| Constitutional Convention | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 28 Jul 2010, 12:23 PM (908 Views) | |
| Terpomoj | 10 Sep 2010, 08:30 AM Post #31 |
|
Administrator
|
Fair enough, but personally I like the proposed arrangement, as otherwise foreign policy would be a mess between two competing bodies, rather than a consistent and regional approach to all foreign affairs (which makes sense and would be more easily implementable if the WA Delegate is in the Foreign Ministry). If we separate out the bodies, we'll just end up running into the same issues the DSA is having now with the WA Delegate and the Charter.
Edited by Terpomoj, 10 Sep 2010, 12:32 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nouvelle-France Rouge | 11 Sep 2010, 12:24 AM Post #32 |
|
No I don't think we would though because we have clearly specified how to deal with the whole endorsements+WA Delegate issue. It was just a thought, what do you think Nyahamn? |
![]() |
|
| Nyahamn | 12 Sep 2010, 05:26 PM Post #33 |
|
The role as suggested so far for the WA delegate share the responsibility of conducting certain tasks of relevance for foreign policy along with the nature of the Ambassadors. Similarities between the Founder and WA delegate regarding responsibilities are already covered in respective fields irrelevant of the Founder having a section on its own outlining exclusive ‘rights’ for that particular position. If we can think upon exclusive tasks for the WA delegate that doesn’t really connect to the different existing sections of the current constitutional proposal then I’d could see it validate a section on its own, or combining those with the Founder section. Any ideas of independent responsibilities and rights for the WA delegate outside of the other areas? I can’t think of any unfortunately at the moment. |
![]() |
|
| Terpomoj | 13 Sep 2010, 11:08 AM Post #34 |
|
Administrator
|
If anything, such other powers would simply make the region less democratic. I think having the Union Assembly as the chief decision-maker means such other or future tasks would be decided by them, which is in my view the most democratic option (as then everyone gets a voice, not just a vote—as would be the case with giving the elected WA Delegate more responsibilities). Unrelated, but Nyahamn, I was wondering if you could possibly have a read over my previous comment on the document (at your leisure) and see what you think. Thanks. |
![]() |
|
| Nyahamn | 13 Sep 2010, 03:31 PM Post #35 |
|
Certainly! Which one though (I’m tired)? Good point about the WA delegacy; giving more independence to the position isn’t required if we wish the Union Assembly to be the prime decision making body. By the members for the members, so to speak. |
![]() |
|
| Terpomoj | 13 Sep 2010, 09:56 PM Post #36 |
|
Administrator
|
|
![]() |
|
| The Cercades | 19 Sep 2010, 11:56 PM Post #37 |
|
Please feel free to proceed without me. My current schedule and need to adjust to working during the week means that I have very limited spare time, so until I work out some of the kinks I won't be around very much. I trust your collective judgment; I'd just like to see a final version (rather than try to sort through everything posted above), but I don't see why I wouldn't be able to agree with whatever the end product is. |
![]() |
|
| Terpomoj | 21 Sep 2010, 12:06 AM Post #38 |
|
Administrator
|
I believe the below proposal is very nearly completed, if not so already. It contains some minor grammatical changes and additions. Any further gripes?
EDIT: Just a thought, but if we remove the ‘...sole law...’ bit (highlighted in green in the above) of the dedicatory/introduction thing, it would allow us to create laws outside of the Constitution in future (such as if we want to create a monetary/economic union for nations to opt-into, or a defence union that doesn't apply to the entire Union et cetera). I think this would be useful, and not a particularly big change. Thoughts? Edited by Terpomoj, 22 Sep 2010, 12:52 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nyahamn | 21 Sep 2010, 08:36 PM Post #39 |
|
Sorry for haven’t answered to your inquiry earlier, Terpomoj. Are currently on a new dig site issued by the university plus several side-projects both private and through study. I agree to the added information in red, don’t see a problem here. Regarding removing the “sole law”; well, you’re right that the constitution shouldn’t be a hindrance for creating such unions of different matters. However, since entities of these natures that you bring forth as examples are more or less optional compared to the rest of the constitution and if it really is “law” by the meaning of the word; would these be considered official and supported by the region yet optional? If so, we could keep it saying “sole law” while somewhere have it say that optional regional institutions are open to create and maintain with the consent of the Union Assembly (or other), thus perhaps adding another part to the Union Assembly (or other) section? It might also clarify these opportunities available for members by doing so. Or would it just make things difficult to comprehend? |
![]() |
|
| Terpomoj | 21 Sep 2010, 11:27 PM Post #40 |
|
Administrator
|
That's fine Nyahamn, take your time. Somehow I think your university activities are a little more important than NationStates .I was actually thinking something similar, but to be truthful I forgot to insert it . I do think we need to remove the sole law bit if we insert another more specific paragraph though, just for the sake of consistency (and as it would then be superseded).How about something like (under the Union Assembly section): The Union Assembly shall have ultimate authority over the administration and control of any intra-regional institutions or organs. Such institutions or organs may be established as members of the Union see fit. Edited by Terpomoj, 21 Sep 2010, 11:28 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archive · Next Topic » |




.
8:22 AM Jul 11