I wonder how far this could be taken. The US probably goes further than
any other country. Splitting the law makers (legislative) from the law
appliers (courts) happens in most countries.
The legislative branch under those systems have multiple powers:
- selects the Prime Minister (controls the executive)
- control of tax code
- controls the spending of taxes
- law making power
- law repealing power
The court system's power can be split into at least 2 distinct functions
- determines questions of law
- determines questions of fact
Normally, a defendant gets 1 jury trial that determines the facts. After
that all appeals are generally questions of law (unless the higher court
says that due to legal errors, the defendant has to have another jury trial.)
Finally, these systems have a final judge type person. This could be a
monarch, a governor or a President. This person is responsible for making
sure the other branches are not abusing the system. Generally, this
person have very little actual power. The powers granted would include
things like signing into effect of laws. Also, they may have the power
to order new elections be called.
So, the Extreme Republic would be something like
Head of State
- signing laws into effect
- appointing all the other posts
- doesn't get to choose who to appoint, that would be decided
by some other procedure
(must perform appointment unless there has been a violation
of procedure)
Executive
Chief Executive
- this may even be split more
- would have powers similar to US President
Minister for Defense
- head of military
Tax Collector
- responsible for applying tax code
Attorney General (*2)
- responsible for prosecuting those who violate the law
- there is 2 so it is less likely that "friends" won't be prosecuted
Legislative
Creating Houses/Council
Responsible for creating laws (majority in any Houses)
Repealing Houses/Council
Can repeal laws (maybe less than majority required)
Spending Houses/Council
Responsible for allocating funds between projects
Tax setting Houses/Council
Responsible for setting the tax code
Courts
Supreme Court of Fact
- final court of appeal on questions of fact
Supreme Court of Law
- final court of appeal on questions of law
This would mean that a person would be first tried in a court of
fact to determine what happened. This report would then be
sent to a different judge to determine what the legal consequences
would be, e.g. sentences would be questions of law.
This is probably to much divisions.
I think that splitting the legislative into at least 2 would be a
good idea. There seems little reason that tax collection/apportionment
should be handled by the same body that determined what the law is.
The tax house would be a larger draw for those seeking power than
the legal house, so maybe, it would have the added benefit that those
in the law making house would be people more interested in quality
laws.
any other country. Splitting the law makers (legislative) from the law
appliers (courts) happens in most countries.
The legislative branch under those systems have multiple powers:
- selects the Prime Minister (controls the executive)
- control of tax code
- controls the spending of taxes
- law making power
- law repealing power
The court system's power can be split into at least 2 distinct functions
- determines questions of law
- determines questions of fact
Normally, a defendant gets 1 jury trial that determines the facts. After
that all appeals are generally questions of law (unless the higher court
says that due to legal errors, the defendant has to have another jury trial.)
Finally, these systems have a final judge type person. This could be a
monarch, a governor or a President. This person is responsible for making
sure the other branches are not abusing the system. Generally, this
person have very little actual power. The powers granted would include
things like signing into effect of laws. Also, they may have the power
to order new elections be called.
So, the Extreme Republic would be something like
Head of State
- signing laws into effect
- appointing all the other posts
- doesn't get to choose who to appoint, that would be decided
by some other procedure
(must perform appointment unless there has been a violation
of procedure)
Executive
Chief Executive
- this may even be split more
- would have powers similar to US President
Minister for Defense
- head of military
Tax Collector
- responsible for applying tax code
Attorney General (*2)
- responsible for prosecuting those who violate the law
- there is 2 so it is less likely that "friends" won't be prosecuted
Legislative
Creating Houses/Council
Responsible for creating laws (majority in any Houses)
Repealing Houses/Council
Can repeal laws (maybe less than majority required)
Spending Houses/Council
Responsible for allocating funds between projects
Tax setting Houses/Council
Responsible for setting the tax code
Courts
Supreme Court of Fact
- final court of appeal on questions of fact
Supreme Court of Law
- final court of appeal on questions of law
This would mean that a person would be first tried in a court of
fact to determine what happened. This report would then be
sent to a different judge to determine what the legal consequences
would be, e.g. sentences would be questions of law.
This is probably to much divisions.
I think that splitting the legislative into at least 2 would be a
good idea. There seems little reason that tax collection/apportionment
should be handled by the same body that determined what the law is.
The tax house would be a larger draw for those seeking power than
the legal house, so maybe, it would have the added benefit that those
in the law making house would be people more interested in quality
laws.
Raphfrk
--------------------
Interesting site
"what if anyone could modify the laws"
www.wikocracy.com
--------------------
Interesting site
"what if anyone could modify the laws"
www.wikocracy.com
---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
