Discussion Lets Discuss: Powers of the Delegate

[Clorinda]

So we would support nomination by the Speaker and Delegate and confirmation by the Assembly via a 2/3 vote for Justices?

 

[Frankender]

So we would support nomination by the Speaker and Delegate and confirmation by the Assembly via a 2/3 vote for Justices?

I would not support it. Speaker's role is to run the legislature, not make nominations.

 

[Clorinda]

I would not support it. Speaker's role is to run the legislate, not make nominations.

So how do you propose dividing the power the Delegate currently has by being able to nominate all three justices?

 

[Frankender]

So how do you propose dividing the power the Delegate currently has by being able to nominate all three justices?

I just am against the Delegate holding the power in general. I would definitely rather an elected official be able to make such nominations.

However, perhaps I am wrong in my immediate assumptions. Can you explain what you mean by both the Speaker & Delegate having the power to nominate? As in they take turns? Or they both must agree?

What about Delegate, Speaker, & PM all vote on agreeing to a nomination (that way there is no split)? We also allow the PM more power this way as well.

 

[New Rogernomics]

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

This is incorrect, it is the judicial branch. The judicial branch is not a legislative body. It is both an interpreter and enforcer of the law, and it can determine whether citizens are abiding by the law and whether officials are following the law, or whether something is unconstitutional or not in their actions. Where enforcement comes in is relation to actions of officials and citizens, where it can overturn government actions or the actions of officials such as the Delegate, or deem them within the law.

 

[Frankender]

Wrong, it is the judicial branch. The judicial branch is not a legislative body. It is both an interpreter and enforcer of the law.

Lol, I am aware the judicial branch is not a legislative body. I guess you missed my point

& judicial branch does not enforce the law. The security branch does (e.g. expelling those from the region, banning from the forum etc)

 

[Clorinda]

I just am against the Delegate holding the power in general. I would definitely rather an elected official be able to make such nominations.

However, perhaps I am wrong in my immediate assumptions. Can you explain what you mean by both the Speaker & Delegate having the power to nominate? As in they take turns? Or they both must agree?

Right, so there are three justices. I mentioned the PM originally being able to nominate one of the justices, so let’s imagine this scenario:

Delegate chooses Candidate A as their nominee and they are subject to confirmation by the Assembly, Speaker and Prime Minister (MD) do the same with Candidates B and C.

Since a few people are against the PM’s involvement, perhaps the Delegate and Speaker could agree on a third nominee or maybe the third Justice could be up for election or be nominated by the VD or something. Not sure.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Lol, I am aware the judicial branch is not a legislative body. I guess you missed my point

& judicial branch does not enforce the law. The security branch does (e.g. expelling those from the region, banning from the forum etc)

Yeah, it does. As I edited into my post, the court can overturn government actions or the actions of officials such as the Delegate, or deem them within the law, as it isn't just a criminal court, but a constitutional court. That is enforcing the law.

 

[Frankender]

Right, so there are three justices. I mentioned the PM originally being able to nominate one of the justices, so let’s imagine this scenario:

Delegate chooses Candidate A as their nominee and they are subject to confirmation by the Assembly, Speaker and Prime Minister (MD) do the same with Candidates B and C.

Since a few people are against the PM’s involvement, perhaps the Delegate and Speaker could agree on a third nominee or maybe the third Justice could be up for election or be nominated by the VD or something. Not sure.

I wouldn't want to split the power the delegate currently holds to the vice delegate as it is essentially the same problem we face.

My favorite idea would be your first one, though, each "head" owning a justice nomination. As you know, I worry some people will block such legislation.

I would also be for your last suggestion; however, the three "heads" being:

• Delegacy (nomination)
• Speaker (nomination)
• Assembly (election)

I would support both ideas, so long as there aren't real reasons why this should be avoided

 

[Clorinda]

Yeah, it does. As I edited into my post, the court can overturn government actions or the actions of officials such as the Delegate, or deem them within the law, as it isn't just a criminal court, but a constitutional court. That is enforcing the law.

I think Frankender’s point is that the court cannot mechanically enforce the law, while the Delegate can.

 

[New Rogernomics]

I think Frankender’s point is that the court cannot mechanically enforce the law, while the Delegate can.

Getting confused then from what I was implying then, as I didn't use the term enforce in the post you replied to, I used the term "intervene", which means that the court has the power of enforcing the law in regards to saying that a government action is unconstitutional or illegal. This is what enforcement really means in a judicial setting, as the court isn't the one imposing the penalty or changing the policy or action i.e. that is the PM, the Director, or whoever has in-game powers. The court could be ignored, but that creates a political crisis of sorts in itself.

 

[New Rogernomics]

I think Frankender’s point is that the court cannot mechanically enforce the law, while the Delegate can.

Which is not what I was arguing against. What I was arguing against was that the composition of the Court has no security implications for the region, even though they have powers to declare actions of the Delegate, the PM, and others illegal or unconstitutional. In RL there would be branches of government that would set their own policy through specific institutions and you'd never have like the US Supreme Court deciding a military operation or what military action can be taken in real time*, but because of how the game is set up, courts in NS can be both a defense of the realm like buffer i.e. defeating a violation of the law, or an action that could lead to a coup, as well as an interpreter of laws.

*Like you'd have even internal courts, such as military courts, which deal with such things, and various internal regulations.

 

[Constie]

I’ll likely spin this off into another discussion thread about the separation of powers and the power of the Delegate because I’ve been meaning to discuss it. Because I think there are some serious misconceptions. For now I think electing Justices is very viable.

 

[New Rogernomics]

I wouldn't want to split the power the delegate currently holds to the vice delegate as it is essentially the same problem we face.

My favorite idea would be your first one, though, each "head" owning a justice nomination. As you know, I worry some people will block such legislation.

I would also be for your last suggestion; however, the three "heads" being:

• Delegacy (nomination)
• Speaker (nomination)
• Assembly (election)

I would support both ideas, so long as there aren't real reasons why this should be avoided

Court Justices are appointed on basis of vacancy, as we don't have regular elections for Court Justices. If nominations are to be put forward by the Speaker, then it would make more sense to do what we do with the military, and have the Speaker decide all of them, then have the Delegate approve, and it goes to vote. In real terms that means that the Delegate is more a rubber stamp, and doesn't say no unless the pick is really extremely out of order - which we've never had so far with military appointments, and I don't think we'd have it with Court picks either. That would probably be the way to do it, if it went with the original proposal of the PM deciding, as then there is a check on the PM only if necessary by the Delegate. If the Delegate refuses they'd have to have a really good argument to do so, or they could be recalled or their position called into question.

Effectively to put this into force though, two Court Justices would have to resign, even assuming this is amended into the mandate.

It would have to have a section within the proposed change that describes what happens to existing Court Justices, meaning are they all forced to resign, and will nominations be put forward after that?

 

[New Rogernomics]

I’ll likely spin this off into another discussion thread about the separation of powers and the power of the Delegate because I’ve been meaning to discuss it. Because I think there are some serious misconceptions. For now I think electing Justices is very viable.

Elections are viable in itself, though if we are having others than the Assembly itself decide who becomes a Justice, then that has implications for all kinds of things. Like should the Speaker, the PM, or the Delegate, have a say or not? We could argue all day about which position of government or official deserves that say i.e. head of government, head of state, or head of the Assembly.

 

[Frankender]

Court Justices are appointed on basis of vacancy, as we don't have regular elections for Court Justices. If nominations are to be put forward by the Speaker, then it would make more sense to do what we do with the military, and have the Speaker decide all of them, then have the Delegate approve, and it goes to vote. In real terms that means that the Delegate is more a rubber stamp, and doesn't say no unless the pick is really extremely out of order - which we've never had so far with military appointments, and I don't think we'd have it with Court picks either. That would probably be the way to do it, if it went with the original proposal of the PM deciding, as then there is a check on the PM only if necessary by the Delegate. If the Delegate refuses they'd have to have a really good argument to do so, or they could be recalled or their position called into question.

Effectively to put this into force though, two Court Justices would have to resign, even assuming this is amended into the mandate.

It would have to have a section within the proposed change that describes what happens to existing Court Justices, meaning are they all forced to resign, and will nominations be put forward after that?

I wouldn't suggest making any justice resign. Would definitely just say something along the lines of:
- of the current 3 justices, last remaining one counts as the delegate's pick
- after the first of the 3 original justices resigns, this is the speaker's pick
- after the second of the 3 original justices resigns, this is the assembly's pick
etc

 

[Chanku]

I currently think the current setup is probably the best for Lazarus given our history. Any other alternative can be used against us and makes myself very uneasy, having been in NS through the NLO coup and the having been a part of the Civil War. I would very much like to never see any attempt at a coup within Lazarus while I remain on Ns if possible .

 

[Wymondham]

I am firmly against any such proposal that would see justices being nominated by a political body. The courts strength and legitimacy lies in the fact that it is nominated from above the political fray, allowing the PM or any political body to nominate justices would sully the court and drag it through the political muck. Such a process would irrevocably damage the courts reputation for impartiality and seriously harm it's legitimacy

 

[Clorinda]

I am firmly against any such proposal that would see justices being nominated by a political body. The courts strength and legitimacy lies in the fact that it is nominated from above the political fray, allowing the PM or any political body to nominate justices would sully the court and drag it through the political muck. Such a process would irrevocably damage the courts reputation for impartiality and seriously harm it's legitimacy

Would you call the Speaker a political body?

 

[Deleted1]

I am firmly against any such proposal that would see justices being nominated by a political body. The courts strength and legitimacy lies in the fact that it is nominated from above the political fray, allowing the PM or any political body to nominate justices would sully the court and drag it through the political muck. Such a process would irrevocably damage the courts reputation for impartiality and seriously harm it's legitimacy

I agree with this and extend this thinking to the Speaker.