[Passed] Constitutional Reform - Amendment

[Cormac]

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.

A preface that almost always precedes complete disrespect.

But it seems to me that you have some ideas that conflict with our constitution.

Isn't the point of amending the constitution to change it? I'm making suggestions for change, none of which conflict with the current constitution anymore than any of the changes proposed in this draft. Every change to the constitution necessarily conflicts with its current version. So I'm failing to see what point you're making.

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?

There is a difference between rejecting citizenship and revoking citizenship. Rejecting citizenship means that you are rejecting someone who is applying for citizenship, someone who is not yet a citizen and who, at least in most cases, hasn't contributed anything to Osiris yet. Revoking citizenship means that you are taking citizenship away from someone who is already a citizen, someone who, at least in most cases, has made substantive contribution to Osiris. I absolutely do think we should be very careful about doing that, and if we're going to reinstate a judiciary, it doesn't make any sense to retain the power for the Pharaoh and Council of Guardians to revoke citizenship without trial. What even is the point of a judiciary if the Pharaoh and Council of Guardians can go around it and strip someone's citizenship on their own? Why reinstate the judiciary at all?

I will add that I do think there should also be an appeals process for rejected citizenship applications as well, particularly if we're going to transfer the power to reject citizenship applications from the Pharaoh, which should be an apolitical office, to the Chief Vizier, a political office. It doesn't make sense to allow one political officer to decide who can and cannot participate in our community with no recourse for the community to overturn that decision. There isn't a single other Feeder or Sinker, as far as I know, that leaves citizenship decisions solely in the hands of an elected head of government, a political official. That is completely prone to abuse by a Chief Vizier who would prefer to reject citizenship applications by applicants who may politically disagree with them, or to accept citizenship applications by applicants who may politically support them -- the exact same kind of citizenship flooding that occurred during the April conflict.

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.

To be frank, you have no idea what I was interested in when I was Pharaoh. I had privately committed to signing legislation much like that which is now being put forward, but Treize had not finished the draft by the time I left office. I assume this is that draft, which I now support in principle, and I don't think it's either reasonable or appropriate for you to attack my character and my motives for making suggestions to improve the draft -- suggestions that were supposed to be welcome. Was that lip service? Is anyone who makes suggestions going to be attacked by executive officials who are repeating the exact same talking points? Or just me?

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.

What power do you imagine I hope to gain? I'm talking about eliminating revocation of citizenship by the Pharaoh and Council of Guardians so that these matters can instead be decided through fair trial by the Council of Priests, the reinstated judiciary. Do you have some inside information I don't that I'm about to be offered a position on the Council of Priests? I think that's fairly unlikely. There is no power grab here because I'm not involved in and not likely to be involved in any of the institutions to which I'm arguing these powers should be transferred. At least settle on a smear campaign that makes sense.

Also, please learn to correctly use the quote function. Thanks!

[Treize Dreizehn]

To be frank, you have no idea what I was interested in when I was Pharaoh. I had privately committed to signing legislation much like that which is now being put forward, but Treize had not finished the draft by the time I left office. I assume this is that draft, which I now support in principle, and I don't think it's either reasonable or appropriate for you to attack my character and my motives for making suggestions to improve the draft -- suggestions that were supposed to be welcome. Was that lip service? Is anyone who makes suggestions going to be attacked by executive officials who are repeating the exact same talking points? Or just me?

I completely agree that the revocation language should refer to the Council of Priests and not Guardians. That's a good catch. Further: The Council of Priests should be classed as a Senior government office. If for no other reason than The Pharaoh, CV or CS should not themselves serve on it.

As for the Crown Prince being removable by the Council of Scribes: I don't know that I completely support that. The Crown Prince and Pharaoh will become much more ceremonial roles here, and ultimately if 2/3rds of the Scribes want a Crown Prince out, one assumes the Pharaoh would also understand that and replace them.

These are all good points to bring up though, and I'm very happy you have done so. I feel like we're all on the same page here with regards to what we want for Osiris. Also minor correction because I feel it's important: I'm a co-author on this piece but the primary author is the Pharaoh, without question. While I certainly discussed this with the Pharaoh before a draft solidified it was the Pharaoh who took the initiative and made an actual draft of it, did most of the clean up on the language and in general pushed this into being a real thing and not just something I *wanted* to eventually do. Just wanna make sure credit goes where credit is due.

[Neo Kervoskia]

Edit:

Article I, Section 1(1) changed from 'Chief Vizier' and 'Council of Guardians' to 'Pharaoh' and 'Council of Priests'
Article I, Section 2(3) changed from 'Council of Guardians' to 'Council of Priests'
Article V, Section 1(1) added Council of Priests to Senior Officers - removed Council of Priests from Article V, Section 1(2)

[Cormac]

I completely agree that the revocation language should refer to the Council of Priests and not Guardians. That's a good catch. Further: The Council of Priests should be classed as a Senior government office. If for no other reason than The Pharaoh, CV or CS should not themselves serve on it.

Article I, Section 2(3) changed from 'Council of Guardians' to 'Council of Priests'

Article V, Section 1(1) added Council of Priests to Senior Officers - removed Council of Priests from Article V, Section 1(2)

Glad we're all in agreement here, I think these are positive revisions.

Article I, Section 1(1) changed from 'Chief Vizier' and 'Council of Guardians' to 'Pharaoh' and 'Council of Priests'

While I think having an apolitical office (the Pharaoh) is better than having a political office (the Chief Vizier) handle citizenship applications, I'm still somewhat concerned about the lack of an appeals process for rejected citizenship applications, and even for approved citizenship applications. Having the Council of Priests not only handle neglected applications, but also hear appeals for approved and rejected applications, would go a long way toward ensuring independent oversight without subjecting citizenship to a popularity contest, which is one concern that was raised regarding appeals being heard by the Council of Scribes.

This isn't necessarily something we have to decide in the constitution. In fact, I think there's a strong case to be made that it shouldn't be decided in the constitution, because it should be easy to tweak if we find that the citizenship appeals process isn't working well. So what we could do is leave room for an appeals process to be established by law, by altering the language of Article I, Section 1(2) as follows:

(2) The Pharaoh 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 Priests. Procedure for appealing approved or rejected citizenship applications may be established by law.

The text I've added is in bold print. That would allow us to hash this out in statutory law, rather than including a somewhat complicated appeals process that may need to be tweaked in the constitution itself.

As for the Crown Prince being removable by the Council of Scribes: I don't know that I completely support that. The Crown Prince and Pharaoh will become much more ceremonial roles here, and ultimately if 2/3rds of the Scribes want a Crown Prince out, one assumes the Pharaoh would also understand that and replace them.

Valid points. I'm still somewhat uneasy with it, but I suppose in the event of some egregious future abuse in which a future Pharaoh refuses to remove a massively unpopular Crown Prince(ss), the constitution could be amended. Hopefully that won't ever be necessary anyway.

These are all good points to bring up though, and I'm very happy you have done so. I feel like we're all on the same page here with regards to what we want for Osiris. Also minor correction because I feel it's important: I'm a co-author on this piece but the primary author is the Pharaoh, without question. While I certainly discussed this with the Pharaoh before a draft solidified it was the Pharaoh who took the initiative and made an actual draft of it, did most of the clean up on the language and in general pushed this into being a real thing and not just something I *wanted* to eventually do. Just wanna make sure credit goes where credit is due.

Ah, apologies for the assumption, I just assumed you were the primary author since we had previously talked about some of these revisions. The Pharaoh has done a great job with this draft, as have those who helped him with it.

[Weast Jurmany]

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.

A preface that almost always precedes complete disrespect.

But it seems to me that you have some ideas that conflict with our constitution.

Isn't the point of amending the constitution to change it? I'm making suggestions for change, none of which conflict with the current constitution anymore than any of the changes proposed in this draft. Every change to the constitution necessarily conflicts with its current version. So I'm failing to see what point you're making.

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?

There is a difference between rejecting citizenship and revoking citizenship. Rejecting citizenship means that you are rejecting someone who is applying for citizenship, someone who is not yet a citizen and who, at least in most cases, hasn't contributed anything to Osiris yet. Revoking citizenship means that you are taking citizenship away from someone who is already a citizen, someone who, at least in most cases, has made substantive contribution to Osiris. I absolutely do think we should be very careful about doing that, and if we're going to reinstate a judiciary, it doesn't make any sense to retain the power for the Pharaoh and Council of Guardians to revoke citizenship without trial. What even is the point of a judiciary if the Pharaoh and Council of Guardians can go around it and strip someone's citizenship on their own? Why reinstate the judiciary at all?

I will add that I do think there should also be an appeals process for rejected citizenship applications as well, particularly if we're going to transfer the power to reject citizenship applications from the Pharaoh, which should be an apolitical office, to the Chief Vizier, a political office. It doesn't make sense to allow one political officer to decide who can and cannot participate in our community with no recourse for the community to overturn that decision. There isn't a single other Feeder or Sinker, as far as I know, that leaves citizenship decisions solely in the hands of an elected head of government, a political official. That is completely prone to abuse by a Chief Vizier who would prefer to reject citizenship applications by applicants who may politically disagree with them, or to accept citizenship applications by applicants who may politically support them -- the exact same kind of citizenship flooding that occurred during the April conflict.

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.

To be frank, you have no idea what I was interested in when I was Pharaoh. I had privately committed to signing legislation much like that which is now being put forward, but Treize had not finished the draft by the time I left office. I assume this is that draft, which I now support in principle, and I don't think it's either reasonable or appropriate for you to attack my character and my motives for making suggestions to improve the draft -- suggestions that were supposed to be welcome. Was that lip service? Is anyone who makes suggestions going to be attacked by executive officials who are repeating the exact same talking points? Or just me?

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.

What power do you imagine I hope to gain? I'm talking about eliminating revocation of citizenship by the Pharaoh and Council of Guardians so that these matters can instead be decided through fair trial by the Council of Priests, the reinstated judiciary. Do you have some inside information I don't that I'm about to be offered a position on the Council of Priests? I think that's fairly unlikely. There is no power grab here because I'm not involved in and not likely to be involved in any of the institutions to which I'm arguing these powers should be transferred. At least settle on a smear campaign that makes sense.

Also, please learn to correctly use the quote function. Thanks!

Well now that the constitution has been changed as you requested, my argument that confirmation by the council of scribes for the guardians is enough of a check of power is moot. This is what I meant when I said your argument is inconsistent with our constitution, by the way. That you're forgetting that the Pharaoh cannot just appoint whoever to be guardian without community involvement. Yes I intend to say revoke, thanks for clearing that up.

Now, I understand why you are upset at what I said and I apologize. It's important to point out that I implied it was a possibility that "concerned me" because it's what I suspected was occurring from circumstantial evidence and hoped you'd reassure me that it wasn't the case. You were right to point out that I do not know what most of your Pharaoh hood was spent trying to accomplish. I simply figured as you were in power and seem to be widely respected I figured if you wished to give up power then it would have been easy to do so. In conclusion, looking back I should have made it clear it wasn't an accusation, just a potential concern, that was inappropriate and I'm sorry.

[Cormac]

Well now that the constitution has been changed as you requested, my argument that confirmation by the council of scribes for the guardians is enough of a check of power is moot. This is what I meant when I said your argument is inconsistent with our constitution, by the way. That you're forgetting that the Pharaoh cannot just appoint whoever to be guardian without community involvement. Yes I intend to say revoke, thanks for clearing that up.

Ah, I see what you meant now. In any event, having the Council of Priests involved in revocation of citizenship rather than the Council of Guardians has probably addressed both of our concerns. The Pharaoh still has a power some see as needed, but the oversight comes from the more independent Council of Priests rather than the Council of Guardians. A win-win.

Now, I understand why you are upset at what I said and I apologize. It's important to point out that I implied it was a possibility that "concerned me" because it's what I suspected was occurring from circumstantial evidence and hoped you'd reassure me that it wasn't the case. You were right to point out that I do not know what most of your Pharaoh hood was spent trying to accomplish. I simply figured as you were in power and seem to be widely respected I figured if you wished to give up power then it would have been easy to do so. In conclusion, looking back I should have made it clear it wasn't an accusation, just a potential concern, that was inappropriate and I'm sorry.

It's okay, we all say things we don't mean or say things in a way we didn't mean to say them. I know I'm abrasive and unpredictable sometimes, and I don't blame anyone for sometimes assuming I have an agenda, but in this case my only agenda really is making this the best draft it can be by offering constructive suggestions and noting any exploitable loopholes that could be a problem down the road. I apologize, as well, if I was overly harsh; I get more defensive than necessary at times.

[Atlantica]

I certainly support this excellent reform proposal; it definitely strengthens our constitutional monarchist principles and (correct me if I'm wrong on this, as I wasn't involved in the April 2016 reforms and am thus probably less aware of the underlying principles behind them than another citizens) really establishes the position of Pharaoh as was intended; to serve as a guiding role for Osiris so as to keep the peace and stability that had been so tenuous in previous years. I would support some sort of appeals process if Cormac still intends to introduce that, because recent events have made our lack of an appeals process a cause for political contention that can certainly be solved, and something as fundamental as citizenship should, in my opinion, have some sort of method to ensure that individuals not attempting to undermine the stability and security of Osiris aren't denied the opportunity to better the region as a whole.

[Sygian]

To ratify and repeal treaties, should we require a majority vote from the council of Guardians or the council of Priests like it used to be?

[Neo Kervoskia]

To ratify and repeal treaties, should we require a majority vote from the council of Guardians or the council of Priests like it used to be?

Under this amendment, in order to ratify or repeal a treaty you need a two thirds majority vote of the Scribes and the assent of the Pharaoh. We could change it to two-thirds majority of the Scribes, two-thirds majority of the Guardians, and the assent of the Pharaoh.

The Priests are a judicial body focused on legal affairs and constitutional questions.

[Sygian]

Yes, I agree with that change as it helps the Council of Guardians maintain their sovereignty. In fact, I'm not sure why it was necessary that we removed it in the first place.