POLL | Security Council and Third Revision of the Constitution

Because this is a big brute of a thing it will not be presented in the official way bills should be presented in the Legislative Assembly.

The Introduction of a Security Council, was raised at the last summit. The admins and a few other members have been developing the idea and it came to our attention that an organ such as this would make the Judiciary redundant, as such there would have had to been many amendments made to the constitution, to save the hassle involved and the potential for the process to become undemocratic, a decision was taken by me to just revise the whole constitution.

This revision had the aims of:

• Making Ministers and the Executive more accountable (Section 4)
  
• Making the language and layout of the constitution simpler and clearer (All Sections)
  
• The removal of a few confusing loopholes and clauses that were contradictory (Section 2 and 4)
  
• Making the constitution 'future-proof', i.e. easy to update but hard to amend (Section 3, 4 and 6)
  
• Removing the constitutional status of the judiciary and adding a constitutional status for the proposed organ of the Security Council. (All Sections)

Instead of posting the proposal for security council and the constitution together Thomas and myself decided to include it within the vote for the third revision.

We haven't really did this before outside of a summit, so go ahead and debate this. If there is a lack of interest then we will post questions.

THE REVISED CONSTITUTION AND PROPOSAL CAN BE FOUND HERE: LINK

Thanks,
Neil

I like it. No complaints from me!

No complaints from me! I will vote yes.. if I can

I read it all and it's all good with me

I've read the constitution and it's good just a couple of clauses that are redundant in it. Also the security council section needs work to reflect the discussions from the summit. But all in all a good draft.

If this was to pass the following would apply:

- The Constitution and Code of Conduct will be published in an interactive version (TBC, some work is required for forum compatibility) available to all members, in multiple languages (most likely French, Portuguese and Russian to begin, with more languages added if and when necessary)
- The AIN Court would be dissolved and replaced by the Security Council
- Elections would need to be held for the new position of Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs (likely to be put off until the elections)
- The Security Council and MJCA would have a say over sovereign courts, if the sentence of capital punishment is passed
- The process surrounding resignation of the President has been simplified with the VP as sole-successor, scruntinised by the security council until the next elections
- Member States now have more power to recall the President/VP/any minister if there is lack of confidence, a panel of experienced members (Security Council) now has final say as opposed to just the Chief Justice
- There is no longer constitutional guidelines/law over the resignation of the VP, the power to fill the VP post now lies with the President and/or Security Council

I approve this!

you would need to remove the section about observers in the constitution as well.....

JJ wrote:you would need to remove the section about observers in the constitution as well.....

It should stay in, in case a decision is taken to re-admit Observers, as far as i'm aware it is merely a motion from the President to stop Observership of other unions and Observership still applies under the Fluid Membership Scheme.

Actually it has been changed to "On leave" status, if I remember well. so no more observership.

That's correct. Observership has been replaced by "On Leave" now.

SmartbyLaw wrote:No complaints from me! I will vote yes.. if I can

According the 2nd Revision, you can not unfortunately.

Jo wrote:I've read the constitution and it's good just a couple of clauses that are redundant in it. Also the security council section needs work to reflect the discussions from the summit. But all in all a good draft.

Any suggestions before this moves to senate?

Blakeway4 wrote:Actually it has been changed to "On leave" status, if I remember well. so no more observership.

Thomas wrote:That's correct. Observership has been replaced by "On Leave" now.

Ok, changed some details for the Senate version.

I am in agreement with both Constitution and Security Council changes

In general, I like the new constitution. However, I have the following critiques:

• Clause 2.52 strikes me as an excessive intrusion into members' national sovereignty. I recommend removing it.
  
• Re: section 3.2. Permanent membership in the Security Council sounds, well, impermanent. In order to actually be permanent, they shouldn't be removable by a vote of the region's members, and they shouldn't be reviewed by the MJCA at all, except in cases of prolonged inactivity. In addition, the first listed requirement in clause 3.2.2 is too restrictive and should be removed. All these changes would make the Security Council more like its RL counterpart.
  
• Section 3.3 should be deleted in its entirety. We agreed at the summit that the Security Council would not have any officers at all, and we need to stick with that decision if the summit is to have been worth anything.
  
• Re: section 3.4, the idea behind a rotating panel is that member states rotate through it, rather than being elected to it. I would therefore revise this section to provide for an initial election of the first set of rotating members, along with how the regions' nations will rotate through the panel (alphabetically?).
  
• Article 7 implies the ability to amend the constitution but doesn't specify how it is to be amended, nor the requirements for an amendment to be ratified. Also, aren't amendments normally presented at the end of the constitution, after the signatures?
  

I have no objections to the rest. Good work, Neil!

I concur with Zac his basically covered all of my concerns.

I know we're focusing on the Security Council, but I think we should make the preamble sound more meaningful. (since it's the only part the some of us read)

Who remembers this old preamble?
"As members of the Alliance of Independent Nations, we look forward and back in an ever changing union to help learn about life, politics, and the human nature like no school will ever provide. We test the ideals of human ideology both good and bad, and share our common interest in one game that draws us from All Corners of the Globe to one place to learn, grow and play. This is the Alliance."

I remember it and especially the "All corners of the globe" since it was a little debate

I think Daniel has a good point - the old preamble might be a good alternative to the new one, and a link to the past.

With regards to Zack's proposals, I don't really mind how it's laid out and organised. As long as it works.

I like the old preamble (one daniel mentioned) I personally think that should be the preamble for the constitution...

I agree with this revision, as well as Zack's comment on the Amendment.

I feel it is quite needed, and the Executive should meet with the DOA in order to prevent any scandals that nearly gouged the Union during the last elections. (Think Nate-Modding)

Is it all good???!?

Sorry i've been away, all of the highlighted changes will be made on the new pdf to be presented to the Senate, do I have approval to move it to Senate with all agreed changes?

Yes I approve moving it to the senate. I think everyone's concerns have been addressed sufficiently.

As I totally agree my vote is yes.