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

[Adam Griffin]

This would make the process of calling a constitutional convention exponentially more difficult. As it stands, the law seems pretty clear that a majority of people in three regions would have to sign on to trigger a ConCon. If this were adopted, then we'd have to have a majority of people in all five regions. There'll never be a ConCon again if we pass this.

I'd support something like:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

Ok, I'm interpreting Cincy's post as saying there's a vote open, since he literally says there's a vote open.

I didn't even notice his prior post as I saw the amendment declaration and thought we were still debating.


AYE though shua is probably right about the clarity issue.

Upon further inspection, I agree and am worried that the current amendment will need to be revisited once again. With this being such a controversial issue, I feel a court case could still easily be filed arguing the actual meaning of the wording. We're going to have to explicitly define the base requirement as the signatures of 50%+1 citizens in a given region, and then stipulate that said threshold has to be replicated for a number of regions equivalent to the majority of regions. I thought I was straightforward in the wording but was not.  As such, I will ABSTAIN and encourage my fellow friends to revisit this issue very shortly and/or change their votes.

[Adam Griffin]

This is what I introduced last night thinking that the vote was still going through, so I guess I'll introduce it as an amendment here. Please, scrutinize my wording to make sure that this version will hold up:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

Looks good to me, the only minor detail I could find was "is defined", shouldn't it be "shall be defined"?

Fixed!

[Adam Griffin]

YES! Sorry.

[Adam Griffin]

A vote, then? Are we ready?

[Adam Griffin]

Aye