Mideast Assembly Thread

[big bad fab]

Of course, we need to do something.

My problem is that only one judge isn't much and that it's better to have 3 of them to get more balanced judgements.
But I know there may be not enough active Mideasterners.

It may be hard to have non-Mideasterners as judges (not more than 2 out of 3 though). I'm not saying I'm in favour of this, but I'd like to debate on this because it's worth it and collective intelligence is better...
To begin with, it may be argued that it would be better to have 1 or 2 outsiders to get impartial judgements.

[big bad fab]

Of course, we need to do something.

My problem is that only one judge isn't much and that it's better to have 3 of them to get more balanced judgements.
But I know there may be not enough active Mideasterners.

It may be hard to have non-Mideasterners as judges (not more than 2 out of 3 though). I'm not saying I'm in favour of this, but I'd like to debate on this because it's worth it and collective intelligence is better...
To begin with, it may be argued that it would be better to have 1 or 2 outsiders to get impartial judgements.

See bold above--I think you hit the nail on the head regarding that proposal.

I'd like to see us move to a semi-permanent justice to start and see how it works. Still, I can't say Fab's proposal might have some merit. Any other thoughts here? The idea of non-Mideasterners being more neutral has some appeal, but wouldn't they lack experience and history in our region's laws compared to a Mideastern judge?

TBH, many of us, Mideasterners, precisely lack this experience and history...
(When I say "us", it's to include myself and some others, not Badger.)
And I don't think we'd create this job just to appoint Peter permanently: even if he may be the first permanent judge, after him, there will be others...

What is more, having a outsider view may well bring other points of comparison, other legal and court practices, other precedents and examples, which may well be an asset when judging on Mideastern matters.

To continue my arguing,
- I'm always disturbed when there is only one judge, especially on constitutional matters (for electoral disputes, that's less a problem). We should aim at balanced and strongly-based judgements.
- But, to have 3 fair, clever and experienced judges, we would be forced to slash the Assembly... or, at least, the candidates to the Assembly... or the potential governors...
- Hence my proposal of non-Mideasterners.

Now that Peter is in function, I can say that I've personally suggested to our Governor (before having read our Constitution...) to nominate Peter, Gustaf and Smid: just an example of what would be a fine court in the Mideast, with 2 fair and clever outsiders (again, it's just an example; people have to agree...).

As Badger has said, any other thoughts ?

[big bad fab]

OK, dear Governor, my fellow Assemblymen (effective and in-waiting),
you've convinced me.
In fact, as I myself have underlined, I wasn't so sure about my proposal: I wanted to see it debated a bit.

So, I can already say that the amendment proposed by Badger receives my agreement.

[big bad fab]

Can Giovanni go to the "swearing in" thread, so that the new Assembly is able to begin to work ?

With our Governor's answer to Badger's request after the Superior Court's decision, True Conservative is among us now, don't you think, Dean Swedish Cheese ?

[big bad fab]

Again taking the risk to be viewed as a big-government conservative (), I have to say that I agree with our Speaker on many very practical objections he has made, but it's only one position to fill.

And having a permanent one force the judge to remain regularly aware of all the Mideast executive and legislative work.

Besides, I think a permanent judge would be ready to review laws towards the Constitution, as a possible effect of my bill on reviewing periodically our laws.

Which leads me to urge all of you not to forget to finish the debate about my own proposal...

[big bad fab]

Still no news from Giovanni ?

I've tried to find something on elected Assemblymen who don't take the oath, but found nothing.

It should simply be viewed as an absence, shouldn't it ?
Aren't we able to keep on working ?
Provided the bills gather 3 votes in favour, I think, there is no problem in this.
If Giovanni had already taken the oath but had disappeared, it would have been the same problem, but we would have proceeded.

The point here is that, because it seems to be forced on him and it seems he is not at all responsible, we or the Governor of course can't expell him or certify he resigns, sort of (anyway, there is no rule on this... !).
So, I think we must stick to a 3-vote majority, to be legally sure and sound.

An interesting case, except that we are stalled...
And a session of ONLY 2 months...

[big bad fab]

AYE

[big bad fab]

But impeachment implies that he can be removed by a legislative body.  Why not just keep it at "resignation or recall" and add in impeachment if we ever establish impeachment in the Constitution?

I agree with our Governor on this. Let's stick with the current "reality".

[big bad fab]

Our Speaker may resubmit it with the new word and without the last paragraph.

I'll vote AYE almost immediately.

And has anybody news from Gio ?
Even though we can keep on working, it's a bit embarrassing, as his political positioning may well decide some votes one way or the other !
Therefore I don't push and push my Reviewing Bill again.
Therefore I don't make any new proposal.

[big bad fab]

Our Speaker may resubmit it with the new word and without the last paragraph.

I'll vote AYE almost immediately.

And has anybody news from Gio ?
Even though we can keep on working, it's a bit embarrassing, as his political positioning may well decide some votes one way or the other !
Therefore I don't push and push my Reviewing Bill again.
Therefore I don't make any new proposal.

Please note the future !
I'm waiting for the vote to open on the right version.

[big bad fab]

Dear Speaker,
My fellow Assemblymen,

I hereby resign from my position of Mideast Assemblyman.

As I've said to our Governor, I'm sorry to say this so abruptly, even if there were some signs...

But a mix of personal and Atlasian reasons have led me to crush my intent of sticking to my word and finishing my term.

I hope you will forgive me. I'm not very proud of this but I'm so disappointed of Atlasia that I wasn't able to keep on.

I wish you the best in your fine legislative work.

Feel free to bring back my Reviewing Laws bill and updated versions of my amendments on private property and right to life.

It was a great thing to work with you to try to improve the legal environment of our great Mideast.

Yours friendly.

Big Bad Fab

[big bad fab]

I nominate Inks for the position of Speaker of our new Assembly.

[big bad fab]

First, I'd like to congratulate our Governor for his election. As an experienced Assemblyman and a clever, fair and moderate Speaker, I'm sure he will do a great job as Governor.
I'm sure he will stick to his bipartisan behaviour and he will try to seek the general interest of the whole Mideast region.

Second, I'd like to congratulate Inks for his swift election to the speakership of our Assembly. I trust him to be a fair and efficient speaker, able to organize and manage our debates and votes.

To begin with, I'd like the new Assembly to discuss and vote on this constitutional amendment that I've already put forward in another session.

The Eminent Domain Statute only deals with PUBLIC entities using or taking private property, not with PRIVATE entities taking or trying to take or using without being allowed private property of another else.

So, I think we need a higher protection for private properties against PRIVATE attempts to dminish it:

Protection of Private Property Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

II. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be taken or used by another private legal entity. Private property shall not be taken by a public legal entity for public use, without just compensation."

Thank you for your attention, my fellow Assemblymen.

[big bad fab]

BBF, how would you define "private property" and "private entity?"

Do I have to define "private property" more than it is defined in the Constitution ?
Everything (real-estate, movables, software, etc) that is owned by a legal entity that is not public.

As for private entity, I mean legal entity that is not a public one: individuals, associations (clubs, leagues, political parties, etc), businesses.

I'm sorry if I'm not very clear in English. I have indeed a big problem with legal language... although I precisely see what I mean in French, of course
I'm open to any suggestion of course.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Taken literally, this could have a different meaning to the one intended - i.e. it removes the right of private parties to exchange goods, form contracts, make gifts, etc.

Furthermore, even just focused on the intent that is intended, I fail to see why the Constitution should be used to regulate the actions of private parties interacting, unless its something grotesque like slavery, which I don't believe this is. Ultimately, any party has the right to go to Court through the many statutes that exist to protect private property from effective theft, not to mention a right at common law.

You're right, it's not at all well written.
Depending on how the debate keeps on, I can amend my own proposal:
"13. Private property shall not be taken or used by another private legal entity without owner's agreement. Private property shall not be taken by a public legal entity for public use, without just compensation."
Any other suggestion is welcome.

On the other point, of course, it's the Constitution, but it's the Bill of Rights. If the Bill of Rights deals with the protection of private property against public interferences, I think it can, it should, deal with interferences from other private entities.

Maybe it's a very continental European viewpoint, but that's the way the French Declaration of Human Rights works.

I know there isn't any big problem in the US with Gipsies' taking private properties, but it's a real problem in Europe, even though political correctness implies you must see them as a poor minority everywhere, even if you're not in Romania, Hungary or Slovakia.

The Internet piracy or the abusive use of private data for private use are other examples of widespread infringements on private property, that require the biggest possible protection.
Judgements of Courts may change and may not be enough to guarantee the right to private property.
And, of course, Statute Laws can be amended far more easily than constitutional rules. So, I think they are not enough.

I don't really see why we would need this.  Eminent domain really only deals with public entities (at least that was my understanding).

That's precisely the problem I have with this: it only deals with public entities using or taking private property, not with private entities taking or trying to take or use, without being allowed, private property of another people.
My problem isn't only with government potential infringements but also with private breaches of private property.

[big bad fab]

Protection of Private Property Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

II. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be taken or used by another private legal entity without owner's agreement. Private property shall not be taken by a public legal entity for public use, without just compensation."

Without any other suggestion, this is the amended version I submit to the Assembly.

[big bad fab]

*Cough* *cough*

Our Speaker will probably open the vote soon...

[big bad fab]

AYE

[big bad fab]

Some of you may remember that, in a former session of our Assembly, I put forward the foillowing proposal.
There were criticisms on this for being somewhat complicated, even "bureaucratic"...

The Periodical Assessment of Statute Laws for a Better Accountability of our Government Bill

I. Each year, the Assembly reviews the Statute Laws which came into force 5 years earlier, in order to check their lasting usefulness, to scrap Statute Laws that have become useless or to amend Statute Laws that have more downsides than upsides.

II. To that aim, an Assemblyman shall submit an "Assessement Report" to the Assembly regarding each law referred to in clause I.
After having consulted the Governor's office, every accurate administrative entity, the other members of the Assembly, the Atlasia Game Master and a number of citizens, and having checked the overall and additional costs, the financial implications and the results of the law, the Assemblyman writes an "Assessment Report".

III. The "Assessment Report" shall give a statement:
a. on the overall and the additional costs of the law,
b. on the current risks and the possible future risks (at least in the following areas: constitutional risks, safety and human risks, security risks, financial risks),
c. on the upsides and downsides and on the efficiency of the law in comparison with its original aims and with the means it uses or its implementation implies,
d. on its compatibility with the Constitution and with other Statute Laws.
The report shall conclude whether the law can be let unchanged or needs to be repealed or amended, due to incompatibility, to uselessness, to excessive risks or to excessive costs.
The Assemblyman who has written the report shall introduce at the same time a bill to repeal or amend the law if the report concludes so.

IV. Each year, before the end of January, the Assembly by a majority vote or its Speaker if no majority is reached shares out between the Assemblymen (including the Speaker) the reviewing work of all the Statute Laws which came into force in the preceding 5th year.

But the need for periodical reviewing of our legislation is still here, in order to simplify it, to amend it, to improve it, as reality changes, evolves faster and faster, as our financial resources are under strain, as our Government needs to remain not too big and to act humbly and moderately.

The assessment of legislation is almost as important a work than the vote of new legislations. With an Assembly of five members, it should be easier to perform this task of reviewing the laws.

But we don't need a very exhaustive process. So, I wish to propose the "lighter" following:

The Periodical Assessment of Statute Laws for a Better Accountability of our Government Bill

I. Each year, the Assembly reviews the Statute Laws which came into force 3 full years earlier, in order to check their lasting usefulness, to scrap Statute Laws that have become useless or to amend Statute Laws that have more downsides than upsides.

II. To that aim, the Speaker will organize a debate on each law, in the month following the 3rd anniversary of the coming into force of a Statute Law. The debate shall not be open for more than 3 days.

III. Statute Laws which came into force in 2005 will be debated in 2010, along with the laws which came into force in 2006.

So, the Assembly is just obliged to debate, not to vote, not to change, not to amend.
We will just check that the law is still accurate.

First, without an obligation, even just an obligation of thinking and debating, the Assemblymen does not bother to do it...

Second, it will be simpler to review old laws as we are sure that, at least 3 full years after, they will be reviewed.

Thank you for your attention

[big bad fab]

I still don't think this law is necessary.  We are usually busy debating other legislation; we don't need to take up time debating legislation that is 3 years old.

- We aren't so busy.
The previous Assembly voted a very tiny number of laws... and repealed none of the old ones.
For the moment, the current Assembly has voted one amendment and is debating one proposal, both of them put forward by the same Assemblyman.
That may become a problem.

- If old laws don't need to be debated again, well, it's a bit worrying to vote new ones, as they would be in force forever, sort of.
And, on the contrary, if you think 3 years is too short a delay, let's consider Atlasian "time": 3 years is a very long time, in a way !

- Please note that I've put a limit on these debates, so that they don't delay other legislative work. On the contrary, they'd force our Assembly to be useful all the time, even when there isn't any other "work in progress".

[big bad fab]

As was the case last time, I don't see the necissarity of this law. I believe it will be too complicated and hard to uphold and I fear that the assembly will end up spending more time on reviewing old laws than working on their own new ideas for legislation. I obviously don't think that we should just leave every old law as it is for ever and ever, but there's no need to mandate a review of every statue law every third year. Any assemblyman can him/herself propose changes to old laws.

The problem is precisely that (s)he scarcely do, in fact.

So I don't support this bill, however I will not veto it, shall it pass.

I thank you for that, Mr. Governor.

[big bad fab]

The coming vote on the amendment recently voted by our Assembly and the national buzz about coming elections in Atlasia shouldn't prevent us from keeping on our legislative work, my fellow Mideast Assemblymen !

[big bad fab]

Can we first vote on my proposal, in order not to mix everything up ?

Thanks, Mr. Speaker !

[big bad fab]

AYE

[big bad fab]

Labor Protection Act

Article I:  Any corporation found in violation of National or Regional Labor laws shall pay the most expensive of the following fines:
   (1A): A corporate tax increase of 20% for the following tax year;
   (2A): A forfeiture of tax benefits and subsidies for the following two tax years;
   (3A): One Hundred Thousand Dollars to each employee who is able to successfully prove a legitimate labor rights violation to either the Mideast Superior Judge, or another appropriate Magistrate.

Article II:  This legislation will take effect immediately, and will be effective for all labor complaints filed on or after January 1, 2010.

I have several objections on this proposal, which, for the moment, would result in a Nay vote from me:

- taxes can't be used as fines, as sanctions, whatever the good justification of the rule you want to see applied;
taxes are financial contributions that the people, via their assembly, agree on paying to pay for some public needs;
so clause 1A should be removed.

- in clause 2A, the forfeiture of tax benefits seems really complicated: our tax code is really "heavy" and complex; please don't make it more;
as for forfeiture of subsidies, I agree on the principle, but if EVERY violation of Labour Laws, whatever its importance, results in a forfeiture of 2 years, it's not proportionate;

- in clause 3A, it's not the Law which should fix the amount, but the Courts.

Your aim, my fellow Assemblyman, is good. But I can't agree on these means. And I'm sorry not to propose amendments, as they would be too numerous and would probably too far away from what you want. I prefer to let you think if you can put forward some changes yourself.

[big bad fab]

AYE

Mr. Speaker, could you send the previous bill we've voted to our Governor ? Thanks in advance.