SENATE BILL: The Constitutional Convention Clarification (Not Voting, Debating.)

[bore]

As has become clear with the recent push to have a constitutional convention, our current wording about what triggers one is confusing and misleading. This amendment would change that.

If we want to have a larger conversation about what triggers a constitutional convention I'd be open to that as well.

[bore]

Amendment is friendly

[bore]

If it's not an offer I'll offer it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact I got confused as to what triggers a convention sort of proves my point

[bore]

Is that is or is there more that has to be addressed?

Given the amendment is just a clarification and not actually changing the law as long as the language is clear, (and I think it is) we can proceed to a final vote.

[bore]

Aye

Changing my vote to Nay because it's not worth passing this then passing Griffin's one as well.

[bore]

Amendment is friendly.

[bore]

Adam, are you fine with Tyrion's text?

[bore]

YOUR ALIVE CINCY, I THOUGHT I LOST YOU!!!

It's not a great idea to make mistakes in size 50 font

[bore]

As a general rule, the amount of debate on a bill or topic in a bill is inversely proportional to how complicated the subject is. So we can bang on for pages about wifi, but we struggle to get a debate on the healthcare system.

[bore]

How complex can changing three words in a text be?

Not very, which explains the three pages

[bore]

So just to be clear, this will mean a minority of citizens can call a constitutional convention if they are concentrated in a majority of the regions.  Are we okay with that?

The same is true, but even more so, of amendments to the constitution. Are we okay with that?

[bore]

So just to be clear, this will mean a minority of citizens can call a constitutional convention if they are concentrated in a majority of the regions.  Are we okay with that?

The same is true, but even more so, of amendments to the constitution. Are we okay with that?

An amendment to the constitution requires more than just a majority of regions.

I am going to insist that, when this is sent to the regions, the text explicitly shows what is being changed.  I've been considering an amendment to change to name of this indicating it is more than just a clarification, but I can't think of what else to call it.

Right, but it also requires only a majority of the vote in 4 out of 5 regions, and turnout is often as low as 4 or 5.

Actually I've been doing some digging, and the second constitution has the same text as our  current one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So we can find what precedent is by seeing how the last one was called.

[bore]

You mean the last (Forth) Convention?

Yes

[bore]

I would search for it, but I really don't have time until Saturday. Have you found anything yet Senator?

I've found this where Vepres seems to have interpreted the text as he wanted, showing why this is necessary. But I can't see anything else because I'm searching blind.

[bore]

Teddy, Hans, Vepres, damn there were some good people posting in that thread and most of them are gone now. Does Hans still post at all?

Well you know now how it was called then? People interpretted as whatever was necessary to get it going. What question are you trying to answer, was a majority of the whole population required? The answer to that is clearly no.

Hans seems to occasionally post in international elections and on the football thread, but apart from that has left.

And yeah, that does seem to be the case, using the same language as the current constitution, governors could interpret it however they wanted, which would suggest the current amendment isn't a lowering of thresholds, and may in fact be a raising of them.

[bore]

I'm ready for a final vote, but I think shua said he still had concerns.

[bore]

Shua's, as far as I can see was just bolding the change to the existing text.

Anyway, I'm ready for a final vote.

[bore]

I approve, then.

[bore]

Aye