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

[Togas]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
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.

The power the delegate is often defined, IRL, but not always. Custom and practice has lead to acceptance of delegation. Often an official was elected to do a very big job that he could not, practically, do by himself, so when he delegated it to others, no one complained so long as the job was done and he was responsible FOR the job done.

Some good examples are: Sherriffs in the old west, The President and his many Executive Branch departments, Ambassadors, Judge appointed Commissioners and Referees (unelected judges hired in busy courts), District Attorneys, etc.

In our case, the power to delegate has not been defined nor has it been limited. It hasn't even been mentioned. You can either assume that the VP has no powers except those explicitly given by the people (the modern government theory) or that he is free except where limited by the law (Social Contract theory, general legal interpretation). Of course, the middle ground is that he's given his power to use at his discression, within reason. But that's rather difficult to define.

--Togas

P.S. I'm going to stop now. This is too much like what I have to do for a living and it's a Friday.

[cdinkle]

Seems okay to me.

[notyoueither]

Good poll UnOrthOdOx.

I was not trying to be a nay sayer in the other thread. I was trying to point out that your suggestion might have proved to be more contentious than you hoped for.

All it would have taken was one of the 3 voting no (currently) to complain. Injunction. Stop. Let's do the court thing, with only 3 active justices currently. Not fun. In the long run, this poll now very likely saves time rather than consuming it.

Now, with 88% approval in an official poll (at this point) I doubt anyone would complain, and if they did I would venture to guess that no injuction would be issued.

Togas makes some good points about legal and not legal, he also seems eager to get back into court All I would point out is that the CoL does address delegation of the role of game player and it stops at the VP.

[Apocalypse]

Who do you have in mind anyway, UnOrthOdOx?

I'm fine if it isn't me. I don't even think I would be able to play a turnthread this weekend.

[UnOrthOdOx]

NYE

I saw the wisdom of your point, and figured a poll could back me up a bit. Or at the least prevent the problem. I was not upset at your contetions one bit.

Generally, I am an easy going guy, willing to make exceptional compromises.

Togas, eager?

Hopefully I will not be on the other end this time. I really thouht he was going to win that one. I kinda hoped he would too...I was only defending because SOMEONE needed to.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Well, whatever I say will have little impact on the final result now (thankfully it is passing 29-3 at this post), but I feel I should chime in every now and again, for some bizarre sense of responsibility.

The purpose of us being here is to play the game as a group, making decisions democratically and keeping the game going. This idea is very much to aid the latter, whilst still respecting the former (the very nature of a poll). This is an exceptional circumstance, where first we had only one candidate running for each of Prez and VP, second my computer died before I'd played a turn, something it has not done in the 20 months I have owned it, and third, the VP is a poster with very much else to do in addition to the burden of the Prez's duties. If there were to be something preventing UnOrthO from what he is doing so damn well at the moment then we're all screwed for at least a few days. This is the worst scenario possible. With the power of short-term delegation or a chain of command, we can avoid this.

If this was to occur frequently during one term, we would need to seriously question whether the elected officials were really up to the challenge, but odd circumstances arise which we should not get overwrought about. We certainly can't hold re-elections whenever neither Prez nor VP is available for a short time, firstly because this is silly and would slow the game even more, and secondly because, if no-one else stood forward at the last elections, what evidence do we have that someone would for another election! (rhetorical question there )

With all of those who are at some educational level in the North Hemisphere back there now, it is hard to find willing Ministers, VP and Prez. Hell, it's hard enough to find candidates for the judiciary! We gotta take the volunteers we have and use them - if someone is unacceptable for a position, then fine. But we need to accept anyone who can do the job, and in the case that the two officials elected for the task are unavailable, the other volunteers (Ministers) should be able to be trusted to carry out their duties short-term.

[Panag]

hi ,

, could the people who voted NO please explain their views a bit , ....

have a nice day

[UnOrthOdOx]

Apparantly some idiot forgot to put the closing times in the poll options.

So this post declares the results, and closes the poll.

Yes: 31 83.78%
No: 6 16.22%

[Kuciwalker]

*sigh*

manually add +1 to YES

[Panag]

hi ,

lets hope there are some fast results , ...

have a nice day