[Passed] Constitutional Reform - Amendment

[Neo Kervoskia]

The process by which the Council of Priests reaches decisions is to be determined internally by the Council of Priests.

Also forgot the "(10)" in Article III Secion 6, assuming there was supposed to be one.

That is all supposed to be one line, but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to separate it out.

Edit: Separated them out.

[Cormac]

(2) The Chief Vizier or designated Vizier(s) is responsible for approving or rejecting citizenship applications within seven days of filing. Citizenship applications neglected for more than seven days will automatically go to vote before the Council of Guardians.

Do we think it may be appropriate to incorporate some kind of appeals process like in the legislation I recently proposed? Particularly now that this will be left in the hands of a political official. It could perhaps be a more simplified version than what I've already proposed. Or we could just leave the door open to an appeals process by including language that an appeals process can be established by law.

(3) The Pharaoh may, with the approval of the Council of Guardians, impose suspension or revocation of citizenship to preserve the security and stability of Osiris.

Is this intentionally being retained, or was it just missed? It seems superfluous now with the Council of Priests reinstated as a judiciary. Maybe I'm missing something though?

(5) The Council of Scribes may remove government officials from office by a two-thirds majority vote. The Pharaoh and Crown Prince/Crown Princess may not be removed from office by the Council of Scribes.

I'm somewhat concerned about exempting the Crown Prince(ss) from removal from office. I think it's practical not to subject the sitting Pharaoh to removal from office, but shouldn't citizens be able to remove a Crown Prince(ss) from office if something comes up and they decide they don't want that person to be Pharaoh eventually after all?

(4) The Pharaoh may establish a Royal Family of the Osiris Fraternal Order and may regulate its conduct and membership.
(5) The Pharaoh may establish a peerage of the Osiris Fraternal Order and titles of nobility. Titles of nobility can only be issued or revoked by the Pharaoh and do not confer any political or governmental benefit or role.

I'm not against this -- I actually think it would be great for regional culture -- I'm just curious if this is intended to function as our current nobility does (as an honorific), or if there will be actual substantive benefits to being included in the royal family or nobility.

(1) The Council of Guardians is the security of council of the Osiris Fraternal Order, tasked with enforcing regional security in cooperation with the Pharaoh and the Crown Prince/Crown Princess.

Typo here. "Security of council" should, I assume, be "security council."

(2) Viziers, Guardians, Priests, and executive or legislative deputies are classified as junior government officers and may simultaneously serve in any other office.

Are we sure we want Priests serving in other offices? it increases the likelihood of conflicts of interest.

Overall, this looks really great, and I appreciate the hard work that must have gone into this. Everyone involved did a great job.

[Sygian]

Regarding the Council of Priests, would it be a wise idea to allow the three of them to elect one of them to serve as a "High Priest" or something similar that would essentially just organize votes and discussion periods among them?

It would also be a good idea to distinguish the powers of the Council of Priests and the Council of Guardians by establishing a fine line between them, so that the "security council" does not get mixed up with the "judiciary". I believe that this amendment should involve an appeal process as well.

[Cormac]

Regarding the Council of Priests, would it be a wise idea to allow the three of them to elect one of them to serve as a "High Priest" or something similar that would essentially just organize votes and discussion periods among them?

If we do this, we should probably go with "Chief Priest" for the sake of consistency.

[Weast Jurmany]

(3) "The Pharaoh may, with the approval of the Council of Guardians, impose suspension or revocation of citizenship to preserve the security and stability of Osiris.

"Is this intentionally being retained, or was it just missed? It seems superfluous now with the Council of Priests reinstated as a judiciary. Maybe I'm missing something though?"

I get where you're coming from but I'd prefer if the Pharaoh did have this authority along with the council of Priests. With the Pharaoh's role of stabilizing Osiris I agree that its necessary for he (or she) to have the ability to revoke citizenship. Also I see no downside with the check and balance of requiring the Council of Guardians to approve.

[Cormac]

I get where you're coming from but I'd prefer if the Pharaoh did have this authority along with the council of Priests. With the Pharaoh's role of stabilizing Osiris I agree that its necessary for he (or she) to have the ability to revoke citizenship. Also I see no downside with the check and balance of requiring the Council of Guardians to approve.

Well, I can point a couple of them out:

• The Council of Guardians is appointed by the Pharaoh, which means it's at least somewhat likely to support his decisions out of loyalty to him (or her), particularly the Guardians who have been appointed by an incumbent Pharaoh.
• The Council of Guardians has no mandated minimum number of Guardians. Letting seven people decide on revocation of citizenship is very different from letting three people decide on it, but there could be as few as one Guardian and as many as twenty.

We could perhaps retain a modified form of this, but change it to suspension of citizenship pending the outcome of trial before the Council of Priests. With a judiciary reinstated, I really don't think it's appropriate for the Pharaoh and Council of Guardians to be revoking citizenship without judicial oversight.

[Sygian]

If we do this, we should probably go with "Chief Priest" for the sake of consistency.

Aside from the name, what are your thoughts on the idea?

[Cormac]

If we do this, we should probably go with "Chief Priest" for the sake of consistency.

Aside from the name, what are your thoughts on the idea?

It works for most judiciaries in other regions, and I don't see a problem with it.

[Sygian]

If we are going to preserve Osiris's theme, High Priest may be a better choice in a name although I do see why you'd want to remain consistent.

[Weast Jurmany]

I get where you're coming from but I'd prefer if the Pharaoh did have this authority along with the council of Priests. With the Pharaoh's role of stabilizing Osiris I agree that its necessary for he (or she) to have the ability to revoke citizenship. Also I see no downside with the check and balance of requiring the Council of Guardians to approve.

Well, I can point a couple of them out:

• The Council of Guardians is appointed by the Pharaoh, which means it's at least somewhat likely to support his decisions out of loyalty to him (or her), particularly the Guardians who have been appointed by an incumbent Pharaoh.
• The Council of Guardians has no mandated minimum number of Guardians. Letting seven people decide on revocation of citizenship is very different from letting three people decide on it, but there could be as few as one Guardian and as many as twenty.

We could perhaps retain a modified form of this, but change it to suspension of citizenship pending the outcome of trial before the Council of Priests. With a judiciary reinstated, I really don't think it's appropriate for the Pharaoh and Council of Guardians to be revoking citizenship without judicial oversight.

Once again I understand your thought process and I'd like to preface this by saying I respect you and think you're a smart guy. But it seems to me that you have some ideas that conflict with our constitution. Your first point is based off of the fact that the Pharaoh appoints the guardians, which you believe to give the Pharaoh too much power. As you suggest they'll likely agree with him because of appreciation for giving them a position of power. But this ignores the fact that the Guardians have to be confirmed by the Council of Scribes, and are therefore supported by the community. Thus indicating that the general community believes that they will make the best decisions for Osiris. Unless you're implying is that we cannot trust our fellow community members to stand up and vote for what's right, which I think we can. Otherwise why have a constitutional monarchy and not a dictatorship? And how can we take away power to reject citizenship from the guardians if that's key for the defense of Osiris? It seems to me like you wish to take power away from the pharaoh and I'm not comfortable with that especially when it was something that you weren't interested in when you were pharaoh. Although I think you're a great guy, it concerns me that you are more interested in gaining power than pushing Osiris in the right direction. As for the second point, I think there should be a minimum number or guardians for exactly the reason you said, I think thats a good point. I'm interested to hear what you say so at the very least I can learn more about our government, from a real expert. Thanks!