On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 01:12:42AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote: > > I would reasonably assume (obviously a mistake when dealing with > bureacracies) that if the secretary needs to make a decision, they should > interpret the constitution, not throw it out and do whatever the hell they > want. >
The secretary could (no obligation) appoint (7.1.4) another person to decide whether the secretary's decision was constitutional. [I doubt anyone viewed as impartial by all sides would be willing to make this decision] The controversial GR could be dropped and restarted including a constitutional amendment clearly allowing the modification of the social contract. Alternatively you could appeal the Secretary's decision by calling for a General Rsolution to overturn this decision (4.1.3), and then using section 4.2.2.3 (interpretted broadly by the Secretary ) call for an immediate vote (carried out by the Secretary) on whether to block the other GR's until the appeal on overruling the Secretary could be taken to a full vote (again carried out by the Secretary) before demanding the Secretary conduct a vote that he believes is unconstitutional. Or the Secretary could quit, which would have to be an appealing alternative to the mind numbing scenario painted above. I don't really know whether he made the right decision. He may have interpretted the original GR as unconstitutional, and recast it as a one-time amendment allowing the necesary capability in order to bring this to vote in two ballots rather than three. Or he may have interpretted the Social Contract as part of the constitution, making John's GR an amendment directly. Having read his powers, maybe he can do these things. The constitution is a bit vague on how proposals and amendments are to be bundled into ballots, and it's the Secretary's job to resolve these amiguities and post a ballot. Perhaps the constitution should be made more concrete in this area, and simplify the task of both the Secretary and the proponents of amendments. When Ian J wrote the first draft of this constitution I asked him a few questions about this Secretary post, which I described to him as a single point of failure. In response Ian J mentioned that GR's could overrule Secretarial decisions, and added the bit about the Secretary appointing a deputy to take over when they weren't able to respond. I then missed the final draft and vote due to personal reasons. :/ Our first GR, and it looks like we've found several unexpected bugs in the constitution, in addition to the "Concorde [sic]" vote counting issue. We probably better straighten these all out before the next controversial general resolution, but it's far too late for this one.
