Separation of law from the Syntagma

[Simetrical]

Basically, right now a ton of trivial stuff is in the Syntagma, and we have more amendment votes than law votes. I would suggest that someone propose that all the following be modifiable by acts of law:

• The names of all ranks, positions, procedures, forums, etc.
• The existence, powers, appointment procedures, and in general anything whatsoever relating to all ranks below Consul (or all ranks below Praetor?).
• All rules relating to patronage, the qualifications for Civitates, and removal of Civitates.
• The precise breakdown of the Curia forums.

This would leave:

• The existence, powers, and appointment procedures of Network Administrators, the Imperator, and Consuls.
• The existence of Civitates and their right to vote.
• The existence of the Curia.

I would also suggest that someone propose that the Legislation Act, Curia Vote Act, and Staff Veto Act be mostly changed from laws to amendments. Any thoughts?

[Søren]

I agree, beat me to it in fact, I was just working on the same thing myself.

[Profler]

Very much in agreement, tBP and I had considered a single such 'pruning' bill ourselves, but eventually settled for a more piecemeal process for reform. However, this seems to have reached the end of its usefulness.

[nahirean]

I think this is a good idea. It gives people more to discuss and more control over their enviornment. Another added incentive to behave oneself on the forums and shoot for Civitates.

[HorseArcher]

Thanks for posting this Simetrical, I have told about this a while ago. Basically this is what we have right now, except there are still a few who doesn't think so. And to put it up for a proposal will make make it more visible. Including this amendment just makes it clearer for some civitates what can or cannot be changed.

...
'
"....Only now, Do you understand......"
-Darth Sidious

[Simetrical]

Okay, so we need a specific wording, a sponsor, three supporters, and a few more days at least for discussion. Who volunteers?

[PyrrhusIV]

I am somewhat confused by this, could someone be more detailed?

PyrrhusIV

[HorseArcher]

I am somewhat confused by this, could someone be more detailed?

PyrrhusIV

This would leave:

* The existence, powers, and appointment procedures of Network Administrators, the Imperator, and Consuls.
* The existence of Civitates and their right to vote.
* The existence of the Curia.

The quoted section above describes the the laws which cannot be manipulated by a curia amendment; a vote or anyone with voting rights.

made it easier?

[Simetrical]

The quoted section above describes the the laws which cannot be manipulated by a curia amendment; a vote or anyone with voting rights.

No, no, no, it just describes the stuff that needs an amendment to modify. Basically, we currently need a supermajority and two weeks to change pretty much anything―most votes are amendment votes. Amendments should be rare, acts of law should be common, and currently it's mostly the other way around.

[the Black Prince]

the 3 acts you mentioned seem all belong as acts not amendments

they all expand on points made by the legislative amendment to the curia, but contain information that does not need to be in the syntagma, because they contain specific details which are relevant to the site now, but not in the future. these details, like the outline of staff veto, may need to be modified in the future as the power relationship between staff and curia changes one way or another. thats just one example.

the whole point of the act amendment divide is that the amendments and syntagma contain the outlines of constitutional importance, whilst the actual details are in acts more easily modified to match the changing nature of the site.

do you not think it important that staff members and the basis of their power are defined in the cionstitution? i certainly do, whilst agreeing that more detailed issues, belong as acts

for instance.
the syntagma reads, there shall be a staff group called the Prefectus Praetorii, and this group shall have global moderator powers and answer to the Imperial Consul.

the Prefect Act then expands on this.
the prefects implement the site policy as determined by the triumvirate, and implement moderation policy as set by the staff team and imperator. there shall be no more than 4 of these staff members.

therefore, if the site grew in a way that required more of these key staff, you can change the numerical requirement in a week, instead of 2 weeks with 2/3 as is currently the case (or would be if they were even in the constitution)

outlining the staff powers, especially those of the future Praetor group and Global Praetor which replace the current Quaestors is going to be essential in outlining the proper and exact balance of power that sulla wants.


on a side note, pls do not take my often total lack of posts as a sign of activity, i'm still reading here... i just don't feel like much random conversation these days... *sighs*

[Justinian]

Who volunteers?

Ooh, me! Pick me!

I agree completely, Sim.

[Søren]

I don't think that we should voulenteer until we have the precise ammaendment layed out.

I will probably
voulenteer after that, taking it that I agree with the wording.

[Tom Paine]

I volunteer. Although I have been told to never volunteer.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

simetrical, is anything happening with this?

If not I am happy to make a start on it if nobody else already has?

[the Black Prince]

i bel;ieve the whole point of my above post was to point out that nothing actually needs to happen with this, its already happened, thats why we have both acts and amendments

[Belisarius]

The existence, powers, and appointment procedures of Network Administrators, the Imperator, and Consuls.

And Prefects. The senior staff work as a team and all members of that team should have a say in who joins the team. The Prefects are very capable and have the trust of the consuls and Imperator who appoints them.

Add Prefects and it will have my full support.

[Simetrical]

simetrical, is anything happening with this?

If not I am happy to make a start on it if nobody else already has?

Go ahead, write up a proposal.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

why can't I keep my big mouth shut

I'll get onto it. tBP, I know what you're saying but I still agree with the original post, I'll be in touch for your views though if I may?

[the Black Prince]

a great deal of the stuff you're proposing to remove from the constitution are items of great constitutional importance. its like suggesting you remove all the sections that limit executive or presidential power from the american constitution.

if the syntagma is to have any meaning as an entrenched piece of legislation, it needs to contain the core elelemtns that relate to the workings of the curia and the power interplay between the curia and staff, these are not items that should be easily modified.

staff numbers is something for an act. staff powers is not. staff powers belong in the constitution

also the rules of civitateship belong here, though exact details do not. i think currently the syntagma says, (or will say) that the numbers of patrons shall be defined by act of law, and that works ok.

i think the major sticking point for me is staff powers. these absolutely must be constitutionally defined.

[Simetrical]

staff powers belong in the constitution

Quaestor/Cohortes powers don't. The precise breakdown of moderators isn't of much importance to the Curia.