Constitutional draft

Post by **Whamabama** » 12 Feb 2011, 03:10

Keeping in mind that I said I would do this, and also remembering what others have stated what our structure should be, I have drafted this short draft, but one that should fit within the guidelines of previous talks on the subject.

Post by **Whamabama** » 12 Feb 2011, 03:10

The Constitution of The Rejected Realms Article 1. Preamble

We the members of The Rejected Realms Herby establish, and ordain this constitution in order to provide governance, peaceful coexistence, and liberty to all nations within The Rejected Realms.

Article 2. Citizenship

Citizenship may be granted to any nation within The Rejected Realms, and that has a presence on the forum. Who assents to our constitution, laws, and regulations. Citizens are required to submit an application to the Council of Three for Approval.

The Council of Three

1. The council of three shall consist of 3 citizens chosen by their peers, and should be fair, and sensible in their duties.
2. The Co3 responsibilities are to grant, or deny citizenship to Nations in the Rejected Realms.
3. The rules, and regulations to be used shall be the responsibility of the Assembly.

Article 3. The WA Delegate

1. Controls the regional world factbook entry
2. Shall lead the regional assembly
3. Has Veto powers over the Assembly

Article 4. Officers

1. Officers can be anyone nominated by at least 2 members of the assembly, and confirmed by a majority vote.
2. Officers have no set tasks, they can undertake any task that suits their interests, and helps the community.
3. There shall be no more than 4 officers at any one time.

Article 4. Voting Citizen

1. Membership into the assembly shall be automatically granted to every citizen.
2. The Regional Assembly can create legislation defining it's functions, and responsibilities.
3. The regional Assembly shall create procedures for terminating membership within the Assembly as long as the criteria is clear, and not unreasonable.

Article 5. Challenges

Players interested in challenging the delegate, or an officer for the position has to abide by the challenge rules, and is limited to 1 challenge a month. During the time allotted to the challenge after the announcement, no new citizenship requests will be handled.

Post by **sedge** » 12 Feb 2011, 03:29

I'll have a go at editing it tomorrow. It needs to expand on the Council of Three's role in deciding on citizenship applications, as well as the make-up of the Co3. The system of elections (for delegate/officers) needs to be added, as well as the powers of officers. Also, we've never agreed on giving the delegate veto powers over the assembly.

Post by **Spartan Termopylae** » 12 Feb 2011, 03:43

Should it specify the frequency of elections? Like the States have them I think every four years, here it is every five, in theory, unless the government calls it early. Is that necessary, or is this just me talking out of my, ah, backside?

Post by **sedge** » 12 Feb 2011, 03:53

We discussed the outline of the constitution here, and the preference seemed to be for a 'challenge' system, whereby there's no set elections, but a citizen can challenge the sitting delegate, so long as they meet certain (fairly simply) conditions.

Post by **Whamabama** » 12 Feb 2011, 05:19

ya, alot of what I first posted, I was going off on pure memory. However after looking around, and being reminded. I have edited it appropriately. Probably doesn't help I was/am a bit sleepy. So I am sure I have missed a few things still, but should be a good step in the right direction.

Biyah · Post by **Biyah** » 12 Feb 2011, 07:25

I'm not sure I want to keep the Co3 as a permanent fixuture. It gives a lot of power to three people, permanently.

~B

Post by **Northern Chittowa** » 12 Feb 2011, 16:50

A few things popped to mind when looking at this;

1) Is citizenship going to be legally defined in this document, or is that something for the assembly to look at later on?

2) I quite like the idea of keeping the council of three, however i do believe that the Co3 should include the delegate. I also take it that the assembly shall look at whether the Co3 are permanent members or if it is electable after so long, yes?

3) I think the delegate should have Veto power over the assembly and should, for the most part, be the most powerful position in the region. The delegate position is something that people should aspire for and hence the more power it has the more people will want to work hard for the region as a whole in order to have a chance of a successful challenge against whoever the incumbent may be at the time.

Post by **sedge** » 12 Feb 2011, 16:55

Northern Chittowa wrote:
12 Feb 2011, 14:50
1) Is citizenship going to be legally defined in this document, or is that something for the assembly to look at later on?

What more needs to be said, aside from requirements/rights, which I think are more or less already there?

2) I quite like the idea of keeping the council of three, however i do believe that the Co3 should include the delegate. I also take it that the assembly shall look at whether the Co3 are permanent members or if it is electable after so long, yes?

I wouldn't like to have the delegate in the Co3 - it's supposed to be more neutral, so you can't have claims that a delegate is rejecting applications from people who may vote against them. It's why Biblical Importance stepped down from the Co3 when he decided to run for delegate.

3) I think the delegate should have Veto power over the assembly and should, for the most part, be the most powerful position in the region. The delegate position is something that people should aspire for and hence the more power it has the more people will want to work hard for the region as a whole in order to have a chance of a successful challenge against whoever the incumbent may be at the time.

I disagree. The delegate is empowered to make decisions that aren't practical to have everyone vote on. If the citizens do vote on a law/alliance/constitutional amendment etc., then that is the will of the region, and the delegate should be bound by it. The delegate already has power over the WFE, WA voting policy, and the assignment of roles for officers - plus the prestige of the position. I think that's sufficient.

Post by **Whamabama** » 13 Feb 2011, 03:55

I think having the delegate acting in the position of the executive is a good idea. and is a good counter to the assembly. After all democracy is 3 wolves, and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. It's not much of a counter, but still.

Post by **sedge** » 14 Feb 2011, 02:58

The Constitution of The Rejected Realms Article 1: Preamble

A: This Constitution shall act as the governing document of The Rejected Realms. No laws or treaties shall contradict this document, and all citizens of the region are required to comply with the provisions set out in it.
B: The Rejected Realms is defined as the NationStates region http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_rejected_realms.
C: The forums of The Rejected Realms are defined as http://s8.zetaboards.com/The_RR_and_RRA.

Article 2: Citizenship

A: Citizenship may be granted to any person that has both a nation within The Rejected Realms and an account on the forums, or is a member of the Rejected Realms Army.
B: No individual may hold more than one count of citizenship.
C: Individuals fulfilling the above requirements may apply to the Council of Three for citizenship, which will then make a decision on their application.

Article 3: The Council of Three

A: The Council of Three shall consist of three suitable citizens, which shall not include the WA Delegate, or citizens challenging for the delegacy.
B: Should a member of the Council of Three step down, the remaining members shall choose a suitable replacement.
C: The Council is responsible for making decisions on applications for citizenship, and also for the removal of citizenship.
D: The Council may deny applications, or remove citizenship should an individual fail to meet the conditions set out in Article 2.
E: The Council may deny applications, or remove citizenship should it have any other substantial reason to do so. Substantial reasons include, but are not limited to, refusing to accept the legitimacy of the Constitution, and working to unseat the legitimate WA Delegate of the region.
F: Should the individual concerned disagree with the decision of the Council made under the powers in Article 3, Clause E, they may appeal the decision to the Assembly, whose decision will be binding.

Article 4: The Assembly

A: The Assembly consists of all citizens of The Rejected Realms.
B: The Assembly is responsible for voting on laws, treaties, constitutional amendments, electing Officers and the WA Delegate, and acting as a court of appeal as set out in Article 3, Clause E.
C: Votes on laws, treaties and appeals shall require a simple majority vote to pass, while amendments to the Constitution require at least 75% of votes cast to be in favour to pass.
D: Votes in uncontested elections shall require a simple majority to elect the individual. Votes for contested elections will result in the individual with the most votes being elected. Should there be a tie, the sitting official shall retain the position. Should there be no sitting official, then the Council of Three shall be responsible for breaking the tie.
E: Votes in the Assembly shall be visible to all citizens of the region, and shall last for seven days.

Article 5: The WA Delegate

A: The WA Delegate of the region shall act as the Head of Government.
B: The Delegate has the right to change the regional World Factbook Entry, and to act on WA proposals and resolutions as they see fit.
C: The Delegate shall assign roles to the Officers of the region.
D: The Delegate is elected under the Challenge system as set out in Article 6.

Article 6: The Challenge System - Delegate

A: Should a citizen wish to become Delegate, they must challenge for the position. In order to submit a challenge, they must have the support of two other citizens.
B: Once a challenge has been submitted, the elections procedure is started. No new citizenship applications will be processed until the elections procedure is completed.
C: Following the the submission of a challenge, there will be a week for further citizens to submit challenges, which also require the support of two citizens, though this requirement is waived for the sitting Delegate should they choose to run. After this week is up, no other citizens can challenge for the position of Delegate for the duration of the elections procedure.
D: After the first week is complete, there will be an additional week of campaigning, during which candidates are encouraged to lobby citizens for their votes.
E: The Assembly shall then vote to elect a Delegate, as set out in Article 4.
F: Following the successful conclusion of the elections procedure, no new challenges for the position of Delegate can be made for a month, unless the sitting Delegate steps down from their position.

Article 7: Officers

A: Officers of the region are responsible for carrying out the governmental functions of the region.
B: There shall not be more than four Officers at any one time.
C: Officers are elected under the Challenge system as set out in Article 8.

Article 8: The Challenge System - Officers

A: Should a citizen wish to become an Officer, they must challenge for the position. In order to submit a challenge, they must have the support of one other citizen. If there are four sitting Officers, they must choose to challenge an existing Officer. If there are less than four Officers, they will run for a vacant position.
B: Once a challenge has been submitted, the elections procedure is started.
C: Following the the submission of a challenge, there will be three days for further citizens to submit challenges, which also require the support of one citizen, though this requirement is waived for the sitting Officer, if one is being challenged, and should they choose to run. After three days are up, no other citizens can challenge for that Officer position for the duration of the elections procedure.
D: After the first three days are complete, there will be an additional three days of campaigning, during which candidates are encouraged to lobby citizens for their votes.
E: The Assembly shall then vote to elect an Officer, as set out in Article 4.
F: Following the successful conclusion of the elections procedure, the successfully elected Officer cannot be challenged for a month.

Article 9: Rejected Realms Army

A: The Rejected Realms Army does not operate under the control of the government of The Rejected Realms, and has sole responsibility for determining its membership, and what actions it undertakes.

Post by **sedge** » 14 Feb 2011, 02:58

How's that?

Post by **Whamabama** » 14 Feb 2011, 16:15

I see four things right off. I will mention three now because of my limited time frame at the moment.

The delegate as head of government. In this draft, it's only in title, in actuality the delegate has no more say than any other citizen. If the delegate is to act as executive, then the delegate needs executive power. In other words veto power. We are setting up a very limited government, but there should be at least this one check on the power of the assembly.

Also membership in the assembly mentions members of the RRA who are not citizens are in it. That just doesn't look good. It makes it appear that people not citizens of the region are being granted membership. Perhaps it would be better to simply grant members in the RRA citizenship instead? Then you could add membership in the RRA as an additional method of gaining citizenship.

Post by **Whamabama** » 14 Feb 2011, 16:15

Double post

Post by **sedge** » 14 Feb 2011, 16:41

Whamabama wrote:
14 Feb 2011, 14:15
The delegate as head of government. In this draft, it's only in title, in actuality the delegate has no more say than any other citizen. If the delegate is to act as executive, then the delegate needs executive power. In other words veto power. We are setting up a very limited government, but there should be at least this one check on the power of the assembly.

The delegate does have executive power - the draft states that they're "Head of Government". I didn't explicitly spell out what that means, but it's generally accepted to include such things as running foreign affairs, recruiting (not really applicable to us), internal affairs etc. I disagree with your claim that executive powers = veto powers. The right to decide on legislation (laws, treaties, amendments) is a legislative power. It may be the case that the US President has veto power, but that's more to do with them being Head of State as well as Head of Government.

I don't want the Delegate to have any more say than ordinary citizens over legislation - it sounds entirely wrong to give one person the right to veto majority decisions of our citizens. What the delegate should be responsible for, is the day-to-day running of the region's affairs.

Also membership in the assembly mentions members of the RRA who are not citizens are in it. That just doesn't look good. It makes it appear that people not citizens of the region are being granted membership. Perhaps it would be better to simply grant members in the RRA citizenship instead? Then you could add membership in the RRA as an additional method of gaining citizenship.

There's very little difference between the two, but yes - I could make that change.

CrazyGirl · Post by **CrazyGirl** » 14 Feb 2011, 17:18

I want my fancy title.

Post by **Whamabama** » 14 Feb 2011, 17:35

The delegate having the power to veto is not about the delegate having more of a say in legislation. In this form the delegates vote is equal. However it is a check on the power of the assembly. A short one, but at least something to balance any wrong doing of the assembly. The assembly in return should be able to over ride such a veto if enough people support such a notion. Remember it would suck to be the sheep with a hungry pack of wolves voting on dinner.

It also keeps with the realities of the game. Where the only one in the region with any power is the sitting delegate. Also keep in mind the number of delegates who have gotten bored with being a figuerehead, and just replaced the government, the forum, and just opted for something new.

Post by **sedge** » 14 Feb 2011, 19:56

Whamabama wrote:
14 Feb 2011, 15:35
The delegate having the power to veto is not about the delegate having more of a say in legislation. In this form the delegates vote is equal. However it is a check on the power of the assembly. A short one, but at least something to balance any wrong doing of the assembly. The assembly in return should be able to over ride such a veto if enough people support such a notion. Remember it would suck to be the sheep with a hungry pack of wolves voting on dinner.

It doesn't give the delegate an equal vote, it gives the delegate a vote equal to all the rest of the citizens combined. I don't want a check on the Assembly, because the Assembly is the will of the region. Be aware that the Assembly is actually limited to voting on laws, treaties & constitutional amendments, and electing officials. The delegate has the whole government to control.

It also keeps with the realities of the game. Where the only one in the region with any power is the sitting delegate.

That's not actually the case. Sure, they're the only person who can change the WFE, but we've got enough experienced people here who know how to run endorsement/un-endorsement campaigns when they need to. The only in-game powers the delegate has are to vote on WA resolutions, approve WA proposals, and change the WFE. They don't have a 'veto' over the region's will within the game.

Also keep in mind the number of delegates who have gotten bored with being a figuerehead, and just replaced the government, the forum, and just opted for something new.

I really don't think that's going to happen here - we're too sensible to elect someone like that, and the lack of eject/ban functions means the region is less attractive to those kinds of people. Also, anyone who runs for delegate will know what powers the position comes with - we've never before discussed giving the delegate veto powers, so anyone expecting the position to come with them is wrong.

Post by **Whamabama** » 14 Feb 2011, 20:39

When other regions made their constitutions, I am sure they also knew they wouldn't elect anyone who would change the forums ect. Unfortunatly they were wrong. Let's learn from their mistake, not copy it.

And the fact there is no eject, or banject button does not mean that we are immune to the delegate who feels like they don't have the power they should. The fact they know the rules of the position beforehand won't change it either. It never has before, it wouldn't be wise to assume we are suddenly immune from it now.

As far as the delegate having an equal vote, well only in the matter of saying no, but that's the whole point to having checks on power. But if the will of the rest of the region is strong enough, they can over turn it.

Post by **sedge** » 14 Feb 2011, 20:58

I don't think "learning from their mistake" means giving the delegate near-total control of the region.

I think we've both made our views clear here - I'd like to here from some other members of the region too.

CrazyGirl · Post by **CrazyGirl** » 14 Feb 2011, 21:18

I still want my fancy title.

You want someone to be able to veto stuff? I'll take it.

Post by **Whamabama** » 14 Feb 2011, 21:39

It's not giving the delegate near-total control over the region.

CG you already have a fancy title. Wifey!

CrazyGirl · Post by **CrazyGirl** » 14 Feb 2011, 21:52

Actually, it is. They can stop any and all legislation that the region is trying to implement. Combine that with already having the power over the day-to-day business.....wham. Power.

I want a fancy title in the RR. Wifey is not a fancy title

Anur-Sanur · Post by **Anur-Sanur** » 14 Feb 2011, 23:27

i didn't read it but it looks nice

good work sedge

Post by **Whamabama** » 15 Feb 2011, 00:34

CrazyGirl wrote:
14 Feb 2011, 19:52
Actually, it is. They can stop any and all legislation that the region is trying to implement. Combine that with already having the power over the day-to-day business.....wham. Power.

I want a fancy title in the RR. Wifey is not a fancy title

They can make it harder, the assembly can still over turn a veto.

But either way, if tyranny exists, it doesn't have to be by a dictator, tyranny by majority is just as bad. and this is the best thing we can implement to put checks against both.

and Wifey is a damn good title!