|
| | 
DG: Hopeful Wanderer
 
Last Seen:
7/31/2008 5:55 PM
Posts: 681
Visits: 2,434
|
| | |
| | 
sweetP
Last Seen:
Today @ 2:30 PM
Posts: 4,773
Visits: 8,251
|
| | |
| | 
Veteran Warlord
Last Seen:
8/31/2008 6:46 PM
Posts: 195
Visits: 766
|
| a couple of questionsMr. G (7/24/2007)
Outline: 1) Expand, expand, expand...the Supreme Court and possibly the Senate must be expanded By this do you mean to make the Supreme Court larger or is this about the clerk posistion? Also as for expanding the Senate, what would this mean. 4 houses with the princeps having a tie breaker vote? If these are the cases you probably have enough support to carry them through. 2) The Senate needs to move faster on enacting critical legislation If you enlarge the senate you will slow down the process of deliberation it must go through unless you have some legislation i cannot forsee which would make a 4 senator system work faster than a 3. 3) Simplify, simplify, simplify...the Senate needs to stop being so burercratic (?sp) and start streamlining its proceedings slightly. I think i see what your getting at here. Correct me if i am wrong. This means that a bill put before the senate should have a priority rating. Lets say its an request to resume play by mongoose. This will have a priority 1 and must be acted upon by the senate in no more that (some pre determinded time frame, lets say) 24 or 48 hours. Priorty 1 casification should be issues/actions relating to the smooth running of the Game as requested by the President such as: Resumtion of Play, Religion Change, Tech Trading and Diplomatic Agreements. Priorty 2 should be issues/actions which the senate place upon them selves or proposed by the Supreme Court which they deem to be benifical to the game as requested by the Supreme Court or Princeps such as: Articals of law, Amendments to the Consitution, Dissiplinary Action and Naming of monuments. These would have also a pre determind time frame of lets say of that allready established 3 days. If a priorty 1 or 2 is not voted on by the Senator within the time frame a deputy or clerk would have to act on it to "stream line" the process.I dont know if thats what you mean but it could be a possiblity. To Conclude i think the senate is at the moment running quite smoothly and doesnt need to be enlarged, The supreme court could be enlarged but is there an interest from people run. At the moment we have an empty seat with only one candidate running and a proposed clerk posistion, do you feel another Supreme Justice is out there? |
--
 Disgraced Deputy Senator, House of Warmax, (3rd Term) |  |  |
| |
| |
DG: Hopeful Wanderer
Last Seen:
7/31/2008 5:55 PM
Posts: 681
Visits: 2,434
|
| | |
| |
sweetP
Last Seen:
Today @ 2:30 PM
Posts: 4,773
Visits: 8,251
|
| | Exapanding the Senate... No, I am wholly against that at the moment. Not enough people willing to run. We have elections pretty seldom as it is, and we only have three seats. Add another and, barring a sudden influx of three or so enthusiastic citizens, we'd never have elections at all. What's a democracy without elections? Priority levels... Might streamline things, yes. But it wouldn't de-bureaucratize the proceedings one bit, and I'm curious what G has in mind here. Expanding the SC... A clerk is good. Another Justice is not. Again, lack of interested citizenry to run for the position. Still looking forward to seeing the speech continued. |
--
Emulator of Otto von Bismarck, Master of realpolitik, May he rest in peace.
But the liberals should be careful of screaming too loud ... of conspiring too well ... of undermining us too thoroughly. Because if they succeed, if they do get what they insist they want, then the result may well be something they never conceived ... "They have made a desolation, and they call it peace." ~Tacitus~ ... but a peace controlled by our former enemies.
--Tosk
 |  | |
| |
|
|
