Roavin and Sheepshape have both brought up great points, and I broadly agree with most of them. Specifically, I really don't think we need an Attorney General type position -- I think it's fine if citizens can just file this stuff, as Roavin suggested. Aside from that, if we are going to have an Attorney General type position, can we please just call it the Attorney General and not "Defender of the Law"? We're supposed to be getting away from stylized titles in the law; we can change themes, titles, etc., for flavor separately if we want, but in the law they should just be plain, standard titles.
Re: the question Sheepshape asked about constitutional laws, the point of them, as in the South Pacific which also has this system, is to allow for important matters to be legislated separately from the constitution so it doesn't get too unwieldy, but also have the same weight as the constitution. It's not unlike TNP having a separate Bill of Rights, though TNP's Bill of Rights is at an even higher threshold than its constitution, but regardless it's a somewhat similar situation. Constitutional laws should probably be used sparingly, for very important matters that aren't likely to frequently be changed. So, it would be appropriate, in my view, to make a bill of rights a constitutional law, because rights are important and unlikely to frequently change. It wouldn't be appropriate to make legislative procedure a constitutional law, because while legislative rules may be of some importance, they're not of constitutional importance and they're likely to change often. Using that standard, I don't think it's appropriate for this to be a constitutional law, I think it should just be a general law, because I think judicial procedure is likely to be tweaked a fair bit.
Re: the question Sheepshape asked about constitutional laws, the point of them, as in the South Pacific which also has this system, is to allow for important matters to be legislated separately from the constitution so it doesn't get too unwieldy, but also have the same weight as the constitution. It's not unlike TNP having a separate Bill of Rights, though TNP's Bill of Rights is at an even higher threshold than its constitution, but regardless it's a somewhat similar situation. Constitutional laws should probably be used sparingly, for very important matters that aren't likely to frequently be changed. So, it would be appropriate, in my view, to make a bill of rights a constitutional law, because rights are important and unlikely to frequently change. It wouldn't be appropriate to make legislative procedure a constitutional law, because while legislative rules may be of some importance, they're not of constitutional importance and they're likely to change often. Using that standard, I don't think it's appropriate for this to be a constitutional law, I think it should just be a general law, because I think judicial procedure is likely to be tweaked a fair bit.
Cormac Skollvaldr
"We are all misfits living in a world on fire." - Kelly Clarkson, "People Like Us"
"We are all misfits living in a world on fire." - Kelly Clarkson, "People Like Us"