Can we reword the code of laws?

Ninot · July 20, 2002, 01:58

There has been some violent debating on rather or not ammendments must always be simple additions to the end of the code of laws, or if they can actually replace something in the code of laws.

If we were to reword something in the code of laws, that would involve actually replacing what is already there, and copying in the new passage in its place.

If we were to ammend to the code of laws as is the definition of that word, then nothing may be deleted from the code of laws. Instead, ammendments would go at the bottom, and state what they are changing.

So, the poll asks "Can we reword the code of laws"? (as is defined in the second paragraph of this post)

1: yes
2: no

it needs a 2/3'rds decision to become official. So if it finishes anywhere between 66% and 50%, the vote can't apply to anything.

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 02:01

Nein.

UnOrthOdOx · July 20, 2002, 02:05

edit:

I had the wrong link here, use Timeline's.

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 02:06

I suggest you also go here.

UnOrthOdOx · July 20, 2002, 02:07

Oh, and I also vote 'no' for reasons stated in the 'violent' debate.

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 02:19

And I vote 'yes' for reasons stated in the 'violent' debate.

GoodFella · July 20, 2002, 02:21

No
Nein
Nyet
Hmm...I've exhausted my limited knowledge of how to say "no" in different languages.

Ninot · July 20, 2002, 02:23

Quote:

Originally posted by GoodFella
No
Nein
Nyet
Hmm...I've exhausted my limited knowledge of how to say "no" in different languages.

how about non? thats two languages aint it?

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 02:28

Ninot: Thanks for editing your post to make it more neutral, but I'm afraid you have still failed to eliminate all bias. (hard I know)

Quote:

If we were to ammend to the code of laws as is the definition of that word,

I invite you, go look up the word in a dictionary. You will actually find it means alteration, among other things.

Quote:

then nothing may be deleted from the code of laws.

Far from it! We will always keep records of the Constitution and never forget what it once was. Our Historians will no doubt joyfully recite how things have changed, and I know I myself always keep records of the CoL after every change.

The point is, for new ones coming here and trying to learn our laws, it would be much simpler and far more preferable to keep things simple as basic as possible. After all, our people voted for a limited constitution, not a real-life like one where you have to be a lawyer to figure it out!

Right now, it would take someone 30 minutes scrolling up and down to put together all the changes and get an understanding of our law. Just imagine when we have five amendments, or ten. Ouch, what a waste of time when it could all be put together simple and easy to understand.

notyoueither · July 20, 2002, 02:29

Absofreakinlutely NOT.

New word, do I win a prize?

MrWhereItsAt · July 20, 2002, 03:02

Although I see no problem with small edits to parts of the Constitution, I guess it could work with just an amendment instead.

/me sees the Constitution reaching biblical size proportions in the not-too-distant future.

wervdon · July 20, 2002, 07:14

The only way I could see that being possible is if we pass an ammendment which basically says our new constitution is this, but I seriously doubt we ever need a 2nd or 3rd republic so to speak

Otherwise, short of a newly ratified constitution, the old one should stay as is.

EDIT: I could also see us doing it between demo games. But that is also a long way off.

Luk · July 20, 2002, 07:33

As European I vote yes. The structure of Apolytonia Code of Laws is structure of American Constitution which is an old structure and very not comfortable. I urge all European and non-American people to vote yes. It can not be that newbie will read our constitution and he will have a dificiculties to find the correct meaning of it. Almost all countries uses the system of reword, because it is simply newer and better.

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 07:39

^

He is soo right on this one.

jdjdjd · July 20, 2002, 08:28

With the US Cconstitution, when an Amendment is added that contradicts an old portion, the new amendment supercedes the old, yet the old remains in the doc for historical purposes. The new amendment would have language indicating it over rides

jdjdjd · July 20, 2002, 08:30

based on my above stmnt, does that mean I should vote no or yes?

civman2000 · July 20, 2002, 08:33

you should vote no.

civman2000 · July 20, 2002, 08:39

I think that even though we shouldnt change the original CoL, parts of the CoL (including amendments) that have been altered or removed should be in italics.

Will 5001 · July 20, 2002, 08:55

Yes - we don't need outdated references in our current constitution, it should be edited so it is kept up to date and Amendments should be added where there is no actual reference in the original constitution.

Luk · July 20, 2002, 09:37

Give the historians that what is historic, it is their duty to get such a historic data like the first document of our Apolytonian Code of Laws. It is their job! And we should not because of historical purposes mantain archaical form of the constitution

Will 5001 · July 20, 2002, 09:41

I totally agree.

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 10:21

As do I

Uh oh, I am actually agreeing with UFCers. NOoooooooooooooooooooo

Okay, I have an idea that may solve some of our problems for both sides possibly. I would like some comments on it please.

What if we reversed the process of amending our constitution? That is, place new appropriate text in its proper place at the top, but instead of removing the old text, it could be placed into a "superceded by amendment" section.

All new entries into the CoL, weather replacing something or not, would be placed in italics along with the date the amendment was added. The old, outdated text, would be removed from the constitution and placed in the “superceded by amendment” section. It would state which section it formally appeared in, have a date of amendment, and a link to the poll which made it invalid/overridden.

I think this would make things nice and clear for all of us, as well as a lot easier, and at the same time keep the historical log of our constitution, as well as give us a window on WHY it was changed in the first place (link to the original poll).

Please do not tie our hands by voting NO to "Can we reword the code of laws?" If you vote no, we will forever be stuck with an infernal and archaic document.

!!!

UnOrthOdOx · July 20, 2002, 10:51

This is better, but would again require each new president to rewrite the thing in the first place, thereby inviting minor changes that may go unnoticed forsome time. I don't see why we can't top a thread with the CoL, then amend it by replying to that thread. That way, we would also see which president made which ammendment by who replied. Personally, I fail to see how ammending at the end is so confusing. But, then, I am a bit used to such as I have studied law here in the US, so i my be just what I am used to,and therefore not confused.

July 20, 2002, 10:55

Minor changes can accumulate.

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 11:04

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
This is better, but would again require each new president to rewrite the thing in the first place, thereby inviting minor changes that may go unnoticed forsome time.

Even minor changes require a 2/3rds vote. Any President attempting to change even one word of the CoL that was not voted on would be impeached. Not worth the risk in my opinion.

Also, Edits are not ALWAYS displayed at the bottom of a post, sometimes they go invisible, so there is always a risk, and we must always check for alterations.

Quote:

I don't see why we can't top a thread with the CoL, then amend it by replying to that thread. That way, we would also see which president made which ammendment by who replied. Personally, I fail to see how ammending at the end is so confusing. But, then, I am a bit used to such as I have studied law here in the US, so i my be just what I am used to,and therefore not confused.

Along with the Date and Poll Link, we could also state which President instituted the amendment if we wish, so that is no big deal.

Maybe you cannot see how amending at the end is confusing, but surely you can admit a coherent and continuous document is easier to read than a chopped up one. I am not even saying it would be confusing, just very messy.

Again, the people voted for an effective, to-the point document, not a full blown constitution. We are not rewriting the US constitution here, not yet anyways

. Let’s keep things as simple and comprehensive as possible.

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 11:24

Here is a little example of one way it might be done. Notice here I used the rewording of the Foreign Affairs section as a stand alone amendment (just for demonstration on how any amendment could be done).

Here is what our CoL would look like:

Minister of the Military:
This officer is the principal military advisor to the President and the people, and prepares military plans and reviews overall military requirements for our nation. He/She also has the responsibility to assess threats to the security of the country and keep everyone up to date on these threats.

The Military Advisor is granted the power to set up the army's strategy. He tells what troops to move where, and which battles to engage.

The Military Advisor is granted the right to take an active part in negotiations of Peace Treaties, Mutual Protection Pacts, or a Right of Passage agreements. (Note: The Foreign Advisor calls the shots, but the Military Advisor must have his voice heard).

Minister of Foreign Affairs:

This minister is given the power to enter into diplomatic negotiations with other countries, however should refrain from making commitments until approved by the people.

The Foreign Advisor is granted the power to make peace, accept Mutual Protection Pacts, offer Right of Passage Agreements, and forge Military Alliances.

The exchange of all items, except Luxury, Gold, or Strategic resources falls on the broad shoulders of the Foreign Affairs Minister. It is, however, strongly recommended that the Foreign Affairs Minister consults with other ministers whose office may be affected by such trades.

This Minister is required to consult the Minister of Economy when Luxury, Gold, or Strategic resources are involved in a trade.

Trade Embargos must first be approved by both the Minister of Economy and Foreign Affairs Minister before they may be enforced. -Amendment IV (07/20/02)

City Planner:
The City Planner is truly an artist and an economist, for he is responsible for making the foundation of our nation, cities, as prosperous and successful as possible. The City Planner manages building queues and citizens, but may also request the Public Works minister to improve city tiles when needed.

The City Planner is strongly recommended to accommodate all Ministers who approach him/her with their various needs.

Now, here is the Amendment section:

Article IV: Amendments

Amendment IV: Rewording of Minister of Foreign Affairs
Date amended: July 20, 2002
Acting President: Ninot
Location: Article 1, “Minister of Foreign Affairs”
Comments: Reworded section to make reference to Minister of Economy, changed laws regulating Trade Embargoes.

Previous wording:
“Minister of Foreign Affairs:
This minister is the government’’s chief advisor on foreign affairs and is responsible for carrying out foreign policy. He/She is given the power to enter into diplomatic negotiations with other countries, however should refrain from making commitments until approved by the people.

The Foreign Advisor is granted the power to make peace, accept Mutual Protection Pacts, offer Right of Passage Agreements, and forge Military Alliances. The exchange of all items, except Strategic, Luxury, or Gold resources falls on the broad shoulders of the Foreign Affairs Minister. It is strongly recommended that the Foreign Affairs Minister consult the appropriate ministers when gifts or exchanges are involved.

This Minister is required to consult the Trade advisor when Gold, Luxury or Strategic resources are involved.”

Timeline · July 20, 2002, 11:30

SO this would make it so that anyone could just read straight down through our constitution and have access to the most up to date information without mentally copy and pasting in their minds.

And, for the Historians in us, it would still allow us to go to the bottom and se what our CoL was like long ago...

UnOrthOdOx · July 20, 2002, 16:20

An ineresting compromise. I can see where it would benefit many who are not familiar with the amendment process, and those who have english as a second language. And it also maintains the original wording, so I can go along with this proposal for the purpose of clarity and compromise.

Kuciwalker · July 20, 2002, 16:31

In most copies of the U.S. Constitution, they usually indicate in some fashion (in my Civics textbook they were in blue text) the parts that no longer apply.

Jon Shafer · July 20, 2002, 17:16

We could make the obsolete sections underlined, in bold, italicized, etc.

In books they're usually struck-through, but I'm not sure if we can do that here.