Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'constitutional convention'.
Found 1 result
-
Well, I guess someone should start some discussion. And I do mean, logical rational discussion--my apologies for the title. I'm actually going to try to be serious. While Archsium's vision is (or was) to write a constitution that maintained all the aspects of government we already had, I get the feeling that others expect changes, even if they're minor ones. (We need to change election procedure so we don't have this stupid 50/50 split ever again--but that's a different story.) I don't really want to see a lot of change, but despite that, what I'm about to propose is technically and legally speaking a huge change. However, in the way we actually play the game, and in the way it affects things in the HGA, nothing will change. Here's my proposition: we do away with the judiciary entirely. Hear me out. I'm not really sure of this myself, but I think a discussion about it will at least mean we take the judicial branch more seriously in the future. I have three reasons. (Mostly just to fit with the clickbait title.) 1. Redundancy. Most of what the judicial branch does is already done--it's enumerated powers include only giving its opinions on things and enforcing the law. We have no lack of people giving their opinions, and it is the executive branch's job to enforce the law. Counter-argument: the "intentionally vague" clause. This clause seems to imply that the judicial branch has many un-enumerated powers, or that its responsibilities will grow. Rebuttal: It says right in the charter "All powers of the Judiciary shall be enumerated by the Government, and it is from there that the authority of the Judiciary derives. The Judiciary may be suspended or abolished by the Government by that same authority." This severely limits its power, effectively nullifying the "intentionally vague" clause in my opinion, especially as nobody has ever to voted to give it any more authority at all, and as the entire branch could be dissolved by a single vote. 2. Lack of purpose. This is kind of a rehash of the first argument. Normally the executive branch would be there to "enforce the laws." The judiciary would be there to judge cases to determine guilt, but in a situation where almost all action takes place in exchange of text visible to everyone, this is usually pretty obvious. Furthermore, the balance between an in-forum judiciary enforcing the civil code which is mostly in-game would be quite awkward. Counter-argument: Well how is the executive branch supposed to do any better? Rebuttal: I suggest a new position, perhaps one even borrowing a name from what has traditionally been the judiciary, but being part of the executive branch/council, with power to punish infractions. Counter-argument: what about appeals? Rebuttal: I don't know. 3. Inactivity. I've never seen the judicial branch do a single thing in the entire time I've been in TWP. But, instead of this causing issues, we've gotten along fine without it. So why not do away with it altogether and majorly simplify our government? I recognize that this may be controversial. I myself do not have strong-founded opinions on this subject, and am open to being convinced otherwise. But at the very least, I think a discussion of the judicial branch's role in TWP is in order.
