MA: Fix the Constitution Act (Final Vote)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Also this -
(this can be considered part of the same amendment or separate, depending on whether there is consensus)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Shua's amendment seems sensible and preserves the succinctness of the original draft. I also approve of the change to Article III.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I have been asked to put forward an amendment to restore the balanced budget language:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm not unalterably opposed to a balanced budget provision, but I feel like there are some issues with this that need to be rectified before I can support it. First, I think what constitutes an "emergency" needs to be clearly defined. Second, I feel the two-thirds threshold is unnecessary: if there is a genuine emergency, we shouldn't be restricting the ability of the government to respond to that emergency. (In any case, 2/3 of 5 is 3.33, which rounds down to 3, so this threshold accomplishes very little.) Third, I don't think it's necessary to establish a "Mideast Emergency Fund" in the actual text of the Constitution: this could be better provided for by law and only adds unnecessary length to the document. Fourth, from a stylistic standpoint, the proposed text is somewhat bulky. In the interests of brevity and maintaining uniformity throughout the Constitution, I think this should be condensed, such inelegant phrases as "and/or" removed, and percentages replaced with fractions or with their everyday equivalents.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The requirements of the balanced budget amendment have been standard Mideastern policy and should be preserved for the fiscal sanity of our region. I will join with shua's defense of it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm not unalterably opposed to a balanced budget provision, but I feel like there are some issues with this that need to be rectified before I can support it. First, I think what constitutes an "emergency" needs to be clearly defined. Second, I feel the two-thirds threshold is unnecessary: if there is a genuine emergency, we shouldn't be restricting the ability of the government to respond to that emergency. (In any case, 2/3 of 5 is 3.33, which rounds down to 3, so this threshold accomplishes very little.) Third, I don't think it's necessary to establish a "Mideast Emergency Fund" in the actual text of the Constitution: this could be better provided for by law and only adds unnecessary length to the document. Fourth, from a stylistic standpoint, the proposed text is somewhat bulky. In the interests of brevity and maintaining uniformity throughout the Constitution, I think this should be condensed, such inelegant phrases as "and/or" removed, and percentages replaced with fractions or with their everyday equivalents.

I agree that it could be improved.  Maybe we could remove the "emergency" language and just say spending beyond revenue requires a 3/4 vote.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

thank you, shua.

the arguments for keeping article vii are, essentially, the same as they've always been. mainly:

- atlasian politicians are substantially more responsible than rl politicians. a balanced budget requirement won't result in budget talks being derailed by screeching anti-tax wingnuts

- adds an element of challenge to atlasia. what's the point of having a budget at all if there are no real restrictions on it?

i'd like, also, to provide some historical context for those of you who weren't here two years ago. in the first few months of 2013, the mideast assembly debated no less than five separate proposals for a budget amendment, each of them failing by small margins. after several months of increasingly ridiculous back and forth, i (as a non-assemblyperson) started an initiative proposing the amendment you see here. the amendment won broad support from people ranging across the political spectrum, from gass, x, and myself to zuwo, jcl, and lumine, and remains, as far as i'm aware, the only successful constitutional amendment by citizen initiative.

so if nothing else, i'd avoid repealing the balanced budget amendment so we don't have this whole fight again.

I'm not unalterably opposed to a balanced budget provision, but I feel like there are some issues with this that need to be rectified before I can support it. First, I think what constitutes an "emergency" needs to be clearly defined. Second, I feel the two-thirds threshold is unnecessary: if there is a genuine emergency, we shouldn't be restricting the ability of the government to respond to that emergency.

ah, but if there's a genuine emergency it should be no problem to secure a high enough majority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

this kind of threshold always rounds up. if you need more than 3⅓ votes, you effectively need at least 4 votes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

sure. i was only objecting to the wholesale removal of the article without debate.

further questions?

[windjammer]

A balanced budget amendment is a ridiculous idea.

Of course, it is preferable for a budget to be balanced than not. But this kind of amendment doesn't take into account the current situation. For example, if there is a big disaster, it would need a 4/5th majority for a budget to be approved? Why? I fail to see a single reason why a higher majority would be needed.

Have you all forgotten what happened in the US for the Sandy funding?
Senate result: 62-32 so a 2/3 majority would have failed
House result: 241-180 a 2/3 majority requirement would have failed too

In addition of being pointless, a such amendment to the constitution would allow extremists to take into hostage budget talks if there is a disaster and that a deficit is needed, requesting massive spending cuts in exchange of their vote, even if they wouldn't have had the majority of the seats in the assembly.

This kind of constitutional amendments has so many perverts effects and I urge the Assemblymen to reject this.

If the assembly in the future isn't *fiscall rigorous*, the voters would still be able to defeat them the next elections. A such constitutional amendment isn't needed.

[Boston Bread]

I agree with Truman and Windjammer, the bbalanced budget amendment should be repealed. I support shua's first two amendments.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

A balanced budget amendment is a ridiculous idea.

Of course, it is preferable for a budget to be balanced than not. But this kind of amendment doesn't take into account the current situation. For example, if there is a big disaster, it would need a 4/5th majority for a budget to be approved? Why? I fail to see a single reason why a higher majority would be needed.

Have you all forgotten what happened in the US for the Sandy funding?
Senate result: 62-32 so a 2/3 majority would have failed
House result: 241-180 a 2/3 majority requirement would have failed too

In addition of being pointless, a such amendment to the constitution would allow extremists to take into hostage budget talks if there is a disaster and that a deficit is needed, requesting massive spending cuts in exchange of their vote, even if they wouldn't have had the majority of the seats in the assembly.

This kind of constitutional amendments has so many perverts effects and I urge the Assemblymen to reject this.

If the assembly in the future isn't *fiscall rigorous*, the voters would still be able to defeat them the next elections. A such constitutional amendment isn't needed.

it has worked fine for two years, as far as i'm aware. again, atlasian budget politics are totally incomparable to rl american budget politics. we don't really have tax extremists.

[windjammer]

A balanced budget amendment is a ridiculous idea.

Of course, it is preferable for a budget to be balanced than not. But this kind of amendment doesn't take into account the current situation. For example, if there is a big disaster, it would need a 4/5th majority for a budget to be approved? Why? I fail to see a single reason why a higher majority would be needed.

Have you all forgotten what happened in the US for the Sandy funding?
Senate result: 62-32 so a 2/3 majority would have failed
House result: 241-180 a 2/3 majority requirement would have failed too

In addition of being pointless, a such amendment to the constitution would allow extremists to take into hostage budget talks if there is a disaster and that a deficit is needed, requesting massive spending cuts in exchange of their vote, even if they wouldn't have had the majority of the seats in the assembly.

This kind of constitutional amendments has so many perverts effects and I urge the Assemblymen to reject this.

If the assembly in the future isn't *fiscall rigorous*, the voters would still be able to defeat them the next elections. A such constitutional amendment isn't needed.

it has worked fine for two years, as far as i'm aware. again, atlasian budget politics are totally incomparable to rl american budget politics. we don't really have tax extremists.

It has worked for 2 years because natural disasters never happened.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'd be interested to hear what EarlAW has to say on this issue. If I remember correctly, he opposed New Canadaland's bill to repeal this amendment earlier in the session.

if there's a genuine emergency it should be no problem to secure a high enough majority.

This makes no sense. If it's actually an emergency, why are we making it harder, even theoretically, for the Assembly to respond to it?

As I said before, I support having a balanced budget on principle and could be persuaded to back Constitutional checks to reckless spending, but I'm not sure how to do this without creating a recipe for chaos in the event of a natural disaster or the like. Having a raised threshold for support concerns me, because as Windjammer noted there's no guarantee that the minority is going to act rationally in a true crisis. I also don't like the "emergency" language because this is fraught with holes. Does the Assembly declare the "emergency"? Does the governor? The first is vulnerable to abuse and the second to inactivity. There's also the possibility of holding a referendum, but I fear that this might take too long, and in the case of a true crisis that could be a problem. 

My best thought for a compromise would be allowing the public to call a referendum on any budget that contains expenditures exceeding the total sum of collected revenue. Perhaps, to increase transparency on this issue, we could mandate the budget be given its own thread in the Fantasy Elections Board as well.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not really a good idea either. I mean, if for example the ME passed a budget with a deficit in the last days of the year, do you imagine what would happen if the voters decide to reject this budget: GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.

Yeah, sometimes, voters don't react rationally. And I wouldn't take this risk. They have the total possibility to remove from office assemblymen they want to be defeated every 2 months.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If an emergency occurs, and there is no emergency fund left, then the funds could be borrowed temporarily and counted for the next budget year - so long as we can rely on the assembly to remember to stick this expenditure in the next budget.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I motion for a vote on Shua's first amendment.

[Boston Bread]

I am calling a vote on Shua's first amendment to Article 3 (edit: and Article 1), which excludes the balanced budget amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I think Shua's amendment included changes to Article I as well.

In any case, AYE

[Boston Bread]

^ Thank you, Truman.

Aye

[Boston Bread]

The amendment has passed 2-0.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Incorporating the Governor Pardon Amendment proposed by the Governor Motley:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Boston Bread]

There does not seem to be any debate on the Governor's amendment so I will call a vote on it. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.
Also, I will call a vote on Shua's balanced budget amendment afterwards if he wishes.

[Hatman 🍁]

I vote aye, but I'd like to make a friendly amendment to give the amendment gender neutral language:

 to issue, except in cases of impeachment, pardons and reprieves for crimes committed under the laws of this Region, which shall be permanent upon their issuance, though he or she shall have no power to pardon himself or herself.

[Boston Bread]

Hatman, a lot of the text is currently male-centric. Should we make an effort to change all of it?

Ex.

It shall be the duty of the Governor, or of any officer appointed by him for the purpose with the consent of the Assembly, to maintain the Mideast Regional Wikipedia, particularly those pages concerning the laws and government of this region.

The Governor shall, from time to time, and at least once in his term, address the citizens of the Mideast on the state of the Region.

I would support a gender neutral change but I would be comfortable if we didn't, considering Atlasian demographics with respect to gender.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE

I don't feel like a gender-neutral amendment is necessary, both because of Atlasian demographics and because it's generally understood that the Constitution applies to both men and women. Even during the suffrage movement, it was never argued that the use of male pronouns in the old US Constitution excluded women from the rights of citizenship; as such, going through the entire document and replacing "he" with "he or she" seems overly specific.

As for Shua's amendment, I'd at the very least like to see it pared down in terms of length; the present text is somewhat wordy, which defeats the purpose of forming a more compact document. I also stand by my previous concerns about mandating a balanced budget; as Earl is the only one who hasn't weighed in on this yet, I wonder if he has any suggestions for a compromise? Otherwise, I will likely end up opposing it: there's just too much that could go wrong with such a provision, and I can't think of any way to fix it without mutilating the sponsor's intent.

[Boston Bread]

My vote for the amendment is AYE.