Well, this will be the thread where I hope we discuss the constitution and any needed reforms politely and informatively.

Well, I'd like to ask you all to go away and look at a specific section of the Constitution and report back on what you think needs changing.

I shall study Part I and Part VI
Speaker Pete James - Part II and Part VII
Mr. Matthieu Poiters Part IV
Minister Jose Frias - Part V
Minister Designate Jacques Beaufort- Part III

If you can just post what you think needs amending in this section within the week, I'll appreciate it greatly.

Great idea to divide the task between us all... I will look into it as quickly as I can.

Sincerely,

HH Grand Duke Jacques de Beaufort

aye aye!

although should we not first state our goals?

The Commission must keep the following in mind - that ONLY Parliament can amend the Constitution. All this commission can do is draft ideas into a report and present to Parliament in the form of a Bill amending the Constitution.

With that said, do you guys need a separate forum? I think that the work of revising the Constitution could take more than one thread.

Yes, actually. I think a sub-forum in the High Court could make things much easier in compiling this report, Emperor. And you needn't worry, Emperor, we won't be calling for the abolition of the monarchy ;)

^_^ Good. Hahaha. I trust the Prime Minister's appointees. I am sure all of you will do a great job.

I have moved the thread to the new Commission sub-forum, I hope you guys are comfortable here. Do you guys want some coffee or munchies brought? ;)

No thank you, my Emperor. I think we can cope with the chinese we ordered ;)

Any amendments I make will be in bold and I will explain them in bold too but in brackets.

Part I [General Provisions]

Article 1 [Scope]
This Constitution applies to all parts of the Empire of the Alexandrians.

Article 2 [State Form, Composition]
(1) The form of government shall be that of a constitutional monarchy. The Imperial Power is inherited by men and women designated to inherit such power by the Emperor of the Alexandrians in accordance with the Imperial Family Act. (The Portela Family Pact, whatever it may be, should be enshrined in law by Parliament as the Imperial Family Act)
(2) The Empire of the Alexandrians is composed of five provincial departments: Asuncion, Puerto Nuevo, Rio Grande, Valenciennes and Baudrix. New provinces may be admitted by the Imperial Parliament into the Empire; but no new province shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of another one; nor any province be formed by the junction of two or more provinces, or parts of provinces, without the consent of the state legislature or executive (I deem a Governmental Council as an Executive rather than a legislature) , as well as of the Imperial Parliament.
(3) The official capital and seat of government of the Empire is the city of Geneva in the province of Baudrix, which as capital, has the title of Imperial City and is governed directly by the Emperor or an institution created by the Emperor to govern it. The Seat of Government will be only be moved in times of great danger or serious threat to the Imperial City (The provision to move the Capital City for any reason seems unnecessary)
Article 3 [State Powers]
The legislative power is jointly vested in the Emperor and the Parliament. The executive power is vested in the Emperor and any of the Emperor's appointed officials. The judicial power is vested in the High Court. Parliament shall have the right to create as many new Courts as it wishes and their powers will be derived from any such act creating a new Court. (As there are no other Courts bar the High Court, it seems appropriate to give Parliament the power to create any new ones and to invest the Judicial authority in the High Court rather than the vague meaning "courts of justice")

Article 4 [State Religion]
No Parliament, including His Majesty the Emperor of Alexandria, shall enact any law, or proclaim or decree the establishment of any religion as the State Religion and shall not abridge or revoke any privileges, elected or appointed offices or human and civil rights for the failure to recognize any religion practiced in the Empire or elsewhere.



Part VI [Judiciary]

Article 31 [High Court of Justice, Independence]
The judicial power of the Empire of the Alexandrians shall be vested in the High Court of Justice. The judiciary of the Empire of the Alexandrians shall be independent of the executive and the legislature. Any holder of judicial office shall not be a member of the executive, legislature or any political party. The Imperial Parliament shall enact legislation from time to time regulating the administration of justice in accordance with these principles.

Article 32 [Jurisdiction]
The jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice shall extend to all matters of law within the Empire of the Alexandrians. It shall have jurisdiction over matters civil, criminal, administrative and constitutional.The Jurisdiction of Alexandrian Law shall extend over every Alexandrian citizen regardless of where they are presiding on Giess/Micras (This is a safeguard against any dissidents who flee the country as well as making sure that Alexandrian Citizens behave while on foreign business in foreign countries.)

Article 33 [Judicial review]
The High Court of Justice shall have power to judge the constitutionality of Acts of Parliament upon petition by a citizen(s) of the Empire. This right shall not be restricted by Act of Parliament.

Article 34 [Nomination]
Judges may be appointed to serve the Empire by a process of simple non-partisan nomination. Any Member of Parliament may nominate any independent citizen of the Empire to serve as a Judge, this nomination must be endorsed by no less than four citizens of the Empire. No more than two endorsements may come from any single party or special interest group within the Empire. A senior justice shall be appointed as Lord Chief Justice.

Article 35 [Removal]
Should any Member of Parliament deem it necessary to dismiss a Judge, he may attempt to do so by presenting the issue to Parliament in a Dismissal Motion (I think any vote for a Judge to be dismissed should be called a Dismissal Motion for the benefit of Parliamentary Records and Parliamentary Business)

Article 36 [Lord Chief Justice]
In the event that the Lord Chief Justice must be replaced, it shall be conducted through a popular vote among sitting Judges. In the event that the Empire boasts fewer than three sitting Judges, the position of Lord Chief Justice shall be temporarily filled by the most senior of the Empire's judges until such time that an election may be held.

Article 37 [Temporary Justices]
Parliament may temporarily approve the appointment of a single judge to administer the High Court of Justice. The single judge will preside as a sole judge of the High Court of Justice without distinction to its first instance and appellate functions.

Article 38 [Precedent]
The High Court of Justice shall not be bound by its previous decisions and should consider each case brought before it with equal consideration. (I was surprised to see that no form of precedent had been established in the Constitution and such a necessary part of any legal system should be included

Once everybody's reviews are complete, we'll discuss each one in merit.

how would people feel about a modular programming approch to the constitution. essentually have it consist of lost of little acts. so that the constitution its self is the algorithm, and the acts are the coding?

these are good reforms, i believe this will become a great initiative.

i am thinking that this amendment needs to be more to the point. i just feel like it sounds weird. what are we trying to reform exactly your honor?

Poiters. MP for PN.

That is essentially an uncodified constitution. While they work well in countries that have developed over many many many years (such as Britain), in fairly new countries such as ours they tend to leave the door wide open to revolutionary change. A written constitution is a practical safeguard against this.

To be honest, after reading that amendment over and considering it and how it could be possibly be implemented, I withdraw it. It would be unmanageable and very unworkable.

I am against an uncodified Constitution. It makes it easy for any John Doe to amend it and to introduce incredibly radical reforms by replacing acts, etc. I am very, very against it.

Now onto the reforms proposed by His Honor:

Article 2, Clause 1 - On the Imperial Family Act, I agree with this matter. I would vote for the passage of this specific reform.

Article 2, Clause 2 - Due to the fact that Parliament enacted the Provincial Power Act not too long ago, it specifies that the legislature and executive MUST be separate at the provincial governments. I am against this particular reform.

Article 2, Clause 3 - I'm in agreement with this reform.

Article 3 - I would be very cautious in amending the sources of power. I am against the proposed reforms on this Article as they stand.

Article 32 - Impractical. I am against it.

Article 35 - I am in agreement with it.

Article 38 - I am completely against it. I strongly believe that our courts should be like the US's in that they consider precedent on making a decision. Of course, they do not always follow precedent, but it is observed when making decisions. I do not want to see the High Court legislating from the bench and engaging in illegal and unconstitutional judicial activism that could affect the natural rights of every individual. This is a very legally positivist move, and I am not in agreement with it.

Jose, I think you misunderstood Article 38 and I didn't explain it properly too.

Basically, I agree with everything you said to do precedent. However, you must remember that Article 38 applies to the High Court only, not to any lower courts that may appear in the future. I anticipated that if Parliament were to create any new Courts, it would stipulate that they must follow the precedent of the High Court.

Also, as the High Court is the highest court of the land, it needs to be flexible. The US Supreme Court is not bound by its previous decision. The House of Lords (The UK's Highest Court) was bound by its previous decisions, but changed fairly recently in 1966 (recent for the English Law System! ;) ) and this allowed it to change a bit of precedent in 1991 which stipulated that a man could not be charged with raping his wife.

I can assure you that so long as I am Lord Chief Justice, precedent shall be observed in cases unless I see sufficient distinguishing factors between a previous case and a current case. Any succeeding Lord Chief Justices would be obliged to follow the same rules as it would have become a convention.

As for Article 32, I've withdrawn it.

I believe Article 3 to be necessary. The parts about the Executive power vested in the Emperor is most necessary as currently that does not provide a proper Constitutional arrangement for Prime Ministers or other Ministers. Although the Constitution goes on to provide for their roles, it clashes rather loudly with Article 3 as it stands. Unless an Imperial Decree establishes the offices of PM and other Ministers and this Decree is then subsequently supported by Parliamentary Vote, I believe the Article must be changed to accomodate this. As for the High Court part of Article 3, the US Constitution invests the judicial power in the Supreme Court and then adds something along the lines of "and in any other lower courts which Congress deems neccesary."

Article 2, Clause 2 - As far as I'm aware, some of the provinces do not have legislatures and executives but one and the other. However, if it seems to clash with the Provincial Powers Act now in work I will change the OR in that clause to AND.

Can we have all this done by the end of the month please?

If I may, monsieurs.

While I understand the reasons behind an addition to clause 38 stating for the creation of lower-level courts, I do not find that entirely necessary for a number of reasons, and believe it best to keep bureaucracy at a minimum whenever possible.

For starters, The Executive Ministries Act of 2006 (which passed overwhelmingly, I hear) deems the newly created Ministry of Justice the power Alexandria's High Courts and Judicial system. By giving the ability to create courts to Parliament, you take away the very power that is the reason the Ministry of Justice is in place. And if I may say so, a Ministry seems to be much more efficient than waiting for three weeks so that a handful of Parliament members can "get around" to voting (no harm intended, I am just stating the state of things, as I realize reality takes preference). By handing over power to Parliament, you challenge the authority of one of His Majesty's highest officials, strip a ministry of it's...well, ministry, and undermine the Executive Ministries Act by vesting to much power into the National Assembly. Parliament does not need the power to "invest the Judicial authority in the High Court" because the High Court is independent of Parliament and is, in a way, even above Parliament (if you all recall, the use of His Catholic Majesty - something put before Parliament, was repealed as unconstitutional by the very Court you claim governance over).

Just my two pence, of course.

Thank you for the advice. But surely, the Executive Department the Ministry of Justice will be overseeing the Courts? And it would be that Ministry's job to propose to Parliament that it creates the new Courts in an Act of Parliament, so as to involve every arm of state?