All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
  Offline
PostPosted: July 12th, 2016, 2:21 am 
User avatar

Joined: April 28th, 2016, 6:15 pm
Posts: 2001
Location: California
Considering the Emperor would be a King anyways, they'd already have this power.

_________________
Ealdorman Cerdic Beoden Accynnafon of Östlond
Runner Up of the Glas Claddach Boat Building Competition
Minister of Justice


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
  Offline
PostPosted: July 12th, 2016, 2:46 am 
User avatar
King

Joined: May 31st, 2015, 3:32 am
Posts: 846
I actually like the information that has been provided. It encapsulates long standing traditions but also gives the nobles a voice in the initial phases (i.e. nominations) and is exactly what is needed for a better nomination. This has been very long coming and I think we should push it forward.

_________________
Scrios V
King of Perth, Brother of Valyria


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
  Offline
PostPosted: July 12th, 2016, 7:46 am 
King

Joined: February 24th, 2016, 8:29 pm
Posts: 563
Good stuff! Would someone want to take a crack at taking the old Constitution, add any new elements from the current constitution, and then add suggested amendments to get this process rolling? Technically none of what was suggested is refuted in the Constitution EXCEPT the judging part raised by Chairman, or the fact that there is no mention that only a king can be emperor.

I still recommend, for the Emperor to be ceremonial, that the lines about the Emperor being the "source of objectivity, with truth and divinity being delegated to the kings" remain, because this is a purely symbolic and philosophical clause anyway, as it is what legitimizes the kingdoms, empire, etc. There is no reason to read these as practical powers anyway, given all "subjective" (that means, applied) divinitiy was delegated to Kings. the Emperor only has like a spiritual power (which means, non-real world).

Note: unless amendments to the constitution required 2/3rds majority in the past. How do we amend the constitution while bybassing the amendment law? Although TBH I think we'd get the 2/3rds majority anyway. Especially if many of the above points are left to 'practice'.

E.g., there is no clause in Canadian/UK/Commonwealth constitutions that say the queen is only ceremonial, but in practice she is. Most of these outlines could be drafted as a "common law principle" rather than a constitutional amendment.

Anyway, I think before we elect anyone, it's time for someone to take a crack at modernizing the constitution. I recommend using the original as a base, and adding new bits, and suggested amendments to get the conversation started. There are plenty of interesting thoughts in the related threads on it. Remember, the constitution and various laws are different. Add any constitutional components to the constitution, and add related laws to the Criminal Code (or create new acts if needed). This is to ensure certain laws are more protected by the 2/3rds majority requirement, such as laws that define the very basis of our system. Criminal laws should be easier to reform (therefore, left at the current 50% threshold) as situations evolve and priorities of changing kings evolve.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=752


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Imperium - Modified by Rey phpbbmodrey