Official: Should the Executive branch have the right to delegate?

UnOrthOdOx · August 23, 2002, 07:09

Hi

Question: Should the Executive branch have the right to delegate the power to play the game to a minister in the event of one or more of the executive branch becomming unable to perform for a short period, not to exceed more than two Turnchats/threads?

Yes
No

Oh, and it expires in 5 days.

UnOrthOdOx · August 23, 2002, 07:13

This is strictly to keep the game moving. Whould the pres or VP be able to delegate the right to play a turn chat/thread to someone when one or more of them is rendered temporarily unable to. This is virtually the same as the ministers having deputies, and would serve to keep the game moving. Ask yourself, what happens now if MY computer goes down? Do we spend four days or more voting on what to do?

Is it against the CoL? Well, nothing expressly forbids it.

Is this an ammendment? no, just an official poll.

DAVOUT · August 23, 2002, 07:21

In the silence of the law, and to meet exceptionnal circumstances, the supreme power could be delegated to a minister (elected, not appointed), with limitations in the extent of the powers delegated, and in time.

Panag · August 23, 2002, 07:33

hi ,

, intresting topic

since this Q is going to be asked ; what about the so called 'CoL' , ....

one thing that shall happend is that with good communications and the nessesary rules and agrements the game shall move faster (!)

have a nice day

P.S. after refresh the vote does not show up

UnOrthOdOx · August 23, 2002, 07:36

The CoL?

Does this NEED to be an ammendment?

No. With the court, and the archived polls, an official poll will serve the purpose just fine. The CoL says nothing AGAINST this, so it CAN be done, this will just make it 'official' or not.

DAVOUT · August 23, 2002, 07:41

Would it be a problem to insert the limitations I indicated above in the formal delegation of power ?

UnOrthOdOx · August 23, 2002, 07:42

To a minister...OK, that seems like a fair compromise.

Done.

adaMada · August 23, 2002, 07:46

I would agree that the Executive Branch should be able to delegate the power to play turns to someone else; I'd personally perfer that the ministers play the game instead of an appointed official, however. I could see three ways of doing this: a chain of ministers be set up, and that the task moves down the chain until one is able to do it; the prez/vice prez choose which minsiter they want to play the turn; or there be a rotating list of Ministers.

Even if the President/Vice President does appoint a person to play the game, however, that'd probably be ok too.

-- adaMada

DAVOUT · August 23, 2002, 07:59

Can I insist that the powers delegated be limited, at least in time ? Otherwise it could be used as a way to transmit your office till the end of the mandate.

GodKing · August 23, 2002, 08:38

no objections here.

UnOrthOdOx · August 23, 2002, 08:52

Davout.

It states that this is only when one or more of the executives is missing, it states that it is for a short time. Should we mandate 'only one turn' or something of the like? not IMO. Anything that would come up to delegate for an extended time would already require that an executive be GONE for the extended time. If that would happen, there would be an emergency election to replace that executive. If you are that worried about the people you elected abusing this power, vote no. At some point, we must trust the elected officials to make the right decision. And that is speaking as a citizen, not as VP. We trust the ministers to appoint deputies. Why should this be any different?

DAVOUT · August 23, 2002, 09:23

Delegation of the powers of the elected President is not an ordinary matter, and all details are of major importance, particularly in the silence of the law.

For the trust, I expect that our constitution will leave a very small place to it, if any : political leaders do hopefully their best in their office, but under the control of the people; trust is not enough. Our american friends write on their notes In God we trust, which means Only in God ...

BTW I have voted yes, and I make suggestions because I am worried for you, VP acting President, not for me. I understand that you are under pressure, but remember who said if you do it, do it right ? Answers to your poll are not necessarily antagonistic, they could aim only to do something right, even if you think differently.

UnOrthOdOx · August 23, 2002, 09:41

OK, you got me there.

Ok, Ok. How is two chats/thread maximum. Anything more requires an emergancy vote.

DAVOUT · August 23, 2002, 09:51

Agree, just because I cant help trusting you a little

Harovan · August 23, 2002, 09:56

It is ok to name a deputy for turnthreads, at which the minister is absent. But this shall be limited. 2 is a good number for this limit. Who is absent for longer, should step back from his minister office, or not run for the given term (as I did, because I won't be here for the next 2 weeks).

Definitely not tolerable is to split the office in 4 parts and to name 3 permanent deputies, as seen in the city planning office

. This has nothing to do with democracy. If one is unable to do his job himself and alone, he should have not ran for the minister post.

Since my answer would be "Yes and No" or better "Yes, but not in the way it is abused" and there's no abstain option, I refuse to vote.

UnOrthOdOx · August 23, 2002, 09:59

Ralph:

This is only concerning the Executive office of President and Vice President. The regional governers are another matter, and one that needs to be addressed, IMO. Give me a minute or day or something before I get to that. This is an emergency act to keep the game moving in the event we loose BOTH Pres and VP to some unforseen event, as we could, Banana forbid, at this time due to MrWIA and his computer outage.

mtgillespie · August 23, 2002, 10:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
It is ok to name a deputy for turnthreads, at which the minister is absent. But this shall be limited. 2 is a good number for this limit. Who is absent for longer, should step back from his minister office, or not run for the given term (as I did, because I won't be here for the next 2 weeks).

Definitely not tolerable is to split the office in 4 parts and to name 3 permanent deputies, as seen in the city planning office

. This has nothing to do with democracy. If one is unable to do his job himself and alone, he should have not ran for the minister post.

I don't agree with the second paragraph. The minister is responsible for his office. If he chooses to delegate some of his power, so be it. He can always overrule if he chooses, and he will be the one held accountable if something goes wrong. What's the problem?

Edit : Sorry, this is threadjacking. I'll shut up

Harovan · August 23, 2002, 10:18

In this case the answer is no.

The President already has a deputy, the Vice President. If both can't play, let them step back and reelect others.

UnOrthOdOx · August 23, 2002, 10:24

I respect your opinion, Ralph, but that defeats the purpose of keeping the game moving.

Say, I have scheduled a trunthread for this Sunday. Tomorrow, let's say my computer explodes. This would give me the right to appoint AN ELECTED MINISTER to play out that turnthread according to the plan while I fix my comp. If both the president and I am going to be out for say, more than a week, yes, an emergency vote should take place to replace me, but the appointed minister could still play the planned turn while the elections took place.

Think of it as a chain of command based on which minister COULD do the chat/thread on the given day.

mtgillespie · August 23, 2002, 10:29

As long as it is someone elected, not appointed, who is going to play, and there is the two thread limit, where's the problem? We have to be at least a little flexible to keep the game moving.

Reddawg · August 23, 2002, 11:26

I don't see the problem with this. In fact if the turnthread is already written up, how much does it matter who actually executes the orders in-game? Not much I think.

I just see this as another way of declaring... what's it called? I forget... but in the U.S. the President is first, if he disappears then it's the VP , then it's the president protempor of the Senate, then the speaker of the house, then the head of the state department.... i think that's all this vote is really for, to say that the VP can hand over to the next in line. and since we dont have a Senate, he can just choose whoever.

Ninot · August 23, 2002, 11:32

i dislike the idea
imho, there are some issues to be dealt with if both elected executives cant do the job. i dont think the ministers should ever get pulled into it. just MHO.

DAVOUT · August 23, 2002, 11:38

There is no problem, there is only the fact that the power granted by elections has a specific nature which makes that it cannot be transmitted without extraordinary caution. Since we are trying to do things democratically, we have to pay attention not to loose the respect due to the people through the institutions.

Panag · August 23, 2002, 14:11

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT
There is no problem, there is only the fact that the power granted by elections has a specific nature which makes that it cannot be transmitted without extraordinary caution. Since we are trying to do things democratically, we have to pay attention not to loose the respect due to the people through the institutions.

hi ,

indeed that is a good point

Uno , it seems logical that because of some problem , like with the comp , that could lead in a prolonged stay of absence we should have something , like a back-up government , hey , it happens in real live , we do it at the gameclub , yeah why not , ...

a sort of FEMA sounds great

and to toggle problem ones and for all , if you cant be here , like Sir Ralph say's , for two weeks , te job should be filled in , we could , should have a minister on standby , or a judge could take over , ...

anyway , we should take this in the CoL , so that the problem is fixed for the future , ...

allas , have a nice day

Togas · August 23, 2002, 15:20

The fact of the matter is, Unorthodox can do whatever he want so long as it is not illegal. That's how laws work. All things not expressly illegal are legal.

If he wants to delegate, then he can. There's nothing forbidding this. We Ministers are already starting to delegate our powers to deputies. In the real world this is the ordinary course of business.

If we want to pass a law limiting this power, then do it. But until a law is passed that says that he cannot, he could appoint someone ... anyone ... to assist in his job.

Our remedy as citizens (if we feel his actions are improper, illegal, or irresponsible) is to either impeach, bring suit to court, or elect someone else next year.

Consider this: The President of any country appoints hundreds of people to do his job for him. He often has his secretaries sign documents on his behalf. He is ultimately responsible for seeing that the job is done, however, he does not ultimately have to do the entirety of the job.

--Togas

Shiber · August 23, 2002, 16:50

Actually, the definition of modern law determines that a citizen may do anything that is not forbidden by law, whereas the government can do only what it has been permitted to do by law.
Whether or not we should act in according to that is another question. This isn't the real world, it's just a game and the government doesn't have any actual power outside the game itself.
If an official decides to do something that is questionable, he should ask the people first. If he doesn't then he should know that he might get impeached if the people dislike what he did.

DAVOUT · August 23, 2002, 16:54

The praticality does not prevent things to be clearly defined. Togas should add in the description of delegation of powers in RL that when a power is granted, the power to transmit it is also defined, and generally limited. And the assistance of powers holders is totally an other thing ; please do not mix the cocktail invitations signed by the secretaries with international treaties necessarily signed by the elected President, and nobody else.

civman2000 · August 23, 2002, 17:38

I don't see why not

Togas · August 23, 2002, 18:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
Actually, the definition of modern law determines that a citizen may do anything that is not forbidden by law, whereas the government can do only what it has been permitted to do by law.

That would be the case if we had a true "modern government" empowered to seize the property, liberty, or lives of its people. That concept is also aptly decribed as "modern," and is from more recent historical development in democracies who have given their citizen a "bill of rights."

Let's not start pretending that there's a real government that is going to trample on all of our rights unless it is closely limited by the letter of the law, and let's get back to realizing that this is a game, it's rules should be interpreted as simply as any game's rules, not using the highly complex standards that modern nations are held to. Leave that stuff to the lawyers.

This isn't abuse. This isn't illegal. Let's inject a little common sense into things and give Unortho (who's got a very difficult job) the chance to delegate some of that job. This is common, practical, reasonable, and lawful.

If you still disagree, bring the matter to The Court AFTER Unortho has done something you think is breaking the CoL and I'll defend him.

Not that he needs any help defending himself...

--Togas

Apocalypse · August 23, 2002, 18:23

This is a fine idea. Anything to keep the game moving.