[Withdrawn] Amendments to the Scroll of Ma'at

[Altino]

I have a ton to say about this, but I haven't had a moment to sit down and write it all out. I'll try to do this tonight or tomorrow.

[Kylia Quilor]

I also agree with reducing the time from 6 months to 2-3 months.

I do have one question though. What about citizens who left but rejoined later? Are they held to the same restrictions regarding this amendment?

It says 'Cumulative', so I would guess not entirely?

[Macalister JJ Rahl]

So I have some concerns about content, but first and foremost, the prime concern I have is that you appear to be attempting to pass what is essentially a new constitution as simply an amendment to the Scroll of Ma'at. It's extremely dubious whether legally this is an amendment at all. In changing what would seem to be the structure, and ultimately nature of the Scroll of Ma'at, I do not believe this would meet the standard of an amendment, and it is fundamentally deceptive in nature to call it an amendment.

Also content-wise, I strongly disagree with impeachment powers against the Pharoah. The Pharoah is a monarch and could potentially be forced to step down against their will as the monarch, this is potentially disastrous and would not reflect well to our NationStates bretheren, particularly for a GCR.

I also understand that you've previously proposed the idea of a constitutional convention to change the Scroll of Ma'at in bulk, an idea that was resoundingly defeated. I also believe that proceeding to force the same result as a constitutional convention is a deceptive end-run around proper procedure, an attribute I believe is riddled throughout this idea.

So I have concerns about the process of passing what is for all intents and purposes a new constitution as simply an amendment and secondly that secondly it appears this is just a reactionary move, following the original foundation of the idea's defeat to amend the Scroll of Ma'at in bulk.

[Kylia Quilor]

So you think the better proposal would be to just pass things piecemeal rather than save time with one big amendment?

[Macalister JJ Rahl]

So you think the better proposal would be to just pass things piecemeal rather than save time with one big amendment?

My point is that its very unlikely to be legally called an amendment. There are other ways to do this. But simply calling what is essentially a new constitutional document an amednment is deceptive, intentionally or otherwise. I'd suggest this a new document to replace the Scroll of Ma'at, that would at least be more intellectually honest

[Cormac]

I also agree with reducing the time from 6 months to 2-3 months.

I do have one question though. What about citizens who left but rejoined later? Are they held to the same restrictions regarding this amendment?

No. If they've cumulatively met the requirement in the past, they would be unaffected.

So I have some concerns about content, but first and foremost, the prime concern I have is that you appear to be attempting to pass what is essentially a new constitution as simply an amendment to the Scroll of Ma'at. It's extremely dubious whether legally this is an amendment at all. In changing what would seem to be the structure, and ultimately nature of the Scroll of Ma'at, I do not believe this would meet the standard of an amendment, and it is fundamentally deceptive in nature to call it an amendment.

You're simply wrong. We've done this before.

Additionally, this is not a new constitution, in any case. None of our existing institutions would be fundamentally altered. What this amendment would do is close some of the loopholes that resulted from the last amendment, as well as one or two loopholes that have existed from the beginning. Some of what we do now by custom -- for example, the Pharaoh's role in the executive, which remains significant -- would be established by law through this amendment, to avoid conflict down the road when we have a Chief Vizier who doesn't want the Pharaoh much involved in the executive. The law, as currently written, would be very much on the Chief Vizier's side, and we are just sitting back waiting for that type of conflict if changes are not made. It's clear, by custom, that we want the Pharaoh more involved in the executive than he is empowered to be by law, so we need to change the law before this becomes a problem.

This amendment addresses issues like that. It doesn't fundamentally alter our institutions, and it certainly isn't a new constitution.

Also content-wise, I strongly disagree with impeachment powers against the Pharoah. The Pharoah is a monarch and could potentially be forced to step down against their will as the monarch, this is potentially disastrous and would not reflect well to our NationStates bretheren, particularly for a GCR.

And what exactly are we supposed to do in the event of a Pharaoh who falls inactive, for weeks, without notice -- this has happened before with GCR Delegates, here and elsewhere -- or in the event of a Pharaoh going rogue and perpetrating a coup? Under current law, there is no mechanism at all for removing the Pharaoh from office. None. Are you arguing that we should just allow the community and government to collapse, and probably the Delegacy to be unlawfully seized by someone perpetrating a coup, in the event of a Pharaoh falling inactive without notice, or that we should just accept a coup perpetrated by the Pharaoh? Because under current law, that is what would be required of us. There is nothing we can do, under current law, about either scenario.

The removal process in this amendment is more than reasonable. It requires 3/4 of the Council of Scribes, 2/3 of the Council of Guardians, and the Pharaoh could only be removed for dereliction of duty, abuse of authority, or violation of the law. It is an arduous process. It requires a higher voting threshold in the Council of Scribes than is required for constitutional amendment. It requires supermajority approval by the Council of Guardians. It requires legitimate grounds for the removal, and absent such grounds, the Pharaoh could challenge his or her removal in court for being illegal. This is all completely reasonable. What is not reasonable is leaving us in a situation in which an inactive or rogue Pharaoh cannot be removed from office. That isn't monarchism. It's self-destruction waiting to happen.

I also understand that you've previously proposed the idea of a constitutional convention to change the Scroll of Ma'at in bulk, an idea that was resoundingly defeated. I also believe that proceeding to force the same result as a constitutional convention is a deceptive end-run around proper procedure, an attribute I believe is riddled throughout this idea.

So I have concerns about the process of passing what is for all intents and purposes a new constitution as simply an amendment and secondly that secondly it appears this is just a reactionary move, following the original foundation of the idea's defeat to amend the Scroll of Ma'at in bulk.

Your understanding of recent history is flawed, and you should perhaps think twice about accepting at face value whatever your source(s) of information tell you in the future. I did propose a constitutional convention, but when it proved unpopular I immediately withdrew that proposal. The unpopularity of that idea was due to me calling for very radical reforms -- including, but not limited to, an elected cabinet -- and also due to the instability of completely overhauling the constitution. This amendment is not a complete overhaul. It is adjustment of the current constitution to close loopholes and fix clear problems. There are no radical reforms to our existing institutions in this amendment. I will also note that an amendment like this was exactly what was suggested to me at the time as a healthier alternative.

I'll admit that the constitutional convention idea was a bad idea and unnecessary at the time, and I'm glad I withdrew it. In this case, I am simply proposing a constitutional amendment that contains tweaks and fixes rather than radical overhaul, and instead of just proposing it out of the blue I presented the draft to the Pharaoh beforehand to ensure there was nothing in it with which he was uncomfortable. So this is not at all like the prior situation, and again, I would suggest that you be more discerning in regard to your source(s) of information, since it is clear you did not come upon this talking point on your own.

So you think the better proposal would be to just pass things piecemeal rather than save time with one big amendment?

My point is that its very unlikely to be legally called an amendment. There are other ways to do this. But simply calling what is essentially a new constitutional document an amednment is deceptive, intentionally or otherwise. I'd suggest this a new document to replace the Scroll of Ma'at, that would at least be more intellectually honest

You're a little too new to Osiris to be calling me a liar and suggesting that I am motivated by anything other than honest desire to improve Osiris and avoid problems down the road. Let the door fully close behind you and get at least a few dozen posts under your belt before you presume to question my motives. I'll let it go and chalk it up to youthful inexperience just this once, grandson.

[Macalister JJ Rahl]

Perhaps rather than attempting to dismiss my argument by alluding to my post count, which, coming from anyone else, and without the context that I understand full-well, would come off as snobbery and indicative of a conceited egotist, and from my admittedly short time here, I have come to believe that you are not such a person.

If you belived that my references were accussatory in nature and that I was calling you a liar then I can only apologise wholeheartedly. That was not, nor is not my intent. When I talk about honesty, I refer to a sense of intellectual honesty, that an idea should be presented for what it is, regardless of external context. And I believe it is not forthright to call this an amendment, not if you're essentially re-passing the entire constitutional document as an amendment.

Regarding your arguments considering impeachment, I belive they are well founded, and I do believe there may in fact be legitimate cause for them, but I think greater and more specific clauses will be needed to define exactly what the legal standards for 'dereliction of duty' and 'abuse of power' are.

And lastly as for the anendment procedure, I would like to doubley surmise that I still believe that passing an amendment that amends the text of the whole constitution, is not logically an amendment. And that for procedural purposes, either presenting it as a broken down series of individual amendments, or at the very least as a replacement for the Scroll of Ma'at is more forthright an approach.

[Cormac]

Perhaps rather than attempting to dismiss my argument by alluding to my post count, which, coming from anyone else, and without the context that I understand full-well, would come off as snobbery and indicative of a conceited egotist, and from my admittedly short time here, I have come to believe that you are not such a person.

If you belived that my references were accussatory in nature and that I was calling you a liar then I can only apologise wholeheartedly. That was not, nor is not my intent. When I talk about honesty, I refer to a sense of intellectual honesty, that an idea should be presented for what it is, regardless of external context. And I believe it is not forthright to call this an amendment, not if you're essentially re-passing the entire constitutional document as an amendment.

It wasn't my intention to dismiss your entire argument, which is why I addressed most of what you said at length. If I seemed dismissive, it was only of the comments that seemed to be implying that I was being deceptive. I accept your apology and clarification, though, and I'm fine with moving on from that instead of dwelling on it. I will say I'm glad you're here and actively contributing, and I hope it didn't seem as if I was discouraging that.

In regard to whether it is forthright to call this an amendment, I will again emphasize that while it is certainly a comprehensive amendment, it's still an amendment in that it is tweaking and fixing existing institutions rather than radically altering or replacing them. I will also once again note that there is precedent for this; we've already amended the Scroll of Ma'at with this kind of comprehensive amendment, during the previous Pharaoh's term. I linked that amendment in my previous post. That is also not the first time in Osiris' history we've amended the constitution with that type of comprehensive amendment. So there is precedent for this and I just don't see it as a problem.

Regarding your arguments considering impeachment, I belive they are well founded, and I do believe there may in fact be legitimate cause for them, but I think greater and more specific clauses will be needed to define exactly what the legal standards for 'dereliction of duty' and 'abuse of power' are.

If we get too detailed with defining these terms, we run the risk of missing something that will require removal from office -- and being unable to remove the Pharaoh from office for that because it doesn't meet the definition. Again, it would be exceedingly hard to remove the Pharaoh from office. It would require 75% of the Council of Scribes, 66% of the Guardians, and should the Pharaoh decide to legally challenge their removal, it would require the Council of Priests to agree that the Pharaoh has been derelict in their duty, has abused their authority, or has violated the law. This would be the most arduous removal process that is possible while still being realistic. There is no reason to make it more difficult than it already would be, because the difficulty involved will already deter flippant or underhanded attempts to remove the Pharaoh from office.

And lastly as for the anendment procedure, I would like to doubley surmise that I still believe that passing an amendment that amends the text of the whole constitution, is not logically an amendment. And that for procedural purposes, either presenting it as a broken down series of individual amendments, or at the very least as a replacement for the Scroll of Ma'at is more forthright an approach.

I understand what you're saying, but like I said, we've done this before. A broken down series of amendments, on this scale, would be a logistical nightmare because some of the amendments affect other parts of the constitution and need to be amended at the same time. And it isn't a replacement for the Scroll of Ma'at because there are no radical alterations being made to existing institutions. So, I get your concern, but we've done this before and there are times when this is just the most sensible way forward.

As a note, I haven't forgotten about everyone's suggestions, and will be editing the draft a bit later. I'll post again with an update when the draft has been revised.

[Kylia Quilor]

If 75% of the Scribes, 66% of the Guardians and the Council of Priests all agree the Pharaoh needs to go for the reasons the Scrolls specify, then the Pharaoh's ability to weild effective power is limited, to say the least. Their removal makes a lot of sense at that point.

[Altino]

I would not in any way suggest that Cormac was being deceptive in taking this method to amending the Scroll of Ma'at, but I would have to agree with JJ in that it seems a little less-than-kosher to attempt to re-pass an entire constitutional document as an amendment. I do understand that it's been done before, but I would argue that it shouldn't have been done then, either, and that we should not allow precedents like these to continue. It didn't happen then, and it most assuredly isn't happening now, but this is a very easy way to get changes snuck into the Scroll of Ma'at that we didn't want to see there. Reading the tl;dr of what changes were being made is a much easier thing to do than to sit down and directly compare the original Scroll with the proposed amended version, and it would not be hard for someone less loyal to Osiris to "forget to mention" a change or two. We would have no one but ourselves to blame for the passage of a document that we simply didn't carefully read... because it was an entire constitution.

I'm not in any way saying that Cormac is or even would do something like this, becaue I feel like we all know that he wouldn't, but I am saying that this is a dangerous thing to let become normal and accepted, and as such I don't believe that I can stand behind this procedure. I realize that individually amending these things piece by piece is a longer process, but I think the time is worth the security that it affords us. This should not have been done the first time, all respect to NK and his administration, and it should not happen a second either.


Now on the content, I think that many of these changes are a great ideas. I especially like the limitation on allowing citizens to vote in the middle of election cycles/votes with the Scribes. That's just a common sense procedure that every region should have and I definitely think we need to establish it here. I also like the idea of formally including the Pharaoh in executive power. We have so far upheld the idea that the Pharaoh is an executive to such a degree that I barely even recognized that it wasn't legally true, but now that you mention it, that absolutely does need to be amended to give the Pharaoh's inclusion in executive matters legal weight. I do have some philosophical qualms with the procedure for removing a Pharaoh from office - I think the reasons that a Pharaoh can be removed and the measures it would take to have that happen are sound and fair - but I do feel like it's contrary to some of the basic tenants that we hold as a region on the position of the Delegate. Realistically, no forum government can force a Delegate to do anything gameside that he doesn't want to do. We could all take a vote and assuming Koth was on our side, we could entirely remove him from the forum and Discord if we wanted to. If he refused to step down, we could run an unendorse campaign against him and try to get someone else into the delegacy, but ultimately any such action from a forum government would require a gameside coup. Even if it weren't considered a legal coup by our forum government, that's realistically what it would be gameside. If we ever have need to push a government out of power who was bad for Osiris and refused to step down, we would have to use the same old methods to do it. Any legal precedent to remove him from office, I realize, would only be an attempt to preserve OFO 2.0 and I can respect that, but it just almost seems nonsensical. My qualm here is mostly philosophical, as I stated, but I am in general not in favor of laws that can't be enforced, and this one only could if the Pharaoh for some reason refused to leave, and then immediately agreed to get rid of himself after some very drawn out procedures. Assuming the couping/inactive Pharaoh didn't immediately kick us all out of the region as soon as he caught wind that these procedures were taking place, which is also entirely possible.