Discussion about the New Constitution

[Togas]

Please use this thread to discuss the New Constitution.

[GhengisFarb™]

Most excellent. There are some issues I would rather be dealt with differently, by they are insignificant compared to the impressive array of issues that are well addressed in the NewCon.

1)Exploration, City Site, and City naming should be under one office in my opinion. Rather than give the SMC power over war, exploration, and shipping I would prefer it be given wartime powers. The only way I could concieve of doing this is that the President assigns military units to a Minister (kinda historical) so that he could assign a warrior or horseman or galley to the Expansion person for exploration purposes. I do feel there should be an Expansion/Exploration person as the SMC tends to me a war minded individual and they tend to be more interested in building troops and attacking the enemy that exploring and founding cities for the Empire. Hence the dilema we are currently in where we are at a disadvantage for being first to contact the Lost Civs. I feel the position needs to be separate as it contains aspects of Domestic (founding cities and finding city sites), Foreign (seeking new civs), and Military (exploration). By no means does it necessarily have to be on equal footing with those other offices, I just feel putting it under one of them may prove to lean it towards one aspect or the other.

2) Currently the NewCon would require a vote of the Senate to determine the outcome of a GL. I would think it would be beneficial for a standing task for a GL to exist before any turnchat/turnthread commences otherwise they would play several turns with the GL standing there doing nothing and preventing us from generating a new one while they waited for the end of the turnplay (new word got tired of typing chat and thread) to get the Senate's wishes for the GL.

Anyway, that could be addressed by a Senate Bill. I also feel we should have some prerequisites for a Senate Bill to be proposed or we may see 10 to 12 a day as there is nor requirement for prior discussion.

[UnOrthOdOx]

What a beast.

I will get around to reading it thuroughly in a while.

Initial concerns.

The whole Senate section, more or less. (the only one I have read through thuroughly at the moment)

The Senate has allot of power, that is great, really.

However, this leaves the whole nature of how the Senate wants to procede, keep track of things, and operate totally in the dark. How are we to keep track of these laws? Initially, I suspect, there will need to be a flurry of laws just to get the Senate soemwhat functional.

And I am uncomfortable with the money being dealt to the Senate. Any act of the senate would require, by this constitution, a three-day poll. With the current schedule of turnchats twice a week, that is not enough time to debate and poll on any kind of spendature proposal, so they will all default to the President. Would it not be better to have a minister in charge? Of course, you will respond "the Senate can pass a law to appoint someone in charge of any part of the Senate's power" Yes, tis true, but again, this is going to be a slow process, taking time to debate, vote, and institute such a position, whereas first we would need to debate, vote, and pass an accepted format for the storage, retention, and distribution of these laws.

This section also seems to cantradict itself, making claims that 'any citizen not a judge minister, blah blah, is a member of the senate.' However, then it stated that those same ministers and judges are allowed to vote in the Senate's affairs, thus giving them the dual power. "any citizen can vote in any poll..."

Well, I have work to do now...I will get back to more later.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Any act of the senate would require, by this constitution, a three-day poll. With the current schedule of turnchats twice a week, that is not enough time to debate and poll on any kind of spendature proposal, so they will all default to the President.

Debate? Who said anything about debate, it isn't in the NewCon. Immediately after the end of a turnplay I suspect there will be 17 Senators posting 17 Senate Bills to approve the allocation of funds for 1 temple here, a worker there, and an upgrade over behind that mountain somewhere. If 5 pass then we have 5 approved expenditures for 1 budget and I seriously doubt we will have the fundage to support them all.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Point conceded.

[Hot Mustard]

Excellent work - much thanks go to Togas, adaMada, Apocalypse, & NotYouEither. There is nothing in this document that I can really complain about, but there are some absences...

The word 'science' appears only twice in this document - astounding considering the importance of technology in this game. Similarily, there are zero (!) occurances of any form of 'explore'.

At minimum, I would suggest a couple of mandatory deputies:

A Science deputy under the Domestic Minister, responsible for advancing and advocating technology with any means possible.

An Exploration or Naval Commander under the SMC, responsible for all exploring new territory, boats, and settler and escorts.

Finally, I think there has been too much silliness happening with city names to not have explicit guidelines for their creation in here somewhere. Personally, I'd like to suggest that anyone who wants to name a city must write a role-played introduction to the city and it's creation, providing a background to the city name, and declaring themselves a citizen of said city.

[zeit]

We should have a budget supervising minister, who could look at the broader picture and allocate the funds better. Maybe the senate should vote on a budget offered by the minister, or something like that, but we definitely need someone to make order in the mess of all upgrade/rushes/deals.

[joncnunn]

Overall it looks excelent

On the overspending of the Senate:

1. The President does have the power to veto the spending bills that didn't get 2/3rds support.

2. Even if too many spending bills get 2/3rds support, then I think the clause about impossible orders would take affect while processing them.

[joncnunn]

Since the President appears to be given free control of the sliders anyway, he's in a good position to supervise the budget himself under the new constitution.

[civman2000]

I think too many officials are appointed, and only judges and the VP must be approved. How about adding this:
"Any Senator may demand a vote for the confirmation of any appointed official that has not been confirmed during his or her term of office. 50% of the citizns must confirm the appointment, or the official loses his or her position. No official may be called for confirmation more than once a term. If an official has already been confirmed, the only way to remove that official is Impeachment, as described in Article V".

[adaMada]

Ok . I'm here to respond to any concerns that I can now, and I'll try to keep an eye on this thread throughout the night .

On Senate Organization...
We tried to make the document as flexible as possible. Yes, there will be organizational issues for the first few days, but that's expected. One of the first laws should be a senate organizational law (perhaps temporarially assigning the duty of keeping track of official Senate Laws to the Directory Manager for the first term, until a more concrete law can be passed?) Either way, I think it's best that it is left out of the Constitution -- the goal is to have as few amendments as possible.

On Senate Money...

10 The Senate has the power to determine how money is spent. The Senate is not required to use this power. Should the Senate fail to act on any spending matter, or should a spending matter be vetoed, the President may decide.

The key thing about this is the Presidental power to decide. The senate probably won't decide budgeting matters on a day to day basis -- but if they feel that the President is abusing their power, they can always choose to excersize it. Of course, with this wording, the Senate can decide to do everything itself, should it so desire -- but that wouldn't be my intention (though I can't speak for the other members of the Convention).

-- adaMada

[Togas]

joncnunn, you're my hero.

I've been geting work done in the office today. On occasional breaks I'll cringe, then glance back at this page to see what new complaints have been added. Good to get a little support.

I want to stress that this document is SMALL compared to what we could have done. It's compact. Every effort has been made to create on a Constitutional Level only major rules and safeguards. We only spelled out in detail what was crutial, although we did leave in the details of previous amendments, like the cumbersome Impeachment amendment.

There will be things missing that you'd like to have seen in here, but this document is long enough, and probably longer than any of you expected it to be. If you can think of something that is necessary, something that will cause a government collapse if it is not included, please tell us so. If you have a suggestion for a law change or new laws to be added, you can post so, but your best course of action is to prepare a discussion thread and later propose a SENATE BILL upon the enactment of this Constitution.

A couple of things in the law that I'd like to point out:

Art II, Sec. 10 "The Senate has the power to determine how money is spent. The Senate is not required to use this power. Should the Senate fail to act on any spending matter, or should a spending matter be vetoed, the President may decide. "

This little piece of legislation is a result of a lot of time and debate. We wanted the people to be able to have some control over money in very important matters, but not in all matters, as it would slow the game down tremendously. So the Senate is given a power that, hopefully, will only be used when necessary. The President is the fall-back authority on all spending matters. Plus, the Executives can veto a bad spending bills, AND (as joncnunn put it) the instructions need not be followed if they are "clearly erroneous, or made impossible and/or harmful by changed circumstances."

Art I, Sec 4 (e) -- The Domestic Minister may rush any project, but only with the approval of the Senate or President.

This means that the DM (or deputy he puts in charge of this city/region) rush builds, but rushes must be approved via poll or President. Senators can't rush projects by passing spending bills.

Art II, Sec 11 -- The Senate may make its own laws regarding Senate procedure.

This was written with the hope that the people would propose and create a process for which they want to manage Bills and Senate motions, which can be as complex or simple as you want, and without the trouble of trying to amend the Con if you wanted to fix it.

--Togas

[UnOrthOdOx]

I don't like the President being in control of that, personally. He is there to play the game, not make game changing decisions.

And you really think it would only take a few days to set up something for the Senate?

For the record, you are not really eliminating the amendments. All you are doing is transferring those changes into these 'laws' of the Senate. The whole change process is still going to take place, but it will be in the book of laws (or whatever) instead of the Constitution. So the Senate is going to need to come up with what amounts to a seperate constitution for its own inner workings more or less.

The recent issue reguarding pre-poll opinion polls that resurfaced is a perfect example of what could happen. We had a relatively new person make an opinion poll, not knowing of the old official poll that showed a desire not to have those. The same thing will happen with these laws, they will need to be formulated into a book of laws to be changed, amended, whatnot, basically amounting to a seperate constitution.

Put yourself now in the shoes of a new person. I come in, I now need to read the Constitution to get a basic idea of what goes on, and who does what then I must also read the Book of Laws to see how I can impact the game, from here I will need to read the FAQ (once we make one) to associated myself with where to go to find information and such. I don't know about you, but to me that is too much work. The biggest reason new members are not as active is it is REALLY hard to figure out what the hell is going on here. Once they do, they become active. I think that this whole Senate system being seperate from the NewCon (as GF is calling it) makes that just a little more difficult to figure out.

Yes, this makes the NewCon extremely adaptable, but it only does so by transferring the need for changes to the Senate's Book of Laws (someone got a better name?)

[Reddawg]

I feel responsible for the elimination of the position of Minister of the Economy. I don't know what else to say, except that I'm sad to see it go. I had thought by creating budgets a more effective and efficient use of our funds would be possible. With the current situation, the Senate will not be making an actual budget, and the President won't have time. Spending will go back to how it was before, which is just approving everything that is asked for. I guess my time in the government ends with Term 5.

~MoE Reddawg

p.s. the constitution is good.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Not neccessarily Reddawg, it is perfectly reasonable the Senate creates a law designating that a new position be created which would essentially be the MoE...

[adaMada]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I don't like the President being in control of that, personally. He is there to play the game, not make game changing decisions.

True, but when it comes to individual budget decisions, who is better prepared for the job? If the President wants, he can appoint a deputy to advise him on it and give him full power over the issue, but we don't want the

And you really think it would only take a few days to set up something for the Senate?

I think the Senate could be running in a few days. We've got a good month before the new CoL comes into affect even if it's passed today (which it's not going to be). Lots of time for discussion. If no one else proposes anything, I'll propose that the job be delegated to the Directory Manager until a new law is passed, giving us as much time as we need to sort things out.

For the record, you are not really eliminating the amendments. All you are doing is transferring those changes into these 'laws' of the Senate. The whole change process is still going to take place, but it will be in the book of laws (or whatever) instead of the Constitution. So the Senate is going to need to come up with what amounts to a seperate constitution for its own inner workings more or less.

Yes and no. Amendments, in the past, where huge things that required major game changes. Furthermore, to revoke an amendment, it took another amendment. It was impossible to have the senate mandate a really small change to the way the game is played without a huge amendment. Now, if I want to propose a little thing, it can be done easily and without the same level of work. If I want to propose huge, government restructuring changes, an Amendment can still be drafted

The recent issue reguarding pre-poll opinion polls that resurfaced is a perfect example of what could happen. We had a relatively new person make an opinion poll, not knowing of the old official poll that showed a desire not to have those. The same thing will happen with these laws, they will need to be formulated into a book of laws to be changed, amended, whatnot, basically amounting to a seperate constitution.

Put yourself now in the shoes of a new person. I come in, I now need to read the Constitution to get a basic idea of what goes on, and who does what then I must also read the Book of Laws to see how I can impact the game, from here I will need to read the FAQ (once we make one) to associated myself with where to go to find information and such. I don't know about you, but to me that is too much work. The biggest reason new members are not as active is it is REALLY hard to figure out what the hell is going on here. Once they do, they become active. I think that this whole Senate system being seperate from the NewCon (as GF is calling it) makes that just a little more difficult to figure out.

A very good point, and I agree fully. Having said that, I like the seperation -- I see most laws as a short paragraph at most, and it keeps things more organized. As for how the information will be made available, it is a good issue, and I do have one or two ideas, but I'd rather see that being the subject of the first Senate law -- how to organize itself.

Yes, this makes the NewCon extremely adaptable, but it only does so by transferring the need for changes to the Senate's Book of Laws (someone got a better name?)

It makes the changes themselves much smaller, and keeps the Constitution 'clean' of the minor in-game issues that we had to deal with before. Yes, it is a significant change, but I personally think it's one of (if not the) best parts of the new constitution.

-- adaMada

[Aggie]

Reddawg, you have done nothing short of excellent in how you have managed our finances. I hope that the senate will create an advisory postion called the "Senate office of economic planning". Basically this would be an postion that advisies the senate on finances and if they are wise they will put you in this postion. This postion is necessary becasue the senate will need somebody to compile figure and make recommendations, they logical person for this job is you.
Aggie

[Hot Mustard]

Togas - I'm sorry if you've taken my comments as 'complaints'. As a discussion forum on a draft of this document, I thought there was room for new ideas not already represented in this constitution. (I'm avoiding calling it NewCon here - sounds too much like a convention name.) If this is to be fast-tracked, then I'll happily draft Senate Bills for my ideas.

Reddawg - I agree with Unorthodox and Aggie that the MoE could easily become a new (Senate created) role answering to the either the Domestic Minister or the President. Start drafting your Senate Bill now.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by Reddawg
I feel responsible for the elimination of the position of Minister of the Economy. I don't know what else to say, except that I'm sad to see it go. I had thought by creating budgets a more effective and efficient use of our funds would be possible. With the current situation, the Senate will not be making an actual budget, and the President won't have time. Spending will go back to how it was before, which is just approving everything that is asked for. I guess my time in the government ends with Term 5.

~MoE Reddawg

p.s. the constitution is good.

Not at all! The power could have been granted to the Domestic Minister, and the Minister of Economy been switched to a deputy. We decided not to do that because we thought the power was best given to the people and President -- not because of anything you've done . Also...

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Not neccessarily Reddawg, it is perfectly reasonable the Senate creates a law designating that a new position be created which would essentially be the MoE...

This is EXACTLY right, and the beauty of the law system we've proposed. If the Senate winds up handling the budget day-to-day (though I hope that doesn't happen), they can create a position to do it for them. If the President does, then he can create a Deputy for the job (in fact, I think we even 'strongly recommend'ed that the President create a Deputy of the Economy.) If they want to, they could probably create a joint position that's both a Senate Representative and Presidental Deputy, and make that the cornerstone of budgetary coordination. This is about letting the people have more choice over how they structure their government, not less -- the NewCon (Ghengis' word, but it works for me unless someone's got something better ) forbids very very little, and the people can pass laws on anything it doesn't mention.

-- adaMada

[Aggie]

Also am I correct that there are no term limits.
Aggie

[adaMada]

Originally posted by dejon
Togas - I'm sorry if you've taken my comments as 'complaints'. As a discussion forum on a draft of this document, I thought there was room for new ideas not already represented in this constitution. (I'm avoiding calling it NewCon here - sounds too much like a convention name.) If this is to be fast-tracked, then I'll happily draft Senate Bills for my ideas.

Reddawg - I agree with Unorthodox and Aggie that the MoE could easily become a new (Senate created) role answering to the either the Domestic Minister or the President. Start drafting your Senate Bill now.

Dejon -- we're open to all comments, not just good ones . Having said that, the good ones are nice . Seriously, though, you've raised several good points, which I will address (sorry for missing you over, feeling very overwhelmed).

A Science deputy under the Domestic Minister, responsible for advancing and advocating technology with any means possible.

There's a recomended Science Deputy under the President which would probably handle this sort of job. Having said that, if the Domestic Minister wants his own Science Advocate -- then he can appoint one . The CoL's long enough already, and I think we could probably live without one if we had a Domesitc Minister who hated the idea.

An Exploration or Naval Commander under the SMC, responsible for all exploring new territory, boats, and settler and escorts.

See above .

Finally, I think there has been too much silliness happening with city names to not have explicit guidelines for their creation in here somewhere. Personally, I'd like to suggest that anyone who wants to name a city must write a role-played introduction to the city and it's creation, providing a background to the city name, and declaring themselves a citizen of said city.

To be honest, I don't care about City Names -- I seem to be the only one who likes what we've done so far and doesn't want to change . Having said that, your propsal has merit, and I think it deserves discussion -- but I'd make it a law, not part of the CoL. Again, no need to get that specific.

-- adaMada

EDIT: Didn't mention it before, but I do really like the SMC deputy, and hope that future SMC's consider the position.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by Aggie
Also am I correct that there are no term limits.
Aggie

Very correct .

So far they haven't been needed, and we don't believe they're very popular (though the people could always correct us...) If there ever is a problem, then that's something I would support being amended into the Constitution.

-- adaMada
/me feels his post count rising... and rising... and rising...

[joncnunn]

Reddawg, I'd sugest that you run for President for the first term under the new constitution.

I also don't see anything in the new consitution that would prohibit the Senate from passing a bill creating a committee on the study of the overall economy.

I likewise don't see anything in the new consitution that would prohibit the President from actively solicting advice about the economy from an indivudal.

As for the need for rules for the internal working of the Senate: Internal rules of a legislative body are almost never found in it's constitution. It's seperate so that it can be adapted easier.

[Hot Mustard]

Thanks adaMada.

I caught the recommended Science deputy, my suggestion was to make it mandatory - it may not be a full time role, but that is not to say it isn't important. I feel that without it, we'll stay at 0% science forever!

Yes, the city name issue is obviously a minor one, and best addressed by the Senate.

I've decided not to even mention the absence of a Bill of Rights (i.e. morality) or Environmental stance. (oops, I guess I just did)

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by adaMada

I think the Senate could be running in a few days. We've got a good month before the new CoL comes into affect even if it's passed today (which it's not going to be). Lots of time for discussion. If no one else proposes anything, I'll propose that the job be delegated to the Directory Manager until a new law is passed, giving us as much time as we need to sort things out.

I do not share in your optimism(sp) there. If drafting the last three amendments has taught me anything, it is that nothing is a simple as one would think. Things that I think are self-explainatory, or simple, are often the focus of much debate, or things that no one else likes.

Yes and no. Amendments, in the past, where huge things that required major game changes. Furthermore, to revoke an amendment, it took another amendment. It was impossible to have the senate mandate a really small change to the way the game is played without a huge amendment. Now, if I want to propose a little thing, it can be done easily and without the same level of work. If I want to propose huge, government restructuring changes, an Amendment can still be drafted

Actually, if you look at the amendments that have been passed with ease, it has been those that do not effect the structure of the government that arise the most debate. Take my own recent Cash Rushing Amendment as an example. Here it is going on three weeks of debate. While the MoE Amendment, or the posting of the save only took a few days to enact. It is the things the Senate is in charge of that will inspire the most debate, not the restructuring of the Govt (should that need to happen)

A very good point, and I agree fully. Having said that, I like the seperation -- I see most laws as a short paragraph at most, and it keeps things more organized. As for how the information will be made available, it is a good issue, and I do have one or two ideas, but I'd rather see that being the subject of the first Senate law -- how to organize itself.

Oh it will be the first law, rest assure. You and I, if no one else, will see to that. I do not share your idea that the laws will be one short paragraph, however. Again, I base this on being the author of the last three amendments to our own CoL. I think the Book of Laws has the potential to become a very nasty thing. Again, look at your own 'official poll archive'. Each of those would need to be written as a 'law' and contained in some format (you and I both know a bunch of links wont do it...). I suspect that we will be seeing many of those polls arise to become laws in this system.

It makes the changes themselves much smaller, and keeps the Constitution 'clean' of the minor in-game issues that we had to deal with before. Yes, it is a significant change, but I personally think it's one of (if not the) best parts of the new constitution.

-- adaMada

Yes, I agree that the constitution will remain largely clean, but I fear what will become of the Senate's Book of Laws.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by dejon
Thanks adaMada.

I caught the recommended Science deputy, my suggestion was to make it mandatory - it may not be a full time role, but that is not to say it isn't important. I feel that without it, we'll stay at 0% science forever!

I wonder if that could be done through a senate law or not? I'm honestly not sure -- haven't even considered it. Either way, I'd be against it -- I don't think the power of the Ministers to decide what deputies they want should be infringed upon.

Yes, the city name issue is obviously a minor one, and best addressed by the Senate.

YEsss! Agreement .

I've decided not to even mention the absence of a Bill of Rights (i.e. morality) or Environmental stance. (oops, I guess I just did)

The important stuff in the current Bill of Rights has been covered throughout the rest of the Document, I think. On Environmental Stance, I won't comment either .

-- adaMada

[adaMada]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Reddawg, I'd sugest that you run for President for the first term under the new constitution.

Under this new system, I hope to (and think we'll) see LOTS of fun elections . It'd be great if Reddawg was involved in them .

I also don't see anything in the new consitution that would prohibit the Senate from passing a bill creating a committee on the study of the overall economy.

I likewise don't see anything in the new consitution that would prohibit the President from actively solicting advice about the economy from an indivudal.

Both are totally allowed -- it's intended. Furthermore, both the President and the Senate could grant the power to this person/committee, and then never look at the issue again (though they'd still be responsible for what happens and the person/committee would serve at their pleasure).

As for the need for rules for the internal working of the Senate: Internal rules of a legislative body are almost never found in it's constitution. It's seperate so that it can be adapted easier.

Exactly .

-- adaMada

[adaMada]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx

I do not share in your optimism(sp) there. If drafting the last three amendments has taught me anything, it is that nothing is a simple as one would think. Things that I think are self-explainatory, or simple, are often the focus of much debate, or things that no one else likes.

Very true -- but I think we could put together a quick law that would go away as soon as another one was passed. Just to cover the first month, really...

Actually, if you look at the amendments that have been passed with ease, it has been those that do not effect the structure of the government that arise the most debate. Take my own recent Cash Rushing Amendment as an example. Here it is going on three weeks of debate. While the MoE Amendment, or the posting of the save only took a few days to enact. It is the things the Senate is in charge of that will inspire the most debate, not the restructuring of the Govt (should that need to happen)

Never noticed that. Still, I'm all for leaving the debate itself up to the Senate, and letting the public at large decide on the best and most workable system for dealing with issues.

Oh it will be the first law, rest assure. You and I, if no one else, will see to that. I do not share your idea that the laws will be one short paragraph, however. Again, I base this on being the author of the last three amendments to our own CoL. I think the Book of Laws has the potential to become a very nasty thing. Again, look at your own 'official poll archive'. Each of those would need to be written as a 'law' and contained in some format (you and I both know a bunch of links wont do it...). I suspect that we will be seeing many of those polls arise to become laws in this system.

I sort of figured that you'd do it if no one else did . As for a book of laws -- I understand your concern, and I agree it needs to be discussed. Having said that, I don't think the problem is large enough to remove the entire 'law' system (with it's numerous benefits) from the CoL, and I personally have no better ideas for organization (besides a list of all the laws/book of laws). Any chance someone else does? On the length of the laws -- I'd hope that each law would be pretty short and consice, but I know that they won't all be, and that's really up to the players, not to me...

Yes, I agree that the constitution will remain largely clean, but I fear what will become of the Senate's Book of Laws.

I hear your point, and you do have a valid issue. I, however, would pose two questions to you and the public.
1) Do you have any solutions to the problem above that could not be enacted in a Senate law? (Or that would resolve this debate now if the law you're proposing would be passed?)
2) Do you really think the Law idea, with all of the power and simplicity it entails, should be removed because of an organizational issue? I don't know about others, but the 'law' proposal is one of my favorite parts of the new CoL, and it'd be a real shame if we couldn't work around it.

-- adaMada

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
1)Exploration, City Site, and City naming should be under one office in my opinion. Rather than give the SMC power over war, exploration, and shipping I would prefer it be given wartime powers. The only way I could concieve of doing this is that the President assigns military units to a Minister (kinda historical) so that he could assign a warrior or horseman or galley to the Expansion person for exploration purposes. I do feel there should be an Expansion/Exploration person as the SMC tends to me a war minded individual and they tend to be more interested in building troops and attacking the enemy that exploring and founding cities for the Empire. Hence the dilema we are currently in where we are at a disadvantage for being first to contact the Lost Civs. I feel the position needs to be separate as it contains aspects of Domestic (founding cities and finding city sites), Foreign (seeking new civs), and Military (exploration). By no means does it necessarily have to be on equal footing with those other offices, I just feel putting it under one of them may prove to lean it towards one aspect or the other.

I'm quoting my own post as the Constitutional Convention refuse to acknowledge it or address my concerns. I do not like the idea of the exploration authority being under the Domestic Minister and also being forced to beg the SMC for units AND cutting the Foriegn Ministry our of the loop of contacting New Civs.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by adaMada
I wonder if that could be done through a senate law or not? I'm honestly not sure -- haven't even considered it. Either way, I'd be against it -- I don't think the power of the Ministers to decide what deputies they want should be infringed upon.

The intent is not to infringe on their power, but rather to have a formally recognized role for Science, through whatever means available in the constitution. If that means creation through the Senate of another Ministry, so be it.

Originally posted by adaMada
The important stuff in the current Bill of Rights has been covered throughout the rest of the Document, I think. On Environmental Stance, I won't comment either .

Actually, I meant a Bill of Rights for the game populace, not the forum participants. For example:
- the right not to be starved to death
- the right to protection by the military, including from bombardment
- the right to compensation for work (no slavery)
- etc

In essence, a moral framework for gameplay, as suggested by eewolf in his brief, but memorable, visit.