Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Discussion Lets Discuss: Powers of the Delegate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Constie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None
Constie

Constie

Resident Attaché (15%)
Verified
Joined
Jun 13, 2018
Messages
152
Feather
ƒ1,484
I feel like we should have a discussion on the powers of the delegate to appoint a Speaker and Justices

Though justices need to be confirmed, I don’t see a reason to make the Delegate the one that makes the selection with how we currently treat the Delegacy. I believe the Prime Minister should appoint Justices and the Speaker should be elected
 
I disagree on the former as the PM is an overwhelmingly political position, and they could stack the court with their political favorites. The PM has too much power already, so allowing them to appoint the people who are meant to holding them to account would be a bad idea. In NS and RL, mixing the political executive with the judicial branch, hypothetically creates loyalty to a political individual and not the region, or alternatively creates Justices who are desperate to not appear like they favor one PM or the other and over-compensate as a result.

If we are going to hypothetically have political appointments of Court Justices, I would prefer we just hold elections for those roles instead of making the PM into an all-powerful role that appoints everyone in the region, including the folks meant to hold them and their legislative agenda to account.

Speaker elections do exist in other regions, though in our case it would complicate how Deputy Speakers would be appointed. Elections would determine the Speaker, so if someone resigned the Deputy couldn't take over temporarily, unless expressively legislated to allow for that. Electing Deputy Speakers might be better than than electing the Speaker, and changing the Delegate appointing the Speaker, isn't necessary, if the only pool they can pick from is elected Deputies.
 
Last edited:
In my eyes, the Delegate should be tasked with the security of the region, and that's it.

I would disagree that the PM already has too much power. In fact, I would say they have far too little. Allow the PM to "stack" the courts if he/she wants. If the picks are "political" as NR warns, we should just be voting them down before they are confirmed.

I would also agree that the Speaker should be elected. I do not think Deputies should be elected. I think the Speaker should appoint whoever he/she wants as their deputies with the caveat that if the Speaker is removed/resigns, the powers of the deputies are stripped and a special election is immediately headed by the Vice Delegate.
 
Frankender said:
In my eyes, the Delegate should be tasked with the security of the region, and that's it.

I would disagree that the PM already has too much power. In fact, I would say they have far too little. Allow the PM to "stack" the courts if he/she wants. If the picks are "political" as NR warns, we should just be voting them down before they are confirmed.

I would also agree that the Speaker should be elected. I do not think Deputies should be elected. I think the Speaker should appoint whoever he/she wants as their deputies with the caveat that if the Speaker is removed/resigns, the powers of the deputies are stripped and a special election is immediately headed by the Vice Delegate.
Click to expand...
Totally against this idea, as it is just trading one problem for another, the supposed "over-authority" of the head of state for basically stacked courts controlled by the PM, who is elected/appointed with a political agenda. If that agenda is bad, and unconstitutional, the only way to stop a legislative coup or a violation of the mandate, would be a petition of members of the Asembly for the Delegate intervention to ban the PM and Justice via the CLS. Recalls wouldn't work, as the Court Justices could abuse their position to make said votes fail, and worse if the Assembly is stacked, those votes will never happen at all.

Not to mention, the Court Justices if they are in on a fix, won't ever say they are political puppets, so it is never easy to know if the PM DM'd them with an agenda in mind, and the Assembly has to assume they'll align with the PM as a political figure. This opens a new door to a legislative coup, as anyone could run for PM, to get Justices in to abuse the mandate. With Delegate picks, you've at least known them for years, or even in Delegate elections, for 4-6 months, and their agenda is meant to be around protecting the region, and that is not just in-game security but the security of the region as a whole. PMs are elected to have a political agenda however, they couldn't be elected otherwise.

If the Courts are not to be nonpartisan, they should be elected by the Assembly. Avoids that whole mess, and the Court serves the Assembly and the region, not the PM or the Delegate for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Against Justice's and the Speaker should be appointed by a non-political or semi non-political actor seeing that they are indefinite appointments and have a lot of power within the region.
 
I would completely support the Speaker’s election. Perhaps the Speaker could nominate one of the Justices, the Delegate could nominate one, and the PM could nominate one. Also maybe we could have yearly confirmation votes on the Justices to ensure they’re performing and if not, a 2/3 vote could remove them from office.
 
Domais said:
Against Justice's and the Speaker should be appointed by a non-political or semi non-political actor seeing that they are indefinite appointments and have a lot of power within the region.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be an issue if Court Justices were only criminal court, but given they are also constitutional court, it very much matters that they are derived from a non-political source because they can re-interpret legislation passed by the Assembly, determine how specific laws are carried out as far as procedure, and interpret what is legal vis-a-vis the mandate. Everyone hopes that Court Justices will be ethical and un-biased, but why build an additional flaw that makes that less likely. Making the Court political is a loophole that we don't need to create in our court system. We don't need to impose an additional bias of a political nature on who decides criminal or constitutional cases, no matter how minor.
 
Last edited:
Clorinda said:
I would completely support the Speaker’s election. Perhaps the Speaker could nominate one of the Justices, the Delegate could nominate one, and the PM could nominate one. Also maybe we could have yearly confirmation votes on the Justices to ensure they’re performing and if not, a 2/3 vote could remove them from office.
Click to expand...
Political figures shouldn't appoint a court in any circumstances, especially given Lazarene history, where courts became political and open to criticism or abuse to the point they were entirely undermined, and could no longer function effectively. Making the PM the arbiter of who goes on the court, even partly, makes our court a political institution - something that can have terrible implications in the real world, and be region-breaking for a region known for political instability in the past.

If someone is to appoint Justices it should be the Delegate (as our defacto head of state), or even the Speaker would be tolerable. If we are talking about the Assembly, then perhaps though with a 2/3 majority instead of a simple majority to elect a Court Justice. The Speaker would be more acceptable to me than say the PM for sure. Though confirmation votes could be an option too though I agree.
 
Last edited:
I think that appointment by the Delegate doesn’t make it fool proof to political meddling. That’s why the Assembly has a check in the first place. Ultimately the check by the Assembly is what should allow us to let the PM appoint justices
 
For a partisan figure to appoint justices is extremely concerning to me. The political independence of the courts must be upheld. I am a judge, and I don't want to even ponder the mere idea of political pressure being a factor in my deliberations and our decisions as a whole. I'd rather stick to the law and conduct the duties of the court in an apolitical fashion. I don't think anyone wants the members of the court to be beholden to politicians for their posts.

The system of appointments is not entirely unbiased, mind you (there will always be bias somewhere), but it's the best option we have. The Delegate is the most apolitical office I can think of, and adding the Assembly's approval signifies that we as a region can (or at least can strive to) grant a non-partisan consent. If you want an extra layer of security or non-political scrutiny, maybe have the CLS vet and approve all potential nominees too? I don't think it's necessary nor am I formally proposing it, it's just an idea to be explored.
 
Constie said:
I think that appointment by the Delegate doesn’t make it fool proof to political meddling. That’s why the Assembly has a check in the first place. Ultimately the check by the Assembly is what should allow us to let the PM appoint justices
Click to expand...
It is at the very least a security position via the mandate, so that makes it at the very least nominally non-political, and the PM is only elected by a simple majority, not a super-majority. The PM doesn't appoint justices for a very simple reason, which is that adding more politics to non-political positions can only make that position outright political. An Assembly electing justices through a super majority, and having the right to decide who decides their mandate directly makes more sense that just trading one appointment structure, which is non-political at present, to an outright political structure of appointment. If the goal is a check by the Assembly, and a fully accountable court, then it should be determined by a free election of justices, where anyone can put themselves forward, and then the Assembly can vote on who would be the best. It wouldn't be ideal in the sense that folks could still hypothetically try and push a candidate through, but that process would be open to the whole region to see, and not be a decision taken behind closed doors through backchannel discord DMs - which was part of the problem, before we transitioned to posting a thread where anyone could put themselves forward for the role. So far the metric for the Delegate appointing Justices has been court experience either in Lazarus or elsewhere, or reasonable availability if we go back to several years ago.
 
Last edited:
If a PM is partisan and they are elected, so would elected Justices 🥴

It isn’t like we have two political parties with agendas here lmao
 
Constie said:
I can support electing justices, though I’ll note that I disagree that a security only position should appoint any officials other than security based positions
Click to expand...
Given that it is also a constitutional court position, it is a security position. It very much matters who decides how our mandate is interpreted, as it has major security implications on the region, with the court having the power to decide what the Delegate can do as far as security policies such ejections, bans, and so on, and interpretations of regional laws pertaining to citizenship. Which is why if it isn't the Delegate, it really needs to be the Assembly outright.
 
Last edited:
Frankender said:
If a PM is partisan and they are elected, so would elected Justices 🥴

It isn’t like we have two political parties with agendas here lmao
Click to expand...
There are always two political parties by default, "the status quo", and the "loyal opposition", with the strength of each faction differing depending on the issue.
 
New Rogernomics said:
Given that it is also a constitutional court position, it is a security position. It very much matters who decides how our mandate is interpreted, as it has major security implications on the region, with the court having the power to decide what the Delegate can do as far as security policies such ejections, bans, and so on, and interpretations of regional laws pertaining to citizenship. Which is why if it isn't the Delegate, it really needs to be the Assembly outright.
Click to expand...
Ultimately it’s made redundant by the check the assembly has over the selection, so in any case the assembly has a say.

I think it’s very dangerous to not separate the delegate from any hint of a political position. Any rogue delegate could game the system. Tubbius won’t, you won’t, but what’s to say the next one won’t, and the next one, and there on. We can’t rely on the good Will of Tubbius forever. We have to recognize that the systems we have in place aren’t foolproof.
 
Constie said:
Ultimately it’s made redundant by the check the assembly has over the selection, so in any case the assembly has a say.

I think it’s very dangerous to not separate the delegate from any hint of a political position. Any rogue delegate could game the system. Tubbius won’t, you won’t, but what’s to say the next one won’t, and the next one, and there on. We can’t rely on the good Will of Tubbius forever. We have to recognize that the systems we have in place aren’t foolproof.
Click to expand...
I think that discussion really goes alongside, if we have an elected Delegacy and Delegates are changed all the time via political elections, as the metric is altered if we put that into play.

So far the region is only accepting the status quo of Tubbius as Delegate, who could probably be popularly elected without issue, and probably myself as well if it came to that.

Potentially the line of succession to the Delegacy is the Vice-Delegate, and presumingly the CLS. Though the Assembly has the right to vote against that chain of succession, as successors need a super-majority vote, and can recall all those positions, as you of course already know.

That said, the Assembly could still decide, in a situation where Tubbius is no longer Delegate, that they want Delegate elections at that point, and no more of the status quo, as part of why the current system continues is that the Delegate isn't unpopular and has a large base of public support, with or without regular elections.

I think we are best going on what is for now, and if we change the system in the future, such a power could be removed to compensate for such a major change.
 
Frankender said:
Nah, courts are not a security position
Click to expand...
They very much deal with matters that are to do with the acceptance of new citizens to the region, and interpretations of powers. So in practical purposes it very much is, even if you don't see things that way. To coup or to overturn the mandate, you very much require a body like a court on your side.

There are at least three ways to coup or disrupt a region, and is historically proven here in Lazarus as well:
  • Legislative coup, which can be carried out by a vocal fifth column of citizens in some regions, or someone higher up like a PM, or a Delegate in cases where that is elected,
  • Institutional coup, which uses an institution like a court to manipulate the mandate to their own ends, and punish opponents of the developing regime,
  • In-game coup, which is where a Delegate/Founder just uses their in-game powers to coup the region, and overturn the mandate.
You need to have a politicized court to achieve the first one, as the court could intervene and prevent that, and you couldn't get the second if the court is not structured in a way where that could happen, like with now where the court is appointed by a non-political position, and not the PM or some other political official.
 
Last edited:
As I interpret the law, there are four government bodies in Lazarus:
  • Legislative (Speaker, Citizens) -- make laws
  • Executive (PM, Cabinet) -- run the state
  • Judicial (Justices) -- ensure laws uphold the constitution & try criminal matters
  • Security (Delegate, VD, CLS) -- maintain/enforce security of region

Interpreting is much different than enforcing

Your argument:
Justice interprets security-related laws, therefore is a security body

By that logic
Justice interprets legislative laws, therefore is a legislative body

Definitely not ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top