Article I: The Legislative Branch

Article I
Section 1 All law-making is to be invested in the Legislative Branch, Headed by a Law Council.

Section 2 The Law Council is to be composed of members chosen by the justices of a Supreme Court, With a head monarch able to veto a choice, but this veto can be overridden by the Supreme Court with a 2/3rds vote. A member of the Law Council will remain in position unless impeached until the next solstice, when the election is held.

No person will be a member of the Law Council whom has not completed two fortnights as a member of a lower legislative council. A member of the Law Council is to be known as a Senator, and will be addressed by that title in formal occasions.

The Law Council must contain no more than 2/3 of a political group, as classified by the NationStates political compass. The Law Council will have no more than 15 members at a time, thus, no more than 10 members will be of one party at a time.

When a case of over two thirds of one political group in in control, the minority will get one additional vote, to even out the Council.

When a senator's position is absented in their term, the minority will chose a replacement from five candidates, supplied by the supreme court. If multiple senators vacate their position at a time, the Head Royalty will choose and place all but one replacement in the empty seats, the last of which will be filled with the previously mentioned method.

Within the Council of law, the most elderly member of the council, as defined by the total time spent in the council, will be fill the office of the speaker of the house, with other officers chosen by popular vote within the council.

Section 3 Each senator of the council will have a term of 12 months, and each senator will have one vote, unless in an over 2/3rds minority.

Immediately after being elected to the Law Council, the members will be divided into two groups, the summer and winter solstice groups, at which the group of senators elected that time the previous year will resign, and an election will take place. The senators chosen during the previous solstice will continue their term until a year from their election.

in order for someone to become a member of the Council, the candidate cannot have been at any point a enemy of the state.

The Council and only the Council holds the power to file Non-royal impeachment suits

Section 4 The Council will meet weekly, with the days of Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday off duty. The meetings will last from Thursday, at 12:00 AM to the following Saturday, at 11:55 PM.

The Council will hold seasonal inter-governmental meetings, with all branches of the government gathering for a week around each solstice and equinox to correlate and enforce their laws and acts upon the other branches.

Section 5 Each branch will decide the punishments for misdemeanors within their branch, in addition to criminal charges for the activity stated by the criminal courts of each level, along with the power of how to hold internal elections, and position their members.

Each Board, Council, and Court will keep a log of the cases, laws, elections, and actions that have happened within themselves. This will be published every equinox, at the elections

No branch will adjourn their relative meeting for more than a week at a time

Section 6: All members of the Law council, in addition to councils of all governmental levels will get payed with government money, from the state treasury.

No senator of any council will be in either a army position, nor a judicial position at the same time, and any senator given new rank will not remain in the senate, unless they have married into, and have become, as a result of marriage heredity, a royal member of their rank.

Section 7: All bills as related to tax and revenue are within the power of the Council, and only if deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court can be ended before it has reached the resident queen or king.

Every Bill passed by the a Council will be checked by the resident queen or king, who will check the bill for constitutionality, and in addition by their judgement, will permanently veto or pass it to the Supreme Court, whom shall make the final check, before passing the bill or vetoing the bill. If a bill is vetoed by the Supreme Court, the queen or king may chose to attempt to pass the bill in the following session, and if approved by a 5/7ths vote, the bill may pass despite the initial veto.

Every Vote, Doctrine, or action must be approved by the resident queen or king before becoming enacted.

Section 8: The Council will have the power to propose taxes, and the means of securing the taxes, create plans on public debts, and only with allowance from a Unanimous decision from the Supreme Court may lay uneven tax laws to be proposed before the Monarch.

The Council may also propose laws and acts:

As related to Loans in the name of the United Countries;

Regulating commerce with foreign nations and native tribes, and between the included countries;

About rules as related to immigration and related processes;

As related so monetary value, minting coins, and standards of weights and measures;

For inter-national paths for government media to travel by, and government media stations;

Promoting  the sciences and the arts by methods of the media, and by reasonable awards for quality work on the sciences and the arts;

In order to establish international law courts inferior to the Supreme Court;

Define and outline punishments for civil, criminal, and war crimes, in addition the crimes against the United Countries, or any of it's members.

To create rules regulating the Military forces of the kingdom, for the purposes of health and safety;

To erect and construct buildings and structures needed for government purposes of any purpose, such as federal courts or military training camps;

And to help with any other government purpose allowed under this document.

Section 9: If agreed by a majority by the Supreme Court, Law Counsel, and the current monarch, and only if this is the case, can a temporary ban on immigrants from a certain region of the world be placed. No bans or laws will be placed to deter or prevent citizens from exiting or leaving the citizenship of this Kingdom. Homeland Security may conduct reasonable searches and screenings of immigrants, but cannot remove their rights, detain immigrants for more than a month, nor probe them in unreasonable ways.

The ability to be applied as an immigrant will always exist except in times of war or rebellion, with the candidate immigrant being from the contested area or region.

No tax or duty will be placed upon a visitor to the nations, nor shall they be detained for the course of their stay.

No preference will be given to certain immigrants over other in cases other than those with symptoms of major disease, or considered likely to attempt to terror-monger or sabotage the citizens or the state.

Certain persons can be supplied to the residing monarch for inclusion into royalty, as seen fit by the monarch.

Section 10: No branch, nor country included can create a treaty, alliance, declare war with, or an foreign nation, without the approval of the residing monarch, nor can a branch or included country declare war with another included country, and if so, the state guard may act without needed permission to quell such a war. The offending party will be put before court at the Supreme Court, to be decided if they are to be dishonourably dispelled from the union of the nations, or continue as a member, or any verdict in-between.

Finally, No branch or included nation may lay taxes on another included nation or tax, or prevent travel of either their, or a targeted nation's people.


Last edited by Ashla on Sun 18 Dec 2016 - 7:49; edited 4 times in total

I think that the limitation on more than 2/3 of legislators belonging to one party should be removed. I don't think that any real country limits how many members of a certain party can be in the legislature. I am against the idea of the minority getting an extra vote in the case of a 2/3 majority because that is undemocratic. I believe in the principle of one man one vote.

The members of the council are elected by the justices of the Supreme Court. If they pick people from the party predominant in their ideology, they could fully control the council. So, the limitations give the unsupported side, right or wrong in their actions, a fair chance

if they are dominating the senate, by 2/3rds, and the 1/3rd minority gets two votes, it evens it out 2/3rds to 2/3rds, so the parties stay in balance

Ashla wrote:The members of the council are elected by the justices of the Supreme Court. If they pick people from the party predominant in their ideology, they could fully control the council. So, the limitations give the unsupported side, right or wrong in their actions, a fair chance

if they are dominating the senate, by 2/3rds, and the 1/3rd minority gets two votes, it evens it out 2/3rds to 2/3rds, so the parties stay in balance

I can agree to that. I will not challenge you on that matter anymore.

Joseph1 wrote:

Ashla wrote:The members of the council are elected by the justices of the Supreme Court. If they pick people from the party predominant in their ideology, they could fully control the council. So, the limitations give the unsupported side, right or wrong in their actions, a fair chance

if they are dominating the senate, by 2/3rds, and the 1/3rd minority gets two votes, it evens it out 2/3rds to 2/3rds, so the parties stay in balance

I can agree to that. I will not challenge you on that matter anymore.

It is good that you brought up the issue though, That's why your in the constitutional framers group

I have no objections to the way the constitution is currently written. It all looks good to me.

very well

Looks good for now, but I do have some things to point out.

Using the NS political compass to define someone's political affiliation, while understandable, isn't necessarily accurate. You can hold political views without actually joining a political party, and there can be cases where two different parties occupy similar points on the political spectrum or compass without actually being identical, and thus attracting different members who would not necessarily vote the same way based on all issues. Political groups should be more of an affiliation thing rather than "here is where this scale says you belong".

Another thing is if we have "Senators" they should serve in a "Senate". Or if we have a "Council" the members should be "Councilmen/Councilwomen". Just some OCD matching of titles of people to titles of institutions.

And if this is for a global government I don't think the head should just a king/queen, but assume a higher title (Like High King/Queen, King/Queen of Kings, or Emperor/Empress) so that that way other "nations" who may so happen to be kingdoms aren't assuming equal station to head of state. Again it's just a matter of titles and the meaning behind them.

The kingdom of Warfang wrote:Looks good for now, but I do have some things to point out.

Using the NS political compass to define someone's political affiliation, while understandable, isn't necessarily accurate. You can hold political views without actually joining a political party, and there can be cases where two different parties occupy similar points on the political spectrum or compass without actually being identical, and thus attracting different members who would not necessarily vote the same way based on all issues. Political groups should be more of an affiliation thing rather than "here is where this scale says you belong".

Another thing is if we have "Senators" they should serve in a "Senate". Or if we have a "Council" the members should be "Councilmen/Councilwomen". Just some OCD matching of titles of people to titles of institutions.

And if this is for a global government I don't think the head should just a king/queen, but assume a higher title (Like High King/Queen, King/Queen of Kings, or Emperor/Empress) so that that way other "nations" who may so happen to be kingdoms aren't assuming equal station to head of state. Again it's just a matter of titles and the meaning behind them.

You bring up some valid points. I disagree with you slightly on the issue of the head of the global government being a king/queen. We are a Disney themed union, so we should have a king/queen. Disney does not have high kings and emperors. They have kings/queens and princes/princesses.

Joseph1 wrote:

The kingdom of Warfang wrote:Looks good for now, but I do have some things to point out.

Using the NS political compass to define someone's political affiliation, while understandable, isn't necessarily accurate. You can hold political views without actually joining a political party, and there can be cases where two different parties occupy similar points on the political spectrum or compass without actually being identical, and thus attracting different members who would not necessarily vote the same way based on all issues. Political groups should be more of an affiliation thing rather than "here is where this scale says you belong".

Another thing is if we have "Senators" they should serve in a "Senate". Or if we have a "Council" the members should be "Councilmen/Councilwomen". Just some OCD matching of titles of people to titles of institutions.

And if this is for a global government I don't think the head should just a king/queen, but assume a higher title (Like High King/Queen, King/Queen of Kings, or Emperor/Empress) so that that way other "nations" who may so happen to be kingdoms aren't assuming equal station to head of state. Again it's just a matter of titles and the meaning behind them.

You bring up some valid points. I disagree with you slightly on the issue of the head of the global government being a king/queen. We are a Disney themed union, so we should have a king/queen. Disney does not have high kings and emperors. They have kings/queens and princes/princesses.

Mulan had an emperor. Which is amazing considering how much of China they get wrong. But the precedent for an emperor/empress does exist.

The kingdom of Warfang wrote:

Joseph1 wrote:

The kingdom of Warfang wrote:Looks good for now, but I do have some things to point out.

Using the NS political compass to define someone's political affiliation, while understandable, isn't necessarily accurate. You can hold political views without actually joining a political party, and there can be cases where two different parties occupy similar points on the political spectrum or compass without actually being identical, and thus attracting different members who would not necessarily vote the same way based on all issues. Political groups should be more of an affiliation thing rather than "here is where this scale says you belong".

Another thing is if we have "Senators" they should serve in a "Senate". Or if we have a "Council" the members should be "Councilmen/Councilwomen". Just some OCD matching of titles of people to titles of institutions.

And if this is for a global government I don't think the head should just a king/queen, but assume a higher title (Like High King/Queen, King/Queen of Kings, or Emperor/Empress) so that that way other "nations" who may so happen to be kingdoms aren't assuming equal station to head of state. Again it's just a matter of titles and the meaning behind them.

You bring up some valid points. I disagree with you slightly on the issue of the head of the global government being a king/queen. We are a Disney themed union, so we should have a king/queen. Disney does not have high kings and emperors. They have kings/queens and princes/princesses.

Mulan had an emperor. Which is amazing considering how much of China they get wrong. But the precedent for an emperor/empress does exist.

I think that this union is based on European Disney. Disney has never had a European set film that had an emperor.

Proposed Amendment
Titles
It appears that the need for titles has arrived. It is apparent 2 of 3 members have voted in favour of the Law Council's member's titles being changed to councilman/woman. May I suggest councilperson?

As confronting the titles of nobility, I would like to suggest King/Queen of the United Countries, as opposed to King/Queen of ________. Thus a king or queen can be differentiated.

If the Proposed Amendment is ratified by a 2/3rds vote, it will be placed into action.

I, Queen of Barisea, and the United Countries, Submit my vote in favour of this Amendment.

Ashla wrote:Proposed Amendment
Titles
It appears that the need for titles has arrived. It is apparent 2 of 3 members have voted in favour of the Law Council's member's titles being changed to councilman/woman. May I suggest councilperson?

As confronting the titles of nobility, I would like to suggest King/Queen of the United Countries, as opposed to King/Queen of ________. Thus a king or queen can be differentiated.

If the Proposed Amendment is ratified by a 2/3rds vote, it will be placed into action.

I, Queen of Barisea, and the United Countries, Submit my vote in favour of this Amendment.

I get what you are trying to do here, but it doesn't resolve the issue. The title of king/queen is always the title of king/queen regardless of whatever it is applied to. The issue is that using the same title implies equal standing where it is does not exist.

Also you didn't respond to the issue of how we define political groups.

Also, to avoid double posting I would have to say that you would need to extend beyond European Disney to have a truly global government. Otherwise we are just a monarchist EU (certainly better than the current EU but I digress) so to completely ignore the Emperor's New Groove and Mulan would be contradictory to the point of the global government.

The full title is ______ of the United Countries
The independent nation's title is _________ of __________

On the Issue of Ideologies, Although not perfect, and not truly centered, it does give a general idea, and if it is an easy and workable method, we should use it as a minor safeguard.

In addition, you should submit your vote in the poll at the top of the page

Ashla wrote:The full title is ______ of the United Countries
The independent nation's title is _________ of __________

My point is that in the peerage system the "of ___________" part does not change the standing of the title. The standing in the title is based on the title itself, with the Imperial and High Royal being above Royal titles.
For the head of the union to only assume the royal position puts them in equal standing in regards to the system of peerage, which is the issue, and changing the "of ______" part doesn't resolve it because being Emperor of Bavaria (does not exist) would not be lower than the position of Holy Roman Emperor because they are both emperors, so for the Duke of Bavaria to have made such a claim would be to assert equal status to that of the emperor, and it could not be done because he was beneath the emperor.

We should see how others feel, and please alert me if you agree with any part of the amendment

Ashla wrote:We should see how others feel, and please alert me if you agree with any part of the amendment

I agree with the first part definitely, but the second part is in my mind still debatable.

I have other things to say in regards to the ideology part but we can get back to that.

Then please submit your view in the poll above

Ashla wrote:Then please submit your view in the poll above

Actually wait I have an idea that might work.

The hierarchy of titles might not be an issue an constitutional monarchies, but in countries where the peerage system is still in effect it would, so countries should be able to address the monarch of the union however their customs allow as long as it is deemed sufficiently respectful. (IE, you couldn't call the monarch of the union a count/countess as that would disrespectful).

I would agree with this statement

Ashla wrote:I would agree with this statement

So does that mean we reached a compromise?

In regards to ideology, I think if we are going to use that system it's fine, but we should also apply a system to partisan affiliation and coalitions, so basically, if the Iron Fist Consumerists get all the power they can legally get, IE 2/3rds, than they wouldn't be able to extend their power by making any deals with say, the compulsory Consumerists.

The kingdom of Warfang wrote:

Ashla wrote:I would agree with this statement

So does that mean we reached a compromise?

In regards to ideology, I think if we are going to use that system it's fine, but we should also apply a system to partisan affiliation and coalitions, so basically, if the Iron Fist Consumerists get all the power they can legally get, IE 2/3rds, than they wouldn't be able to extend their power by making any deals with say, the compulsory Consumerists.

No, thus we should extend the blockage to neighboring ideologies, In addition to the original

Ashla wrote:

The kingdom of Warfang wrote:

Ashla wrote:I would agree with this statement

So does that mean we reached a compromise?

In regards to ideology, I think if we are going to use that system it's fine, but we should also apply a system to partisan affiliation and coalitions, so basically, if the Iron Fist Consumerists get all the power they can legally get, IE 2/3rds, than they wouldn't be able to extend their power by making any deals with say, the compulsory Consumerists.

No, thus we should extend the blockage to neighboring ideologies, In addition to the original  

But anyone on the same side of one spectrum could in theory all support each other in a similar way. Should we prevent everyone on one side of the economic freedom scale from getting more than two thirds? At what point are we going to far? it seems like it would be easier to apply another layer regarding party affiliation and coalitions. Then People with one ideology who lean closer to another one on the spectrum are blocked while those that are further away are protected.

So... must the other third be split up among people whom are on the opposite side of the axis that the 2/3rds are most extreme in?

Ashla wrote:So... must the other third be split up among people whom are on the opposite side of the axis that the 2/3rds are most extreme in?

Not exactly, I'm trying to prevent that polarization by giving people with different ideology the ability to band together but by applying the block to these groups. Some Democratic Socialists and Liberal Democratic Socialists want to work together that's fine, but the block should only apply to the ideologies individually AND those that are working together; a lib dem soc who does not want to work with dem soc should not be punished by a dem soc majority, whereas a lib dem soc that is should be.