Poll -- Would you Ratify the New Con?

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You of all people must be aware that there are significant gaps, contradictions, and anomolies in the CoL as it stands. What is the problem with plugging and fixing as many of them as possible in one go?

That's exactly why a constitution is functional in
the directives it gives to other laws and amendments.
It lies in the principles stated in constitution,
how the system should work and what's the general framework, and how laws can be made later on...


It prime function is to ensure a democratic rule and supress an autocratic rule. Speak big words and so forth... yeah, that's what lies the foundation for the entire CoL, and the lesser details.
- The Big Words

Now... we shoul postpone the lesser details,
and speak the Big words!


I will vote for the newCon if it can fullfill those principles.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
It prime function is to ensure a democratic rule and supress an autocratic rule.

I will vote for the newCon if it can fullfill those principles.

I believe we have done that.

[Sheik]

Sorry if the new con already has this but shouldn't we include a statue of limitations for bringing cases to the court?

[notyoueither]

We do not have a penal code. Why would we need a statute of limitations?

When it comes to the law itself, surely the best path is the best interests of the nation, and not some arbitrary 'best before date'.

If however we were to define a set of actions that would be 'crimes' and prescribe punishments for those crimes, then yes principles of individual rights may lead one to think that some checks on the ability of the state to prosecute individuals would be wise. It is unlikely we need to do that though.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by notyoueither
jdjdjd, why should we fix what we've got 1 amendment at a time? What was the point of the Revolution of the recent past?

nye,

First glad we can debate again, I've missed the little we got to do on the court....no to the rebuttal,

You don't have to fix this by amendment only. Often practice and court decision have clarified things. And an amendment does not have to cover one topic.

Also, what revolution? Did I miss something? I remember some complaining about a turnchat and that led to arguments back and forth with most people stating the turnchat really was OK, and ultimately there was no point to that revolution, just someone pissed off things did not go as they planned. The con con you came up with which may have been in response to that so-called "Revolution", but it was within the current bounds of the game and therefore, reform, not revolution. And to me the con con appears to be in response to a rap to the patella tendon, and not really a necessity to play this game.

[SIZE=1]
Who controls GLs?

The people, by poll...based on practice.

[SIZE=1]
Is the Executive or the Court supreme in interpreting polls?

The court, based on court decision/practice.

[SIZE=1]
Who controls pop rushing?

The city planner/president, based on practice.

[SIZE=1]
What happens when a Minister goes AWOL?

Nothing, based on practice. Impeachment is in place for anyone to jump at it, next time.

[SIZE=1]
You of all people must be aware that there are significant gaps, contradictions, and ambiguities in the CoL as it stands. What is the problem with plugging and fixing as many of them as possible in one go?

I, of all people know, that despite the gaps, contradictions and ambiguities (I think thats what you meant, in any event, I prefer it), there are only several cases that went to the Court for interpretation in nearly three months.

What's wrong with it? You create a whole new set of gaps, contradictions, and ambiguities . You create a brand new set of laws for Minsters, citizens, etc to read through and get right (remember this is just a game). And, after the fixes are made, you throw in additional new positions/bodies and create a whole new set of potential gaps, contradictions, and ambiguities .

Nothings perfect, but what is closest to prefection is the ability to be dynamic. The original CoL has that and could have been left as it was. I know the new CoL also has that, but I am not convinved we need to get rid of the first.

[Sheik]

We do not have a penal code. Why would we need a statute of limitations?

So that cases can not be brought for political reasons. In other words someone cant say "I am only going to sue them if they win this race." Poeple should have to decide if they want to sue someone or not. They shouldn't be able to save cases for six months and then use them when they need them.

If however we were to define a set of actions that would be 'crimes' and prescribe punishments for those crimes, then yes principles of individual rights may lead one to think that some checks on the ability of the state to prosecute individuals would be wise. It is unlikely we need to do that though.

I never thought of that. Right now the citizens control law enforcement. That is probably a good thing, what do other people think about this?

[jdjdjd]

Now for something constructive, following up on what Sheik has said....

Statute of limitations do apply on civil cases as well as criminal. However, given the play of the game and the short terms in offise, generally they make a statute of limitations unnecessary (i.e. you have to move right away on a case before it becomes moot).

[Sheik]

Statute of limitations do apply on civil cases as well as criminal. However, given the play of the game and the short terms in offise, generally they make a statute of limitations unnecessary.

Your right. If we had longer terms, other crimes, and maybe even a "police" force it might be a good idea but otherwise I guess we dont need it.

[Keeper of Hell]

From Article VI, Section 2, part (a). This does not preclude Amendments, which must be passed in accordance with Article VIII.

Article VIII deals with Enactment of the Constitution; Article IX is the article detailing the amendment process.

No big deal, just thought I'd point it out. Sorry if it's already been mentioned.

[notyoueither]

ermm, thank you.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Detopped as discussion ceased 4 days ago, and the poll is closed.