Bill XXXII Protection of the Syntagma

[the Black Prince]

Protection of the Syntagma Amendment Bill

Proposed by: the Black Prince
Supported by: Lucius Vorenus, TacticalWithdrawal, Perikles

The following highlighted text shall be inserted into the introduction of the syntagma so that it reads

The Constitution is a document highlighting the administrative structure and function of the community. It defines at a high level the procedures, structure and ethos of TWC; these are then defined at a detailed level by relevant Acts of Law. All Total War Center members are expected to adhere to the rules of the constitution and the Acts of Law. Members are also expected to enforce the rules of the constitution and acts of law at all times. The Syntagma is a protected constitutional document and any unlawful tampering with it shall result in an automatic Censure

The lines

The Imperator can veto any non legislative action on TWC except those of the network administrators. The imperator also holds full administrative powers.

are repealed from the Imperator section and replaced with

The Imperator can solely veto any action on TWC except those of the network administrators and any business of the Curia, in which the procedure laid out in the Staff Veto Act shall be followed. The Imperator holds full administrative powers. In the business of the Curia, regardless of previous status, the Imperator is always considered to have civitate status and is bound by all such laws as affect a civitate in the Curia.

The following is inserted at the end of the Curia section.

No legislation of any form shall be enacted except by the laws governing legislation contained primarily within the Legislation Act

this bill is in response to recent violations of accepted protocal by the Imperator. if the Imperator cannot be bound by a convention, or in cases where the wording of the syntagma is (perhaps deliberately) ambiguous enough to grant him powers that he does not in fact have, it is necessary to clarify cwertain situations, notably, that all legislation must be enacted according to the legislation act, that all legislation must be voted on by the curia, that the Imperator does NOT have the right to draft and enact legislation as he sees fit, and that when within the curia and only within the curia, the Imperator does not wield sole executive powers, but is part of a triumvirate who wield powers of veto. it is also worth noting that the Imperator, by definition is a civitate, a citizen of TWC.


also solved by this amendment is the obscure phrase the legislative business of the curia, which has been taken to mean different things on different occasions, with some staff members holding that because of that, the Imperator used to have sole veto power on staff elections, because elections weren't legislative business. that ambiguity is solved.

[Belisarius]

I support.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

nope, absolutely no point. If the Imperator wants to mess with the syntagma they can, all this would do is cause trouble.

[the Black Prince]

this bill changes nothing (with the exception of the tampering and censure in the first part) it merely clarifies the existing situation and removes ambiguity and "grey areas"

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

no it doesn't, it means we are forced into a situation where we would have to censure the Imperator.

Which would mean that the Consuls (and Praetors) would have to seriously think about vetoing a censure of the imperator (actually, imperator could just veto it on hi own).

So what is the point, it just causes trouble?

I'd far rather we put together a process which took into account what archer is doing, for example, in the case of the passport bill, Imperator makes it reality and then Rep Consul has to decide whether to put in straight into the syntagma, or put it to a curia vote.

Even then it would still get a bit daft if the curia voted against it, at which point you get a constitutiona crisis I suppose.

[Garbarsardar]

this bill is in response to recent violations of accepted protocal by the Imperator

Accepted protocol is nothing. It is either in the Syntagma or it does not exist.

or in cases where the wording of the syntagma is (perhaps deliberately) ambiguous enough to grant him powers that he does not in fact have,

If the Syntama grants him powers then he has them. In fact. :wink:

it is also worth noting that the Imperator, by definition is a civitate, a citizen of TWC.

The imperator is appointed by the ON and Civitateship is not a requirement for the post. The fact that Archer was a Civitates is coincidential.

[the Black Prince]

however, ALL members are bound by the syntagma... thta at least is 100% clear

but thats not the subject of this thread, so discussion of it would be off topic. the subject of this thread is the bill above which does the following

a) creates an automatic censure for people who tamper with the syntagma unlawfully.
this affects no one, the bill is not retroactive here. it merely creates a future offence for people who go tampering when they shouldn't and should know better

b) absolutely clarifies the Imperators powers with regard to the Curia, and resolves the ambiguity of "Legislative business"

c) makes it 100% damn clear that all legislation must be enacted according to the laws.

with the exception of part a) this bill is a clarification amendment, to resolve some longstanding grey areas and ambiguities that are currently, and have also previoisly, caused problems. as i'm sure you'll agree, ambiguities are not a good idea, as they cause all sorts of arguments when the document can be read in different ways with different results.

all those in favour of resolving ambiguities?

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

tBP, now I've realised that there's more changing than just the blue bit.......

ok, I'll support

[Garbarsardar]

The Syntagma is a protected constitutional document and any unlawful tampering with it shall result in an automatic Censure

Is there a lawful tamepring?

The Imperator can veto any non legislative action on TWC except those of the network administrators. The imperator also holds full administrative powers.

are repealed from the Imperator section and replaced with

The Imperator can solely veto any action on TWC except those of the network administrators and any business of the Curia, in which the procedure laid out in the Staff Veto Act shall be followed. In the business of the Curia, regardless of previous status, the Imperator is always considered to have civitate status and is bound by all such laws as affect a civitate in the Curia.

So the Imperator does not have full administrative powers and why?

No legislation of any form shall be enacted except by the laws governing legislation contained primarily within the Legislation Act

And secondarily?

[the Black Prince]

oops, yes indeed, some basic typing errors there, cheers garb, i did not mean to remove the line Full Administrative Powers, he does indeed have those (or at least, i think he does, there was a time when Archer didn't..)

lawful tampering would be the Curator changing the text of the syntagma in accordance with a passed amendment

secondarily in the Curia Votes Act, the Staff Veto Act, The Secret ballots Act... etc
the bulk of laws regarding the legislative process are found in the Legislation Act, but not all of them

[gigagaia]

this bill is in response to recent violations of accepted protocal by the Imperator. if the Imperator cannot be bound by a convention, or in cases where the wording of the syntagma is (perhaps deliberately) ambiguous enough to grant him powers that he does not in fact have, it is necessary to clarify cwertain situations, notably, that all legislation must be enacted according to the legislation act, that all legislation must be voted on by the curia, that the Imperator does NOT have the right to draft and enact legislation as he sees fit, and that when within the curia and only within the curia, the Imperator does not wield sole executive powers, but is part of a triumvirate who wield powers of veto. it is also worth noting that the Imperator, by definition is a civitate, a citizen of TWC.


also solved by this amendment is the obscure phrase the legislative business of the curia, which has been taken to mean different things on different occasions, with some staff members holding that because of that, the Imperator used to have sole veto power on staff elections, because elections weren't legislative business. that ambiguity is solved.

I won't support this, for two major reasons.

Mainly because it is a reactionary move that is bound to come into conflict with Archer. If you want to close "gaps" and "loopholes" then you should work with Archer, instead of pushing for a "moral" victory which will likely lead to a confrontation, executive veto (I doubt that curtailing any powers of the Admin. will be viewed as simply a curial matter) and constitutional crisis, you should bring this matter up with Archer and find a way to resolve this problem. Otherwise, you are likely to merely provoke this crisis and alienate an otherwise curial-favourable admin from the curia and its processes.

Also, this bill is denying the fact that the Imperator, does in fact, hold total executive power. He can override and suspend the Syntagma, because he derives his power not from the Curia, but from ON. The fact that his legitimacy is derived from ON and not the curia means that his powers flow from them, and he is bound firstly by their rules, not ours.

[imb39]

I do not support as this is a meaningless change. Seeking to limit the power of the Imperator within the Curia is ridiculous. If need be he can suspend the Syntagma, change things and then reinstate the Syntagma. It might not be wanted or appreciated by some or many but he can still do it.

We do not operate in the world of the Magna Carta where Kings were stating to come under the power of the Law. This is an entirely different situation and, quite frankly, the Imperator is above the Law. He is there by divine right - the divine right of ON. That cannot be challenged. Simple.

I'm sorry for those who dislike that fact but that's the situation.

a) creates an automatic censure for people who tamper with the syntagma unlawfully.
this affects no one, the bill is not retroactive here. it merely creates a future offence for people who go tampering when they shouldn't and should know better

So, you'd censure the Imperator... Fantastic. Marvellous. Then what? And if he exercises a veto on that?

b) absolutely clarifies the Imperators powers with regard to the Curia, and resolves the ambiguity of "Legislative business"

Does nothing of the kind. It states what some would LIKE to happen but that's it, no more. To suggest otherwise is poppycock.

I shall now put on some rose tinted glasses and look at other impracitcal legislation.

[Muizer]

Hmm, just offering this up as something to consider: I don't think it is wise to explicitly identify the posted document as the Syntagma. In real life the law isn't the book in which it is written either, is it? Someone who tampers with the posted text in an unlawful manner is changing the document, not the law. If someone were to hack into the site and replace the text with "whatver I say is the law" that wouldn't become the law. Not saying it shouldn't be marked as an offense, but let's not mix up the issues.

I do not support as this is a meaningless change. Seeking to limit the power of the Imperator within the Curia is ridiculous. If need be he can suspend the Syntagma, change things and then reinstate the Syntagma. It might not be wanted or appreciated by some or many but he can still do it.

Question is what the imperator would be appealing to: Is he confronting us with the reality that he is de-facto above the law (syntagma), or is he appealing to powers granted to him under the syntagma? This is what confuses me somewhat.

[Basileos Leandros I]

I do not support.

If the Imperator messes with it, we are CENSURING him?! Makes no sense.

[Tom Paine]

Question is what the imperator would be appealing to: Is he confronting us with the reality that he is de-facto above the law (syntagma), or is he appealing to powers granted to him under the syntagma? This is what confuses me somewhat.

As far as I can tell he doesn't have such powers under the Syntagma, especially as he (as a civitate, whether or not he must be one he is) is bound by all sections of the Syntagma applicable to civitates... meaning he is using de facto powers (politically, a risky move) to do this action. and its an action this Bill would make illegal, thus making illegal powers illegal, but unable to remove such de facto powers as the Imperator inherently has. Assuming the previous paragraph makes sense, that is my reason for not supporting this; its pointless, surely?

[the Black Prince]

draft amended in light of the mistake garb revealed.

the first change can be dropped... but why are we focusing on Censuring the Imperator? this bill is NOT retroactive... the Censure would be equally applied to anyone who changes the syntagma without lawful excuse (i.e The Curator and his staff updating amendments)

thats the only change this bill introduces. the rest aren't really changes at all, merely clear unambiguous statements about the state of affairs.

[Perikles]

I support this. It won't affect Archer's present move in the Curia, which is good, but may save us from further situations like this where the curia has to watch things moving above it's head. It may also save us from the The end of the Curia is nigh' sort of thing....

[the Black Prince]

a highly accurate statement, cheers JP

[Mímirswell]

The Syntagma is a protected constitutional document and any unlawful tampering with it shall result in an automatic Censure.

What constitutes unlawful tampering? I do not support a Censure that can easily result from an accident on mine or Justinian's part.

No legislation of any form shall be enacted except by the laws governing legislation contained primarily within the Legislation Act.

This bill is an attempt to gain legal authority to impose some type of Curial sanction on Archer should he attempt again to try something similar to the Passport Bill. Is it wise to escalate a situation with threats and constitutional subversion rather than attempting to talk to Archer as a person and persuade him to your point of view?

[the Black Prince]

if it was an accident, as you go about your business as Curator/Pro-Curator, how is that unlawful?

and no, this bill is an attempt to clarify the pre-existing situation that the only way to pass a bill is to, well, pass a bill, not simply say, this bill is now law. such a loophole was never intended, and when me and profler were given the mandate to write the legislation, curia votes and staff veto act by sulla we were creating the method by which legislation is passed. not the method by which some legislation is passed, or the parts the curia likes is passed... the method by which legislation is passed. a line saying this is the only method by which legislation is passed has never been needed before because frankly, we thought it was bloody obvious that if you write down and enact the method by which a bill is passed, thats the method by which a bill is passed.
it would seem however, that all the obvious and implied and elements of the Syntagma and various legislation will have to be codified, to ensure that the syntagma continues to be followed in the spirit of both the law, and in the spirit in which it was written and passed.