[Donna]

I'm not sure if this is burried somewhere in the main thread as I've been unable to keep up with it in the past few days, but have we seriously discussed the drafting of PoFo's constitution? We're already having problems forming a functional coalition government, and once parliament assumes session, there will probably be additional problems with all the laws being passed without any particular reference.

I suppose the first order of business for the incoming government should be to vote on a drafting of PoFo's constitution.

There is also the matter of the Supreme Court of PoFo. How should we set up this system, particularly the process of legislation being challenged on the question of constitutional validity and the over-riding decision on the constitutionality of said legislation.

Lastly, I'd like to add that we should compile all approved legislation into a legal code document (maybe a stickied thread) that is consistently updated by an active caretaker. Eventually, as the PoFo parliament game evolves, it would be nice to see a very long document that reflects simulated law right down to fishing and hunting laws.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Here is the PoFo constitution.

[NYYS]

We have talked a little about this. Clausewitz drew up a nice Constitution in the "Setting up of the government of PoFo" thread, which basically covers how the government works. I don't think we should make anything unconstitutional, as there is such diversity of opinion here we'll have a tough time with that. We'd never agree on it, because we have parties that want to dissolve the government and we have parties that would have no problem executing their political opponents and silencing the press. This makes a Supreme Court unnecessary.

I completely agree with a stickied thread for legislation.

[Mikolaj]

I wish there were a way to incorporate the polls function in this subforum.

[Donna]

Ok, Clausewitz has started one. I don't think we should seriously expand on it though until we form a government.

I don't think we should make anything unconstitutional, as there is such diversity of opinion here we'll have a tough time with that. We'd never agree on it, because we have parties that want to dissolve the government and we have parties that would have no problem executing their political opponents and silencing the press. This makes a Supreme Court unnecessary.

If enough people feel political opposition shouldn't be executed, the press silenced, etc., and it is voted upon, what is the problem?

[Clausewitz]

Yeah, I was thinking about introducing a Judiciary Act amending the constitution the first day we have a parliament.

I was thinking something like:

1. A Supreme Court composed of five Justices given authority to arbitrate and grant relief for disputes in constitutional matters, review the constitutionality of legislation, overturn laws as unconstitutional, implement and interpret the statutes, and to serve as the court of final appeal.
2. The Supreme Court shall be required to deliver advisory opinions on demand of any MP on matters of constitutional and statutory interpretation.
3. The Supreme court shall have power to establish lower courts which shall be administered by the five justices of the Supreme Court.
4. An opinion by a Justice of the Court receiving the concurrence of three Justices shall have the effect of a ruling.
5. The five Justices of the court serve for three months at a time on staggered terms. The first justice (for instance) would serve a term from April 15, 2009 to May 15, 2009, before taking regular three-month terms; the second and third seats would serve from April 15, 2009 to June 15, 2009, before taking regular three-month terms; the fourth and fifth seats would serve from April 15, 2009 to July 15, 2009.
6. The term of a Justice shall expire at noon GMT, at which point there shall be a vacancy on the court.
7. Prime Ministers are empowered to submit nominations to Parliament to fill vacancies on the Court. A nomination winning the support of more than 1/2 the votes in Parliament will be sufficient to name a Justice to the Court filling the vacancy.
8. Justices are empowered to submit their resignations at any time, at which point there will be a vacancy in their seat on the Court.
9. When a vacancy is filled, the seated justice shall only serve the remainder of that seat's term. The PM would have to renominate the Justice to his seat on the bench if it were the desire of the Justice and Parliament to return him to the Court.
10. Justices may be impeached by the agreement of more than 2/3 of the MPs.
11. Suits may be raised before the court in threads titled Petitioner vs. Responder, where the Petitioner is the person raising the complaint and the Responder is the accused. For instance, a suit accusing Dan, the Clerk of the Parliament, of electoral fraud might be Mikolaj vs. Dan (not that Dan would ever do that...)

The main things are:

• There are no mechanisms in place for disputes as to the constitutionality of legislation, which effectively means that there isn't such a thing as unconstitutional legislation.
• There are no checks and balances on certain offices. In particular, there is no check on the Clerk of the Parliament in electoral matters, and there is no relief for disputes within parties over, for instance, seat delegation (which is bound to happen...) nor if the Prime Minister or another officer of the government exceeds the constitutional and statutory limits of his office.
• I think it'd be kinda cool. Right now, nothing lasts beyond an election, and this would be a kind of interesting appointments game.

And a stickied thread for legislation would be awesome.

edit: Fixed 50/51 issue.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

7 Prime Ministers are empowered to submit nominations to Parliament to fill vacancies on the Court. A simple majority of 1/2 the votes in Parliament will be sufficient to name a Justice to the Court filling the vacancy.

Don't you mean 1/2 +1?

[Clausewitz]

Yeah, 1/2 + 1.