[Draft] State Code of Osiris

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:05 am

Section 6.2(g) has been revised per Josh's suggestion.

I have also further revised the draft to simply remove pronouns wherever practical and to use the singular "they," which is more gender inclusive and less clunky than "he or she," wherever it is impractical to remove pronouns altogether. I have it on the authority of someone with a Master's in linguistics that the singular "they" is in fact grammatically correct, so I'm rolling with it.

Finally, having given it more consideration I'm concerned about the kind of tone that Section 8.1 sets by requiring Pharaonic concurrence for an amendment to the State Code. We need to make it clear in our new Osiris, an Osiris with a clean slate, that it is the community, collectively, that owns this region. Requiring the concurrence of one individual and giving one individual veto power over the document that determines how the region will be governed seems to send the opposite message. I'm proposing that we remove Pharaonic concurrence and instead require a three-quarters supermajority for amendments to the State Code.

Charles Cerebella · Post by **Charles Cerebella** » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:53 am

Sounds reasonable to me.

Venico · Post by **Venico** » Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:01 am

How about a 3/4 over ride for a Pharaoh veto? Eliminating the Executive branch from an amendment to the constitution is disastrous to say the least.

Treize Dreizehn · Post by **Treize Dreizehn** » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:24 am

I'd be more for a 3/5ths override which is still a super majority but not a particularly arduous one. That said, I agree with the concept of executive override. A veto is an important check on the whims of a legislature gone mad with power.

In a lot of cases, even with the support to override a veto, a veto sends a clear signal that the legislature is treading dangerously. It allows them to stop and check themselves(before they wreck themselves).

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:36 pm

I could go for 2/3 to amend the State Code, 3/4 to override the Pharaoh's veto. Alternatively, we could do 3/5 to amend the State Code and 2/3 to override the Pharaoh's veto.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:10 am

Amended the draft according to most of the suggestions made by r3naissanc3r here, notably excluding his suggestions regarding omission of mandatory ministries. I have also included language that fleshes out Section 4.1(a) and have revised Section 8.1 to allow the Deshret to amend the Code by 3/5 vote and to override the Pharaoh's veto by 2/3 vote.

Section 3.1(d) still seems problematic to me but I don't know how to better word it. Suggestions are welcome.

Dennrick · Post by **Dennrick** » Fri Jan 03, 2014 3:13 pm

I am really happy with the current draft. 3.1(d) is a bit wordy but I think it works.

Charles Cerebella · Post by **Charles Cerebella** » Fri Jan 03, 2014 3:30 pm

In general I prefer r3n's system of non-mandatory ministries. I'll have a proper look through the new draft as soon as I can. I just went through a long law in Balder so might play Skyrim now

Treize Dreizehn · Post by **Treize Dreizehn** » Fri Jan 03, 2014 3:50 pm

I suggest 3.1.d be changed to:

No candidate will be elected Pharaoh without receiving a simple majority of votes cast. Should no candidate receive a simple majority of votes cast in the election, the two candidates with the most votes(or, in the case of a tie for most votes, those candidates) will participate in a run-off election following the same process prescribed by Section 3.1(c) of this Code.

It's shorter and more elegant I think.

Edit: I'd also like the parts of 3.1.c that describes "nominations" be changed to be more in line with 3.1.b's language. And we're probably better off placing the vizier language below the atef language since right now the Atef language is referenced before it actually appears.

Treize Dreizehn · Post by **Treize Dreizehn** » Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:42 pm

Sorry for the double post, but I want to make sure those who read my last post read this one as well.

I think we really need to discuss the current language which disallows the Pshent from any activities at all. I think it's a bit extreme to exclude them from priesthoods and the deshret. I'm curious as to the opinions of others on that subject.