do? Yeah, there.

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.

UnOrthOdOx · July 20, 2002, 01:14

Areyou saying ANYONE coud go and edit Ninot's post should he make one now? And wouldn't there be a little "last edited by..." if Ninot himself tried to change it?

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 01:20

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Areyou saying ANYONE coud go and edit Ninot's post should he make one now? And wouldn't there be a little "last edited by..." if Ninot himself tried to change it?

What I mean is that there should be a way that the current threads can always stay up, but the current President will always have access to them (instead of having to put up new ones like what we did with Ninney and I).

Ninot · July 20, 2002, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

What I mean is that there should be a way that the current threads can always stay up, but the current President will always have access to them (instead of having to put up new ones like what we did with Ninney and I).

yeah, it was annoying to repost everything Trip had topped.

We need a way of having Presidents edit eachothers posts...

UnOrthOdOx · July 20, 2002, 01:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

What I mean is that there should be a way that the current threads can always stay up, but the current President will always have access to them (instead of having to put up new ones like what we did with Ninney and I).

I was talking to Timeline, acutually...

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 01:51

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I was talking to Timeline, acutually...

I wasn't sure about that... I thought it could go either way, and I felt I ought to explain myself more thorougly anyways.

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 01:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

Remember the original Constitutional ratification? You do? Yeah, there.

Well, we all know you wrote this part because you lacked the coherency to call it a Code of Laws, but rather, a Consititution. But anyway....

Just because an amendment adds things into our constitution and corrects references to it in other places, DOES NOT MEAN IT'S NOT INCLUDED into the document.

These amendments "E-mail and MoE" are specifically stated to be included. We are simply arguing over HOW they should be included.

So, again, you fail to show me anywhere it states amendments cannot replace outdated areas of the constitution.

As far as historical reference. I assure you, our historians and myself have logs of this constitution, through these people like Tassadar and History Guy, we will always be able to see the different stages of our Code of Laws and how it evolved over the years.

It is vital to keep everything coherent, as even now i am annoyed by having to scroll up and down to see which amendment on the bottom applies at the top. It is extremely unorganized, and in this condition, does not befit a document representing our government. I hate to think what it will be like when we have 5 amendments, or 10, or more. :shudders:

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 01:58

Then write up a new Constitution with 2/3 vote if it's that horrible...

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 02:17

An interesting note: The original Code of Laws document only required a majority 1/2 vote to pass. All amendments to follow would require the 2/3 to be accepted. So it was much easier to get the document up there than to correct and refine it.

Now, back on track. I am just saying, to say that an amendment that replaces something is not *included*, is ridiculous imo. Of course it is included, or it wouldn't be there in the first place.

There is nothing unconstitutional about these polls, and if they are voted by a 2/3 vote then thay should be enacted as stated.

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 02:26

Oh the thing passed with 2/3 anyways, quit complaining.

Definition of include: "To contain as a secondary or subordinate element".
In other words, to add on an extra part to a previous body. No where does it allow the 'replacement' or 'deletion' of current material... only inclusion.

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 02:50

One of the definitions of "amendment" is alteration, but that doesn't seem to stop you

.

Btw, the Random House Websters College Dictionary states: "Include means to contain or encompass as part of a whole; it may indicate one, several, or all parts"

Clearly, this amendment wishes to become part of the whole, in a very integrated way. It does not completely replace all text, but it make itself a part of the constitution by adding itself into it in place of others.

The word 'inclusion' does not exclude the word amendment, which is exactly what this proposal is. Just give up the word game Trip, it's not going to work to block this, only the vote can do that.

GoodFella · July 20, 2002, 03:18

Pardon me, Timeline. It seems you think rewriting the constitution (or code of laws if you prefer) would be a good idea. Please allow me to say, "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FREAKIN' MIND!?!"