Reform Atlasia Plan

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As a firm believer in the advantages of federalism, if this were the real world, I'd oppose this simply for eliminating the Regions.  However, this isn't reality, and we don't have a lot of citizens (players) so I can live with this, so long as we retain States, perhaps including them as a part of the writ of the GM (or a GM if we ever split the GM duties among several people) as a way of complicating the jobs of Federal officials.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Give me a day or two and I'll try to turn this plan into a series of amendments.  I am not at all enthusiastic about yet another Constitutional Convention.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think to do it peacemeal (i.e. one amendment at a time) would be cumbersome . Look at this Senate, for example, we've become pretty much bogged down with separate Amendments for this and that.

I think I can manage the entire proposal in only three or four amendments, structured so that if any one of them should fail it wouldn't impact the others.  Besides, with the propensity for people to tinker with things, I doubt if this could in a single session of the Senate get through all of the amendments to it that will be proposed if it were introduced as a whole.

Later, once we've gotten it finally hammered out, we can go back and pass a new Constitution whose only purpose is to make elegant and incorporate the various amendments without making any changes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

OK, here's a first draft of turning this plan into an actual piece of legislation.  I did engage in a few tweaks of mine own, and given the lack of any clear direction on what the Supreme Court was supposed to do with regional law, I left that alone.  The main substantial tweak I added was a presidential line-item spending veto that could be overridden by 3/5 of the National Assembly.  It's four separate amendments, with the only dependency between them being that the Prime Minister Amendment presumes that some version of the National Assembly Amendment has passed.
National Assembly Amendment

Section 1. Congress
The legislative powers of the Republic of Atlasia that have heretofore been invested in the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia shall hereafter be invested in the Congress of the Republic of Atlasia which shall consist of two houses: the National Assembly and the Senate, which shall, save as provided in this amendment, jointly possess the powers now held by the Senate, with the separate approval of both houses required with the same quorum and majority as now required of the Senate.

Section 2. Senate
The method of election to and the selection of the officers of the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia shall be unchanged by this amendment.

Section 3. National Assembly
1. The National Assembly shall consist of Representatives elected using party list proportional representation in a national election.
2. The number of Representatives and the method of their apportionment to parties shall be fixed by the Senate, but shall until otherwise determined by them be fifteen Representatives apportioned by the Sainte-Laguë method between the parties.  No change in the number or method of apportionment made by the Senate shall take effect until the next election of the General Assembly.
3. Elections to the National Assembly shall begin between midnight Eastern Standard Time on the second to last Thursday of the months of February, June, and October and 0001 Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday thereafter, and shall conclude exactly 72 hours after beginning.
4. Representatives shall take office at noon Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday in the month after their election.
5. The National Assembly shall chuse their Speaker and such other officers as they see fit to appoint for the organization of their House.  Following election, an incoming National Assembly may meet before the beginning of their term of office to elect such officers.

Section 4. Prerogatives of the National Assembly
1. Subject to funds available from revenues and borrowing authorized by law, the National Assembly shall have sole power to appropriate funds for spending, subject to a line-item veto by the President, which the National Assembly may override by a three-fifths majority.
2. The Senate shall consider those resolutions, bills, and constitutional amendments which have passed the National Assembly before any other legislation except for a resolution pertaining to the rules of the Senate.
3. If the Senate shall not concur with the National Assembly in the passing of any bill requiring the approval of a majority of both houses, the National Assembly may enact such bill into law itself by a two-thirds vote.

Section 5. Prerogatives of the Senate
1. The National Assembly shall have no role in the process of Impeachment, and those portions of the Constitution that refer to the Senate’s role in such process shall continue to refer to the Senate alone.
2. The National Assembly shall have no role in the process of advice and consent of Presidential nominees, and those portions of the Constitution that refer to the Senate’s role in such process shall continue to refer to the Senate alone.
Prime Minister Amendment

Section 1. Prime Minister
1. The National Assembly shall select in the same manner as its officers a Prime Minister to function as Head of Government, while the President shall remain as Head of State.
2. Notwithstanding Article V Section 1 Clause 1 of the Second Constitution, the National Assembly may appoint any person to be Prime Minister except for the Speaker of the General Assembly, the President of the Senate, or any member of the Supreme Court.
3. The Prime Minister shall have the executive powers now held by the President of the Republic of Atlasia under clauses 1 and 4 of Section 1 of Article II of the Second Constitution.
4. The Prime Minister shall set the agenda (other than a vote of no confidence) of the National Assembly.

Section 2. Vote of Confidence
1. Subject to clause 2, upon the petition of any three Representatives, a vote of no confidence shall be held.  If a majority of the National Assembly assert their lack of confidence in the government headed by the Prime Minister then the National Assembly shall proceed to select a new Prime Minister.
2. A vote of no confidence may not be called for unless there has been at least two weeks since the appointment of the Prime Minister or the conclusion of the last vote of no confidence.  A vote of confidence shall last no longer than one week, but the National Assembly may by rule provide for the closing of a vote sooner provided that the result could only be changed by a changed vote on the part of one or more Representatives.

Section 3. Cabinet
1. Notwithstanding Article V Section 1 Clause 1 of the Second Constitution, members of the Cabinet may be any person except for the Speaker of the National Assembly, the President of the Senate, or any member of the Supreme Court.
2. Notwithstanding Article II Section 1 Clause 4 of the Second Constitution, members of the Cabinet shall not be required to be confirmed by the Senate.

Section 4. Caretaker
1. Following a successful vote of no confidence or the resignation of the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the National Assembly shall be acting Prime Minister until the appointment of a new Prime Minister.
2. The National Assembly shall not give final approval of any bill or constitutional amendment while there is an acting Prime Minister.

Section 5. Transition
Until such time as the National Assembly shall first appoint a Prime Minister, the Speaker of the national Assembly shall also serve as Prime Minister of Atlasia.
Abolition of Regions Amendment
1. The Regions of Atlasia are hereby abolished.
2. Class A Senators shall continue to serve until the end of their current term, but shall have no successor elected or appointed.
3. The drawing of districts for Class B Senators shall be done by the Supreme Court instead of the Governors of the Regions.
4.  As of the next redistricting, the number of Class B Senators shall be increased to 6.
Consolidated Presidency Amendment
1. As of the next Presidential election, the offices of President of the Republic of Atlasia and President of the Senate of Atlasia shall be consolidated into one office, with the office of Vice President to be abolished.
2. The term of the next President shall end at the same time as the Class B Senators, and the President shall thereafter be elected at the same time as the Class B Senators.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While I accept that legislation would orginate in the General, or National, Assembly and once it passes be referred to the Senate; would it be possible for Senators to still propose their own legislative initiatives for the Assembly to consider or not?

'Hawk'

I asked a very similar question myself when it was being drafted as I had reservations over how the system would work. I would hope that Senators, individually or collectively would be able to 'partner' with like minded assembly members in order to propose legislation (in the same way citizens can lobby sympathetic Senators) within the Assembly. That way we don't have a 'rubber stamp Senate' but two houses that are inevevitibly bound together in the legislative process.

The Senate will still have the authority to reject legislation and propose amendments that will then be passed back to the Assembly.

I addressed that concern somewhat with a tweak.  I have the Senate still able to consider stuff on its own, but anything that passes the Assembly automatically moves to the front of the Senate calendar.  That way the Senate doesn't have to stand around doing nothing at the start of a session until a bill has passed the Assembly.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest just a few quibbles. First change General Assembly to National Assembly as per the Plan.

Will do, but be prepared for an amendment over the name when this does reach the Senate floor, as I prefer GA to NA.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is nothing that requires the Speaker to be a Representative, and unless we intend to pass these amendments as a block instead of as separate amendments, the General Assembly does need a presiding officer until the post of Prime Minister is established. That said, I would not be opposed to in the Prime Minister Amendment providing for the abolishment of the post of Speaker.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We do need someone to serve as caretaker head of government in the event of a resignation, and as long as we have established that point of procedure, using the same officeholder as the caretaker in the event of a VoNC seems logical to me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest, make you sure in your amendments you mention that Senators are only elected by districts, drawn up by the Supreme Court, and there should be six districts.

I did so in the Abolition of Regions Amendment, though I have to say with Regions abolished, we do need a change in the method of approving amendments.  Replace the current five separate Regional votes with a National vote, and if so do we require a majority or a supermajority?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I definitely think that a convention should be called. The power to shape the future structure of the government should be exercised by a body larger than the Senate.

NO.  If we're going to do this, I don't want us to waste the four to six months that experience shows will be required for a convention.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

General Assembly Amendment

Section 1. Congress
The legislative powers of the Republic of Atlasia that have heretofore been invested in the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia shall hereafter be invested in the Congress of the Republic of Atlasia which shall consist of two houses: the General Assembly and the Senate, which shall, save as provided in this amendment, jointly possess the powers now held by the Senate, with the separate approval of both houses required with the same quorum and majority as now required of the Senate.

Given that the Regions will be abolished, I think that the powers of the new Congress need to be expanded to all legislative powers not otherwise denied as opposed to simply those of the present Senate.

If so, it be sensible to do that in the Amendment that abolishes the Regions, not the one that establishes the Assembly.  That said, I'd prefer to keep the State governments around as something that the GM can use to complicate things for interact with the government that we actually elect.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given that the Regions will be abolished, I think that the powers of the new Congress need to be expanded to all legislative powers not otherwise denied as opposed to simply those of the present Senate.

If so, it be sensible to do that in the Amendment that abolishes the Regions, not the one that establishes the Assembly.  That said, I'd prefer to keep the State governments around as something that the GM can use to complicate things for interact with the government that we actually elect.

What point would they serve though? Just as fake government's acted out by the GM? I see what you're trying to get at but I think this would put too much power into the hands of the GM and if its something akin to states having actually governments, ie I declare myself Governor of Pennsylvania, wont that just be the complete chaos and world of random titles that was the reason Atlasia became a Constitutional government in the first place?

We already give the GM power to be foreign governments, if you are too worried that giving him the power to play the local governments would be too much power I could see trying to have multiple GM's with different portfolios.  I agree that having self-declared State leaders would be too much.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry to again disagree with you Ernest but I believe that that is a horrible plan. When this plan was being written up what we wanted to keep in the upper house was some vestige of the executive system in place within a parliamentary structure. By giving the Senate the power to form legislation than this is combining the two, giving veto and legislative power to the highest office of government. What is a good compromise option is that the Senate is able to formulate Resolutions on its own, so while it cannot formulate legislation it can write resolutions and force its hand with the lower house.

I also do not consider the gap between the Lower and Upper Houses all that large. A party represented in the National Assembly is likely to have some representation in the Senate and vice versa. If ordinary citizens now can pop into Senator Hawk's Office, or your office, or mine, and propose a piece of legislation that will ultimately be proposed by us, I have yet to see a piece of legislation submitted by a citizen be turned down, I'm sure a Senator will have the clout and the allies to get something moving within the National Assembly.
[/quote]

You are optimistic about the speed with which legislation will pass the Assembly and I am pessimistic.  Also the Assembly under this plan will be considering budget bills that will further slow down the flow of bills to the Senate, as not all bills it deals with will require Senate approval.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What does the speed have anything to do with it? I do not want the Senate to begin legislation. I am, however, fine with it passing resolutions and the like as long as its not actually originating legislation. I'm guessing that something could be included that states that the Assembly leave open one space in its legislative agenda for bills petitioned for by a member of the Senate, however I believe that this could be addressed through procedural resolution within the National Assembly and nothing more.

You may be fine with the Senate twiddling its thumbs for a couple of weeks at the start of each Assembly, but I'm not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, that's why for example I tweaked the proposal so that the number of Assemblymen/Representatives/Burgesses/whatever and how they are apportioned to parties is changeable without a further amendment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What does the speed have anything to do with it? I do not want the Senate to begin legislation. I am, however, fine with it passing resolutions and the like as long as its not actually originating legislation. I'm guessing that something could be included that states that the Assembly leave open one space in its legislative agenda for bills petitioned for by a member of the Senate, however I believe that this could be addressed through procedural resolution within the National Assembly and nothing more.

You may be fine with the Senate twiddling its thumbs for a couple of weeks at the start of each Assembly, but I'm not.

What does the President do at the beginning of every session?

Tries to get his cabinet appointed, prepares for legislation on the upcoming calendar and suggests amendments that would make them something other than veto fodder when they come up, or uses the executive authority of his office to prepare or change regulations.  That we have mainly had Presidents who have chosen a laid-back approach doesn't mean that there aren't opportunities for Presidents to do things from the very beginning of their term of office.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Having seen the draft I have some points to make, and may well make more later.

1. There should be a way other than amending the constitution to change the number of Assemblers.
2.  It is usual for the Head of State to be the de jure Commander-in-Chief even if de facto control of the military is held otherwise.  The President and not the Prime Minister should be Commander-in-Chief.
3.  As far as I can tell it changes us from a Republic of limited and clearly specified powers, to one with limited and clearly specified restrictions on powers.  The difference is subtle but profound and unless changed back to include something like Article I Section 5 of the existing Constitution, I shall be a vocal and persistent opponent of this proposal.  Points 1 and 2 are stylistic differences, but this point is non-negotiable to me.  I don't insist on the exact text of the current list of limited powers, though I think it be preferable that any changes in the powers of government from what is currently in the constitution be kept to the absolute minimum needed to carry through the change in the form of government, but I do insist that there be one.  Trying to turn this attempt at government reform into a back-handed power grab is the surest way I know of to see that this is defeated if not in the Senate then at the ballot box.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. There should be a way other than amending the constitution to change the number of Assemblers.

To change the number of Senators we need an amendment, but I would be open to your idea.  Perhaps three fourths of the both the National Assembly and the Senate can change the number of Assemblers?

In my proposed Amendments to the current constitution I gave that responsibility to the Senate alone, (along with the ability to choose a method other than Sainte-Laguë) with the restriction that any change would not take effect until the next election.  That should be enough to keep any changes being made for political reasons.

However, while I'm thinking about it, I do have a concern over what happens with a tie during apportionment.  In real elections there are enough voters that a tie messing up a PR system because more than one party should get the last seat is just a theoretical possibility, but with our limited voter pool, ties are all too frequent an occurrence to not have a way to handle them defined.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let me rephrase my concerns as being about a possibly perceived power grab than an intended one.  However, I am troubled about your statement:

Since Section 5 has a necessary and proper clause I believe that most of this current regional legislative issues would fall under the necessary and proper distinction as there is no other way to regulate them.

You seem to be presuming that by default government should be able to regulate everything except where such regulation is specifically prohibited.  That's just the sort of implication that I'm not willing to tolerate in a new constitution.  Under the current system, the minimum wage issue wasn't left to the Regions because it was specified in the Federal Constitution that the Regions would have that power.  Rather, the Atlasian Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government did not have that power under the Federal Constitution, and left the issue of whether each Region did under its own Regional Constitution to the Regional Courts to decide.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well then how do you resolve to fix the problem? What would you propose as a new definition of the restriction upon the Senate and its powers?

There is still the problem about things that are currently regional legislation issues. Would those, in your opinion, remain untouched by a federal government even if the regions are no longer a part of the system?

If we keep States (and I don't mean StatesRights ) as a tool for the GM to use then we can keep the current Regional powers as State powers and use the customary real-world practice of bribing or coercing the States to enact certain laws by the using the power of the purse when we wish to make it a Federal matter.  If we abandon completely any form of local government, then such things would need to be added as explicit powers in order to be legislated, though as I pointed out, such changes being done at the same time as the structural reform might cause some people to vote against the structural reform for that reason, particularly if they are neutral to the idea of the structural reform.  In my case, a few tweaks in this area that I disagree with would not be enough to cause me to so oppose, but a large number might.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the Regions go, who exactly are you proposing will pass nationwide legislation on issues such as abortion, the death penalty, etc.? Effectively we will have a unitary nation by definition, it makes no sense to restrict the federal legislature to a few stated issues.

That was my original belief. We would become like the UK before devolution we would be a unitary nation where the National Assembly would not be bound by any need to refrain from some legislation.

Need I remind you Ernest that we have kept all the provision of Article VI in place as well as most of the power denied to the Senate in the current Constitution.

You seem to be forgetting Peter, that I am a staunch supporter of federalism and limited government.  I'm willing to forego to some extent federalism because of our lack of numbers, but I'm not willing to give up the concept of a government limited to powers explicitly granted as there is no need.

That we might need to engage in constitutional amendments to deal with issues currently reserved to the Regions is a definite possibility, but if we try mixing that in with the structural reform, we may end up with people voting against the structural reform simply to block the added powers.  Conversely, dealing with issues in the context of amendments instead of legislation doesn't detract from the fact that we would be debating issues such as abortion or the minimum wage.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What would happen to laws such as death penalty laws or abortion?

Well, if we abolish or ignore local government as we currently plan on doing, there's no reason why we can't legislate on the death penalty.  Previous rulings concerned whether the Federal government could force the Regions to restrict the punishments applied to violations of Regional laws.  The Federal government remains free to choose whether to use the death penalty itself for its own laws.

As for abortion, maybe my memory is playing tricks with me, but wasn't that issue left to the Regions because of a political choice to do so, not a constitutional restriction? A case could be made for the authorization of Federal laws regulating abortion under Article I Section 5 Clause 4 and Article VI Clause 2.  (I'd also add Article I Section 5 Clause 9 except that Bono v. Atlasia II pretty clearly established that services are not included under items of commerce in that clause.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why give only enumerated powers if there is no place else to give the remaining power? What happens if, say, after this amendment process is over the death penalty is part of the National Assembly's enumerated powers but the ability to make laws for abortion and marriage are not. What would become of those two issues? For hypothetical purposes there are no phantom states controlled by the GM only the federal government and the people. What would become of those issues in your opinion? Would some people just say I believe that abortion is legal and others say it isn't since wouldn't powers not enumerated to the Federal Government be vested in the people? Or would these just be issues that are thrown off the table and swept under the rug since the federal government, the only active government within Atlasia, can't debate or legislate anything about them?
[/quote]

Marriage is already a Federal issue under the Second Constitution, see Article I Section 5, Clause 5.  I already dealt with abortion above.  In any case, other than a difference in degree of difficulty in passing a proposed law there is no effective difference in whether the Congress would be able to address such an issue regardless of whether an amendment or an ordinary law was required to so do.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If this were a real country, I'd doubt we'd be squishing levels together.  Even if we were, a reasonable starting point would be to add the enumerated powers of the Regional governments. However, because of the relative unimportance of the Regional governments, we generally allowed them to proceed without specifically enumerated powers.  That was tolerable but not ideal, in part because the Regional governments generally had weak executives and direct democracy was used to set policy.  The proposal has neither of those checks, nor should it, as it would negate the importance of the election aspect of the game.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If wedge issues such as abortion make their way to the federal government, as soon as social conservatives get a majority, legislation will be pushed to restrict it more and as soon as social liberals get a majority, legislation will be pushed to expand it. In addition, issues like that could end up overshadowing things such as our decreasing population and some people will vote on that basis when it comes to choosing candidates.

Well in some ways that would be good. Maybe talking about actual issues from the real-world might put some energy into this thing. That's all I have to say.

But whether the issue is being dealt with by an amendment or by ordinary legislation, it's still being dealt with is my point.  That's why I don't see the need to include changes in the delineated powers as part of this structural reform.  That said, I'll repeat what I said before, addition to the delineated would not be a deal breaker for me on this issue, tho total abolition of the concept of delineated powers would be.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So you want to put a gag rule on certain issues?  That worked in the 1840s. . .

What gag rule?   How does the fact that a particular issue need a constitutional amendment instead of legislation act a gag rule?  By that logic, in the real world, opponents of flag burning are gagged because they need a constitutional amendment instead of just a law to get their way, to use a particular concrete example.  Now it is true that whether an amendment is needed would affect the possibility of a particular measure passing, but that is a separate question from whether it would be discussed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So you want to put a gag rule on certain issues?  That worked in the 1840s. . .

What gag rule?   How does the fact that a particular issue need a constitutional amendment instead of legislation act a gag rule?  By that logic, in the real world, opponents of flag burning are gagged because they need a constitutional amendment instead of just a law to get their way, to use a particular concrete example.  Now it is true that whether an amendment is needed would affect the possibility of a particular measure passing, but that is a separate question from whether it would be discussed.

If there are no regional legislatures, why shouldn't the national government have the right to talk about the issue?  Not talking about the issue will only cause chaos.  You either have Federalism or not, you can't have it both ways.

Why should any government have a particular power?  You seem to be starting off with the assumption that if someone comes up with an idea for a government power then it must be used at some level unless it can be shown why it would be a bad idea.  I want government to have to show why it would be a good idea first.

And once again, how does what I propose keep an issue from debated?  You keep repeating that point without explaining why.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm willing to tolerate more from a participatory democracy which is what we have in our Regions than from a republic which what we have at our Federal level.