Reform Atlasia Plan

[Colin]

I would like to thank the President for putting foward an excellent plan for Atlasia. As one of the authors I think it shows a good, solid way towards a total reform of the system. I believe, and the President agreed with me, that this plan is an excellent step in the right direction for Atlasia.

[Colin]

Well technically I don't think Atlasia would be a Republic anymore.

Why ever not?

Yes why not? It's still the Republic of Finland but they have a parliamentary system, Republic of Poland, Republic of Austria, Republic of Hungary, Czech Republic. Of course we would be the Republic of Atlasia unless we change the name.

I believe that the Second Republic would probably be the best name for this new system since it would delineate it from the older electoral system and older government structure.

[Colin]

Talking of which, what about all the old laws (and budgets and so on) passed?
There's a certain (unfortunate?) tendency here to decide that once something becomes law, it's a settled issue, which isn't very healthy in real life and is even more dangerous in a game like this.
Either that culture has to change, or most laws & etc not relating to forum affairs etc, need to be scrapped.

I believe that the judicial review of the regional and federal laws under Article 2 Clause e of this plan would cover that by, I'm guessing, voiding some laws and keeping others. I'm considering that most forum affairs legislation that doesn't completely conflict would stay in place but that we could work out some sort of system of doing away with some laws through judicial review.

That section was written by the President so I would suggest that he answer what his intent was upon placing that section in the Reform Atlasia Plan.

[Colin]

To add to what True Democrat said above.

The Vote of No Confidence would be proposed by three members of the National Assembly in order to be put forth before the Assembly as a whole. If a majority of the National Assembly votes No Confidence in the government of the Prime Minister he is forced to resign the office of Prime Minister.

The parties may then form a new coalition or the old coalition can elect a new Prime Minister depending what coalitions form after the VONC. The outgoing Prime Minister cannot stand for election to be Prime Minister after losing a Vote of No Confidence.

A Vote of No Confidence can only be called once every two weeks unless a majority of the Senate calls for a Vote of No Confidence before the time limit is up.

[Colin]

Also another thing TD and I were talking about. If a member of the National Assembly resigns or is thrown out of the Assembly an nation-wide IRV by-election would be held. We were thinking about having the parties nominate another person to fill the seat but then we considered that this would not be applicable to those people running on 1 or 2 man lists. So an IRV nation-wide by-election is the only way to solve this problem.

[Colin]

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

Secondly I do not think the National Assembly will select a Speaker. I think that the Speaker's job could be handled by the Prime Minister since he sets the legislative agenda he would have control over the opening of legislation and voting, under the procedures put forward by the National Assembly. I do not believe a Speaker is necessary nor needed. The NA is small to begin with and with 7% of its lawmakers in an almost non-partisan and not really needed position it would hurt the effectiveness of coalition building.

Third instead of the speaker being caretaker the outgoing Prime Minister stays in office until a new PM is found.

I also agree with Peter that the House should have all legislative powers that are not the domain of the Senate.

[Colin]

Ernest, instead of writing a package of amendments, why not just write an entirely new constitution as one amendment.  Or, we could just write a new constitution, go in to the convention, and vote on it right away.

I have to agree. Having it drawn up piecemeal probably wont work. We could likely be stopped at some half-step. So that we have the President of the Senate, the National Assembly but no Prime Minister or abolishment of the Regions. Or we could have a President, No Regions, and a 6 member Senate. Or we could be left with any number of odd and varying combinations that could leave the Government of Atlasia is an odd tangle between the reformed governmnet and the old government.

[Colin]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Colin]

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.

Alright I understand. However I believe that it would be best not to codify the exact workings of the GM within the constitution at this time but leave that open to debate within the National Assembly and Senate as well as possibly a later amendment.

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.
[/quote]

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.

We must all remember, not only you but also a few others, that we don't have to solve every crisis and problem with this Constitution but only build up the framework. Certain issues can be addressed through legislation and procedural matters than through the Constitution directly. Some things that some want set in stone should rather be written into wax, editable and changeable through the legislative process instead of the more menacing and challenging amendment process.

[Colin]

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?

What does the Supreme Court do for months on end?

[Colin]

The Senate has alot of power. It seems to have all the major "grandfatherly" powers like vetoing legislation, line item veto, declaring war, nominating Supreme Court justices and GMs, regulate the duties of the GM and debate on issues.

The Senate isn't suppose to be an uproariously exciting body it is supposed to be a mixture of serious debate and executive status. The type of action that is now seen in the Senate will move into the National Assembly while the executive and its more laid-back nature move to the Senate.

I've never considered the nomination of candidates for the Cabinet all that exciting and really it only takes a few days, barring anything like what happened to Hugh. It is also likely that the Senate will still be debating and passing or vetoing bills from the previous National Assembly, though I'm not quite sure how the carry-over from the prior Senates and National Assemblies will work. But I could see a Senate were at the beginning they are debating and voting on legislation from the previous National Assembly, and then slowly their focus turns onto the bills that are being passed by the current National Assembly.

[Colin]

Here it is:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/User:True_democrat

I must give a thoroughly congradulations to True Democrat. Not only has he created a well written and well thought out Constitution but he has also only become the Third Person in Atlasian history to write an entire constitution.

[Colin]

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.

This was an honest mistake. We did not, at first, add it in there because we had trouble figuring out how current legislative items, such as abortion or the minimum wage, could become federal legislation and legislative issues. 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. It is now added to the proposal. This is now added into the proposal.

What I will not stand though is you consider this to be some sort of power grab. I believe in reform not power grabs and I would like it if you, Senator, would not call into question either my belief or True Democrat's belief in limiting the powers of the masses nor our commitment to an equal and fair system. I would like you to refrain from attacking both a collegue and a person who had the intiative to single-handled begin the path to reform.

I would also like to hear what you believe should be added, taken away, or changed concerning Section 5 in order to make it more acceptable to a Parliamentary non-regional form of government.

[Colin]

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.

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?

[Colin]

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.

Alright thank you for clearing that up for me. I think that your idea is most likely best and while I don't agree with you on the whole GM controlled states idea I do think that it is best to leave both that and the limits of the National Assembly for a later time. Well Section 5 is added and that should hold us over for the needed transition period but I do agree with you that you can't have a government that can do anything but you need to add some of the current legislative powers of the regions to the National Assembly, though this can be done at a later date.

[Colin]

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.

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.

[Colin]

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.

I'm sorry to say this Ernest but at this time almost all federalism would have to go for the time being. I'm not a fan of having phantom states controlled by a GM just to horse around with the government, it seems fake and childish to me and would make this more of a role-playing game than a simulation of any kind.

What would happen to laws such as death penalty laws or abortion? The National Assembly can't regulate them, we don't have these phantom states to "fake" pass resolutions concerning them. So what happens to them? Are they left up to the people? I don't see how abortion could be left up to the people or things like prostitution. What will you have some vigilante groups saying that abortion is illegal while some people believe that abortion is legal? What a way to run a railroad, even if its just until the amendments start coming up dealing with those issues. Does that mean that everytime someone says, "Oops we forgot to add the power for the National Assembly to do 'blank'" we have to go through a huge amendment process? Wasn't that exactly what happened after Fritz v. Ernest because we had forgotten to enumerate all the powers of the Senate?

I understand your belief in federalism and the second that we actually get enough people who are interested in a regional system that we would have the ability to support both this new reform plan and a regional system we should bring back the regions and Section 5 of the Second Constitution. Until that time though I don't see a real need at the beginning to specify all the powers of the Senate since it would probably be easier to just restrain the beast of government with the chains in place within the powers denied to the Senate and Article VI, respectively.

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?

[Colin]

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.)

Oh so instead of just defining government power through restrictions we should just have a bunch of court cases and interpret sections of the constitution in such a vague light that anything can pass as a power of the National Assembly. Is that what you're trying to say? Isn't that just a much more stressful and round about way to achieve the same result?

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.
[/quote]

So basically you are relegating some issues to the much more difficult amendment process while some can still be passed with just a majority of both houses all in the name of restraining government legislation to enumerated powers even if it is the only government and there is no agency that the Constitution is giving those power not enumerated to. So we are constantly amending the constitution because the Assembly is only given enumerated powers that are fit only for a country with regional system.

Let me put it this way. This is exactly the same as stating, in a constitution for a country under Atlasia's present system, "these are the only issues that can be debated. In order to debate other issues you must amend this constitution to allow those issues to be debated at any level of government". The enumerated powers were put in place to give a balance between the powers and issues that could be debated in the Senate and those that could be defined by the regions. Without the regions there is no need to balance the federal governments powers against another entities since there is no other entity.

[Colin]

While the regional governments have had very little activity, what would keeping their governments around hurt?

It would most likely make a bi-cameral legislature impractical as there would be too many offices to fill. I doubt you would be able to find enough candidates both of regional governments or for federal office.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Colin]

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?

Because otherwise we are just a bunch of internet nerds with funny titles twiddling our thumbs instead of a bunch of internet nerds with funny titles pertending to do something.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well you seem to come from the opinion that the government should actually do nothing in which case I say we just give each other grandeous titles and go post in the other areas of this forum.

To be serious though why haven't you demanded this of the regions? I want the regions to show why it is a good idea for them to regulate abortion or marijuana use or speed limits. Otherwise I will just set them myself because I obviously am better at setting laws than a duely elected government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well you are basically segregating issues into two charagories, easy to pass and hard to pass. You are making gay marriage easy to regulate while you are making abortion harder to regulate due to the fact that it requires a 2/3rds approval from, most likely, both houses as well as support in 4 out of 5 regions, and that's just to have the federal government be allowed to discuss abortion not even legislate it.

Again I'm asking you Ernest, who or what will legislate abortion or speed limits or any such matter if not for the only government? Don't give me this crap about why should they even be regulated by the government because they already are regulated by a government, the regional government. You don't seem to have a problem with Governor Naso deciding to propose legislation but you seem to have a problem with a nationally elected governmental body controling it in a unitary system where they are the only authority.

[Colin]

I say the PPT should introduce one of the plans as per a regular constitutional amendment so we can seperate the actually amending of any plan and the Senate debate from the more open debate that has been going on in this thread, just for clarity's sake.

[Colin]

Just a few recent changes to the True Democrat Constitution, Articles IV and VI have been combined into one Article like in Emsworth's proposal. Also the elections for both the Senate and the National Assembly are set by law instead of the Constitution.

Also if you didn't see this before the Senate is now able to write resolutions that, if passed by a majority of the Senate, are introduced into the National Assembly as if they were normal legislation introduced by a member of that body.