Some Constitutional Amendments because I'm bored

[Gorundu]

Article 4: The WA Delegate

• A: The WA Delegate (also known as the Delegate) of the region is the Head of Government.
• B: The Delegate may use the Regional Controls and act on World Assembly proposals and resolutions as they see fit, subject to regional law.
• C: The Delegate assigns roles to the Officers of the region.
• D: If the Delegate submits their resignation, elections for a new Delegate will begin immediately with a challenge period as set out in Article 8. The resigning Delegate will retain the position until elections are completed.
  
• E: The Delegate may not serve in any other elected position in The Rejected Realms, or as Vice Delegate.

Article 5: Officers

• A: Officers of the region are responsible for carrying out the governmental functions of the region.
• B: There are four Officer positions. Current Officers must not be replaced challenged, as set out in Article 8, before vacant positions are filled.

Just clears some things up. And I think it's silly for the Delegate to serve in any other position so I added that in.

[Dyl]

Don’t see the need for the changes in the first sentence of 5B but no real issues apart from that.

[Gorundu]

Don’t see the need for the changes in the first sentence of 5B but no real issues apart from that.

I thought "four Officer positions" doesn't really make it clear that it has to be four different people. Or maybe I'm just wrong.

[BowShot118]

I think leaving the officer roles defined as "positions" works fine. The current proposal implies that there must be 4 incumbent officers, at least with the way I am reading it, while the current version just states that there are 4 Officer positions. A more effective way to ensure that there are 4 individuals, 1 per Officer role, and not an attempt to "collect" positions would be some form of explicit positions restriction, possibly in the form of a separate bill. However, given no one has actually tried to run for two seats I don't think it is an issue we will ever have so it feels a tad unnecessary.

Nothing against the first suggested change though.

[Guy]

I'm against the change to 4A. While generally I like defining terms in legislation, this wording is sufficiently longstanding and unambiguous that I don't see the need.

4E brings up some interesting issues. The interpretation has been the Delegate cannot be Officer, but they can be Speaker. I think it's perhaps sensible to say the Delegate cannot be Officer, Speaker, EiC or VD. However, I'd rather not import offices not created by the Constitution into it, so I'd prefer to just have the reference to Officer and VD there, and then in the statutes establishing Speaker and EiC, have that limitation there. The provision also creates interesting interpretive issues, especially around order of priority (can the Delegate contest Speaker, for instance? If they win, do they vacate the Delegacy? What if the elections are held at the same time?) that might need to be spelled out explicitly.

Basically, I'm in favour of it in-principle, but I think some further work is required to make it work.

For 5B, I don't think the change to the first sentence is an improvement. Referring to positions makes sense for the reasons Bow outlined, and I've been trying to eradicate the word 'shall' from our statute books.

As to the second sentence, while I agree 'challenged' is more accurate than 'replaced', again given this wording has worked since 2010, I don't know if it's important to change it (although unlike 4A I do think it's an improvement, so would vote for it if it came to a vote).

[Gorundu]

Seeing as everyone believes the change to the first sentence of 5B is unnecessary, I have removed the change.

4E brings up some interesting issues. The interpretation has been the Delegate cannot be Officer, but they can be Speaker. I think it's perhaps sensible to say the Delegate cannot be Officer, Speaker, EiC or VD. However, I'd rather not import offices not created by the Constitution into it, so I'd prefer to just have the reference to Officer and VD there, and then in the statutes establishing Speaker and EiC, have that limitation there. The provision also creates interesting interpretive issues, especially around order of priority (can the Delegate contest Speaker, for instance? If they win, do they vacate the Delegacy? What if the elections are held at the same time?) that might need to be spelled out explicitly.

Basically, I'm in favour of it in-principle, but I think some further work is required to make it work.

I guess it makes more sense to only reference positions in the Constitution in the Constitution and make changes to positions defined in other statutes separately. For the priority problem, I suppose the most sensible solution is to allow anyone to contest any position and for them to take the position they are most recently elected to and automatically taken to have resigned from all other positions that are not compatible. If elections are held at the same time and one is elected to more than one position, then I suppose they should choose what they want, then hold a new election for the position they gave up.

[Guy]

4E brings up some interesting issues. The interpretation has been the Delegate cannot be Officer, but they can be Speaker. I think it's perhaps sensible to say the Delegate cannot be Officer, Speaker, EiC or VD. However, I'd rather not import offices not created by the Constitution into it, so I'd prefer to just have the reference to Officer and VD there, and then in the statutes establishing Speaker and EiC, have that limitation there. The provision also creates interesting interpretive issues, especially around order of priority (can the Delegate contest Speaker, for instance? If they win, do they vacate the Delegacy? What if the elections are held at the same time?) that might need to be spelled out explicitly.

Basically, I'm in favour of it in-principle, but I think some further work is required to make it work.

I guess it makes more sense to only reference positions in the Constitution in the Constitution and make changes to positions defined in other statutes separately. For the priority problem, I suppose the most sensible solution is to allow anyone to contest any position and for them to take the position they are most recently elected to and automatically taken to have resigned from all other positions that are not compatible. If elections are held at the same time and one is elected to more than one position, then I suppose they should choose what they want, then hold a new election for the position they gave up.

The further complication there is that the Delegate continues serving post-resignation until a successor is elected, according to article 4D. So if the Delegate is elected Speaker, for example, and is taken to have submitted their resignation, there will still be an overlap of at least 11 days (the length of a Delegate election) where they hold both positions. So it might be simpler (and probably a better outcome all-around) to prohibit the Delegate from running for another office while they're in office. And if someone holding another office is elected Delegate, they're deemed to resign that office. It might create somewhat annoying outcomes when elections are held at the same time (e.g. if the Delegate election finishes first, the elected Delegate will be disqualified from the other election; or if the other election finishes first, and they win both, they will be resigning from the other office very quickly) but I can't think of a better outcome.

So, perhaps something like:

Article 4: The WA Delegate
...

• E: The Delegate cannot be elected Officer. If an Officer is elected Delegate, they are taken to resign their Officer position.

And then, for example, the Speaker and Procedures of the Assembly Act could have a clause like this:

3. The Delegate cannot be elected Speaker. If the Speaker is elected Delegate, they are taken to resign as Speaker.

I think Vice-Delegate is slightly more complex, perhaps the Delegate's appointment as Vice Delegate can be suspended while they're Delegate (and they can return to it once they leave office).

[Minskiev]

Well, there goes my plot to become Delegate, Officer, and Speaker.

As of now, I have no major complaints.

[The Grim Reaper]

I think Vice-Delegate is slightly more complex, perhaps the Delegate's appointment as Vice Delegate can be suspended while they're Delegate (and they can return to it once they leave office).

What benefit would there be to a suspension rather than to allow holding both offices; what would suspension look like, rather?

I'd prefer maintaining continuity on the grounds that the VD should effectively be ethically unimpeachable in the context of TRR politics (and that should obviously be at a peak, rather than a trough, if they've just been elected Delegate), rather than defining suspensions in which we can have temporary VDs. We've defined the VD as effectively a once-in-an-(NS)-generation stopgap and for the most part we're typically comfortable without one - it's a position we defined because we want to have it in the worst-case and it best serves that worst-case as a standing position.

I personally would prefer, over either those, requiring the VD to vacate to hold the Delegacy - I prefer the idea of an elder-statesperson VD, but I'm not married to that over the retain-both option.

[Guy]

I think Vice-Delegate is slightly more complex, perhaps the Delegate's appointment as Vice Delegate can be suspended while they're Delegate (and they can return to it once they leave office).

What benefit would there be to a suspension rather than to allow holding both offices; what would suspension look like, rather?

I'd prefer maintaining continuity on the grounds that the VD should effectively be ethically unimpeachable in the context of TRR politics (and that should obviously be at a peak, rather than a trough, if they've just been elected Delegate), rather than defining suspensions in which we can have temporary VDs. We've defined the VD as effectively a once-in-an-(NS)-generation stopgap and for the most part we're typically comfortable without one - it's a position we defined because we want to have it in the worst-case and it best serves that worst-case as a standing position.

I personally would prefer, over either those, requiring the VD to vacate to hold the Delegacy - I prefer the idea of an elder-statesperson VD, but I'm not married to that over the retain-both option.

Quite simply that it's functionally impossible to serve as both Delegate and VD at the same time, when the latter's obligation is to maintain the second-highest endo-count. I don't think anything about a suspension during a Delegacy suggests a "temporary VD".

[Minskiev]

I'll bump this to ask if the general consensus is wait a little or put this to vote?

[Gorundu]

I'll bump this to ask if the general consensus is wait a little or put this to vote?

I haven't really had the energy to look over it again and fix it up but I do intend to pursue it. Probably won't be your problem though

[Minskiev]

I'll bump this to ask if the general consensus is wait a little or put this to vote?

I haven't really had the energy to look over it again and fix it up but I do intend to pursue it. Probably won't be your problem though

[Guy]

How does this look?

Article 4: The WA Delegate

• A: The WA Delegate (also known as the Delegate) of the region is the Head of Government.
• B: The Delegate may use the Regional Controls and act on World Assembly proposals and resolutions as they see fit, subject to regional law.
• C: The Delegate assigns roles to the Officers of the region.
• D: If the Delegate submits their resignation, elections for a new Delegate will begin immediately with a challenge period as set out in Article 8. The resigning Delegate will retain the position until elections are completed.
  
• E: The Delegate cannot be elected Officer or appointed as Vice-Delegate. If an Officer or Vice-Delegate is elected Delegate, they are taken to resign their other position.

Article 5: Officers

• A: Officers of the region are responsible for carrying out the governmental functions of the region.
• B: There are four Officer positions. Current Officers must not be replaced challenged before vacant positions are filled.

For disclosure, I plan on voting against the amendment to Art. 4A, but I think Gor wants to have it voted on.

And the Speaker Act would be amended by inserting:

3. The Delegate cannot be elected Speaker. If the Speaker is elected Delegate, they are taken to resign as Speaker.

The outstanding question is whether we want to add Officer to the above exclusion.

[Gorundu]

Ok, time to come back to this...

The outstanding question is whether we want to add Officer to the above exclusion.

You already added Officer to the exclusion. Did you mean the EiC?

[Guy]

Ok, time to come back to this...

The outstanding question is whether we want to add Officer to the above exclusion.

You already added Officer to the exclusion. Did you mean the EiC?

The exclusion in the Speaker Act. That is, if the Speaker is elected Officer, they are taken to resign as Speaker. So something like:

3. The Delegate and Officers cannot be elected Speaker. If the Speaker is elected Delegate or Officer, they are taken to resign as Speaker.

[Guy]

Having reconsidered the issue of challenging Officers while there's a vacancy, I think this needs to be made a bit clearer. If a vacancy arises after a challenge had been submitted, I don't think we should force people to change their challenges to the vacant spot, but rather only give them the option to do so (by withdrawing their challenge and resubmitting another challenge).

I think I would also rather leave the VD position out of this for now, and reconsider at a later time.

Article 4: The WA Delegate

• A: The WA Delegate (also known as the Delegate) of the region is the Head of Government.
• B: The Delegate may use the Regional Controls and act on World Assembly proposals and resolutions as they see fit, subject to regional law.
• C: The Delegate assigns roles to the Officers of the region.
• D: If the Delegate submits their resignation, elections for a new Delegate will begin immediately with a challenge period as set out in Article 8. The resigning Delegate will retain the position until elections are completed.
  
• E: The Delegate cannot be elected Officer.

Article 5: Officers

• A: Officers of the region are responsible for carrying out the governmental functions of the region.
• B: There are four Officer positions. Current Officers must not be replaced A challenge must not be submitted to an incumbent Officer before vacant positions are filled.
  
• C: If an Officer is elected Delegate, they are taken to resign their Officer position.

And the Speaker Act is amended by inserting:

3. The Delegate cannot be elected Speaker. If an Officer is elected Speaker, they are taken to resign as Officer. If the Speaker is elected Delegate or Officer, they are taken to resign as Speaker.

I will still vote against Article 4 Clause A on aesthetic reasons.

[John Laurens]

Gonna jump on this thread to point out some consistency issues in the Vice Delegacy section:

“Article 6: The Vice-Delegate
A: The Vice-Delegate is tasked with maintaining a high endorsement level for regional security purposes.
B: The Citizenship Council may unanimously appoint a Vice-Delegate in case of a vacancy in the office. The appointment is subject to a confirmation vote in the Assembly, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.
C: Any citizen may initiate a petition calling for the removal of a Vice-Delegate. Once the petition is signed by five citizens, a vote must be held in the Assembly to remove the Vice-Delegate. Removal requires a simple majority vote.
D: The Delegate must not encourage the endorsement of any nation other than themselves and the Vice-Delegate.”

There’s some phrasing that implies both that there is only one Vice Delegate at a time and that there can be multiple Vice Delegates. We probably could also clean up the language there to clarify which way we’d want to go

[Guy]

Other than "removal of a Vice-Delegate", what wording implies there could be more than one VD? I agree that should probably read "removal of the Vice-Delegate".

[John Laurens]

I think that section B has the same issue as long as section C is written the same way. I think both need to be changed to the Vice Delegate

[Spartan Termopylae]

But will we only ever have one? I recall us having 2 at various points....

[Guy]

I think that section B has the same issue as long as section C is written the same way. I think both need to be changed to the Vice Delegate

I actually think clause B reads as it should. CitCo may appoint a (i.e. one) VD in case of a vacancy in the office.

[John Laurens]

But will we only ever have one? I recall us having 2 at various points....

This^^^^ I remember vaguely the existence of two Vice Delegates.

[Spartan Termopylae]

But will we only ever have one? I recall us having 2 at various points....

This^^^^ I remember vaguely the existence of two Vice Delegates.

I definitely do, having been one alongside Zyonn

[Manson]

But will we only ever have one? I recall us having 2 at various points....

This^^^^ I remember vaguely the existence of two Vice Delegates.

I definitely do, having been one alongside Zyonn

Hmm, not sure I remember having two. /s