|
Post by Z on Nov 29, 2005 19:45:55 GMT -6
cool
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Nov 30, 2005 1:34:15 GMT -6
My proposal, much more complex, in my opinion more suitable:
|
|
|
Post by Z on Nov 30, 2005 12:01:51 GMT -6
I'm up for anything... we can always amend it later
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Nov 30, 2005 18:01:40 GMT -6
Added Article VIII, made what was VIII article IX, and changed the war code. I'm pretty much done, so all we need is Nate's approval since Zach has already approved it and we can get this on the road. I will go ahead and get a uni.cc address for the confederation, and if you guys end up not wanting that I can of course delete it. So who wants to start the new nation's site, and what kind of forum shall we use nationally?
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Nov 30, 2005 21:42:52 GMT -6
i dont like it being called a "nation." its not a nation... if anything, its a state, but a very weak one. i replaced all the times ur referred to it as a nation with "confederation." Why only 40%? At least more than 50%... or even higher if you give them the power to overrule members' supreme courts in clause E. Something I do not agree to. Since there will only be 3... its kinda redundant... just say 2/3 of the court must pass a criminal conviction. there is no middle of 3. Article VI talks all about a Commonwealth That said... i propose this version... some grammatical corrections added: this draft does no include my problems with the judicial system... i think that if the united court is to be above the supreme courts of the nations, Congress needs drastic more majority approval than 40%... id say they justice appointments need to be Capital Acts since Capital Acts affect the member nations as well. on the other hand, im not to fond of the UC superceding our own supreme courts... You'll notice i replaces all the instances of "nation" with "confederation." I really dont want to say we are creating a new nation, much like the GC... i chose confederation for a reason... its a union of sovereign states... not a sovereign state itself.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Nov 30, 2005 21:50:19 GMT -6
The idea about the court is simple. If there are 8-9 nominees, there is no way we will ever pass a capital act. I would be willing to require a Capital act, to be lessened after so long a time goes by. Perhaps an easier way for temporary replacements as well, but if we did that, I think they would need longer terms than 6 months.
I specifically want criminal cases to be harder to decide for a reason.
There are also occasions when the nation's court might not be reliable---but remember, this means a person must be approved to hear the case, tried, found guilty, find something wrong, some reasin the case was faulty, get the upper court to hear the case, and then found innocent to reverse a decision---needless to say, EXTREMELY hard. I don't see a lot of cases being heard like this.
Oh shoot though. that breangs another question, what is required to get a case heard? 2 out of 3? or the Supreme Justice? err...
ANd I am fine with whatever way you word it, Confederation-wise.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Nov 30, 2005 21:58:35 GMT -6
Ok... then.... for the justices... since the Sovereign appoint nominees, and the Elected Citizens approve them... then the Sovereigns can use the 40% to easily weed out the rejects... so then the 3 justices will get "Sent" to the Citizens for approval... just a "yes/no" vote... so then the Citizens would need... 60%. if we do something lke that, ill let the United Court supercede our supreme courts.
2/3 justices can agree to hear a case.
sorry... i didnt mean reduce criminal trials... the can be unanimous. civil trials.... 2/3 sounds good for them?
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Nov 30, 2005 22:04:55 GMT -6
1. That works fine... of course, you could have the sovereign pick so many and let the citizens choose which. But your way is fine too. I say that the Sovereign Chancellor be allowed to appoint temporary replacements until that is accomplished.
2. That's fine, unless, of course, we raise the justice count later on, but we can concern ourselves with that later on.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Nov 30, 2005 22:20:23 GMT -6
i think 3 is plenty for now.
The Chancellor can appoint replacements for the court, sure thing.
includes everything discussed thus far:
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Nov 30, 2005 23:19:40 GMT -6
I say change Article 2, section G to say this:
G. Should the head-of-state take a Leave of Absense from his or her nation, the person serving as the head-of-state during that duration shall automatically be the proxy until the Leave of Absense is over unless another appropriate proxy was appointed.
"G. In civil trials, only a two-thirds of the justices are required to determine the case either way. "
What if their are abstains or no-shows, and how long do votes last?
"1. To maintain their own military. Defense shall be conducted on the Confederation level. The Confederation may declare war on a nation with a 60% majority in both houses, and may end this declaration with a 50% majority in both houses or by an appropriate treaty. However, member nations may operate a pseudo-military for the purpose of "rec-warring" but MCS lands may only change sides with the approval of 40% of each house BEFORE the war, and only the lands of the individual nation participating in the war may change sides."
What happened to my exception?
"A. Observing members may be admitted to the United Confederation by a Capital act of Congress. B. Observing members may send one representative to the House of Citizens who may have a voice in debates, but may not vote. C. Observing members are not subject to laws, resolutions, and actions of the United Confederation."
I had changed this a bit, too.
I think you edited this from the wrong copy, nate.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Nov 30, 2005 23:36:08 GMT -6
could u add the changes then? it all sounds fine...
im busy writting an essay thats due last tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Nov 30, 2005 23:43:35 GMT -6
I will tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by Z on Dec 1, 2005 8:52:45 GMT -6
I'll sign anything
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Dec 1, 2005 15:47:27 GMT -6
oooo Nate you bad bad kid. I never thought I'd see that day...
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Dec 1, 2005 16:12:39 GMT -6
i know...
|
|