Third Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia

[Colin]

Without Section Two of this Amendment, then Section One would leave us in the position be being hit by a second Fritz v. Ernest which I think no one would want.  The only change Section One does is add "of the Republic of Atlasia".

How could there be another Fritz v. Ernest? There are no regions, there are no lower governmental entities, there are no regional governors to challenge the laws. I don't think you are actually coming to terms with this. There are no regions, no states, no lower governmental authorities within this plan. There is no federalism aspect to it. There is only the Senate, the National Assembly, the Cabinet and the Supreme Court.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I keep asking you what is the purpose of enumerated powers if there are no lower government entities. It is not as if it protects the people since the people are already protected through the power denied to the government and the Guarenteed Rights. What is the use of enumerating the powers of the government beyond certain restrictions if there is no regional or state entity for the government to keep away from? Why do you say that the Federal Government must always have enumerated powers but the regional governments don't have to?

I know in the Northeastern constitution we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which expresses the rights that the people have and which the regional government cannot overstep. However there is no enumerated powers clause because there is no need to keep only to those enumerated powers since there is no lower governmental entity below the Governor and his staff. What we are basically doing, in essence, is make the whole of Atlasia a single region and fusing the regional and federal governments into one. If this was a region, for example, and we were debating a regional constitution would you want a section on enumerated powers there?

As True Democrat has said before if you are for federalism and keeping the regions just say so it's a position I can understand. However this pseudo-federalism where we keep in place enumerated powers for no reason is just prepostrous. Why are we keeping these powers away from the government, that do not conflict with the rights of the citizens nor are powers denied to the National Assembly, if we have no place else to give them?

For the other Senators I must say that this boils down, in the end, to saying that Marriage and the definition of it only requires the approval of the Senate and National Assembly by a majority vote. But if you want to even discuss legislation pertaining to Abortion or Prostitution then you have to introduce an amendment saying that the government can even discuss these issues, then it has to have a 2/3rds majority in both houses, and then has to be approved by 75% of all Atlasians after a lengthy process. So one issue, the ones currently within the sphere of government, require only perfuctory acceptance in accordance with normal procedure. However if you wish to discuss something that isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution then you have to amend the whole thing and go through that long process just to keep alive these "enumerated powers" which have outlived their usefulness do to the obvious fact that we no longer have regions.

[Colin]

Well, then, how about a compromise. There can be a set of enumerated rights as per your amendment however the legislature may add additional enumerated rights through a majority vote of the National Assembly and the Senate in order to make legislation less of a two-tier system of some require amendments some just regular legislation. Much like certain other sections of the Constitution you could place a clause at the end stating that an enumerated power can be added or taken away with a simple majority in both the National Assembly and Senate.

I think that would be a compromise that I could live with and I would like to hear your opinion concerning that idea. I think that would create a specific list of powers like you want while also making it easier to augment as per one of my major dislikes.

[Colin]

What compromise?  Instead of requiring a majority of the National Assembly and a majority of the Senate to pass any non-budget law, you want it to be a majority of the National Assembly and a majority of the Senate to add an enumerated power?  Forgive me, but all I see in the proposal is an attempt to pay lip service to the concept of enumerated powers, since under this proposal you agree to enumerate the powers, but not to give the people a direct voice in what gets enumerated.  I am willing to consider making the process of changing the set of enumerated powers easier than other amendments to the constitution, but not to abrogate the right of the people to have an unfiltered voice in making delegations of the people's power to the Republic of Atlasia. How about adding the following section 3 to my amendment.

3. The following is added as Clause 3 to Article V:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was just putting that forward as a suggestion. However your change is perfectly reasonable, especially since I was considering adding some sort of national referenda to my idea above. I have no problem with what you proposed as some sort of national referenda seems in order when concerning adding additional powers and the 2/3rds majorities in the legislature are taken away.

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

Has anyone made the changes to the wiki copy, or do you want me to do that?

I would guess you should do that since it is on your user page.

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

Nay, too short a time to make the Senate anything other than a rubber stamp.

Good Senator this is an amendment proposed to remove that clause from the Constitution as it stands.

Aye

[Colin]

NAY

a bill should clear both houses and be signed by the President before becoming law!

Have you even read the Third Constitution? Have you even read the amendment correctly?

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

it's 1 am and I don't know if I'm eleogoble to vote for this

Aye

When did you become a Senator?

[Colin]

Here's the amendment for impeachmet.  I'm not sure which article to put it under, so I don't know the Section number, but here you go:

Section X: Impeachment Procedures

1. All civil Officers of the Republic of Atlasia, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
2. Impeachment proceedings may begin when any member of the National Assembly bring charges against any civil officer of Atlasia.  Impeachment shall be added to the possible agenda, as set by the Prime Minister, however if five members of the National Assembly petition for impeachment proceedings to occur, the Prime Minister can be overruled and the impeachment proceedings shall be moved to the top of the agenda.
3. If a majority of the members of the National Assembly shall consent, the charges of impeachment against any civil officer, the said civil officer shall be impeached.
4. The Senate will then vote on the articles of impeachment, requiring a two thirds majority to convict any person accused of the aforementioned crimes.
5. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Atlasia shall preside over all impeachment trials in the National Assembly and Senate, unless the Chief Justice is the subject of impeachment, in which case the senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside.
6. Any member of the National Assembly or Senate accused of impeachment shall not be eligible to vote on his own impeachment.

Could someone introduce it?  Also, I'm not sure about the language.

I introduce this amendment on behalf of the President.

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

You know if we pass a February - March Act (March 1 and 2 are named to February 29 and 30) and then have a final vote on this thing, we could pass or fail this thing before the election.

I believe it has to be ratified by the regions as well.

I would like to introduce the President's proposed amendment.

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

Neither the original amendment nor Brandon's amendment shall have my support, and not just because I support the use of the death penalty when appropriate.  I remind this Senate that this proposal is not required to effect a change in the form of government.  Introducing changes unrelated to that will reduce the chance that this constitution will be approved.

I would have to agree with Senator Ernest. Debating issues like capital punishment is something that is much better to be decided after the Constitution is in place than during the original debate on it. I hope that this isn't some sort of stalling technique on the part of those opposed to this constitution. We can concern ourselves with such non-structural issues after the official transition of government.

[Colin]

Nay

[Colin]

Does Senator Brandon H wish to have his proposal voted on as an amendment?

No, I withdraw my amendment.

Nay on the previous amendment.

When can we open voting on the final passage?

Hopefully after this attempt to stall the proceding and inject political bickerings into the process is ended.

[Colin]

Aye

It's time to let the people decide how they want Atlasia to continue.

[Colin]

Who has yet to vote?

Gully Folly
Clay
BRTD