SR 115-33: Fair Democracy Amendment (Debating)

[reagente]

Is there any particular reason why three month terms are necessary beyond the fact that the proposed Southern constitutional revisions feature a four month term aligned with federal Senate elections and this amendment would frustrate that?

You also might want to give more thought to the word structure in clause 6, since it is either superfluous in light of clause 3, or contradicts clause 1 and 2, depending on how it can be read (and it can be read multiple ways).

Also, just want to point out to the other members of this body that clause 7, as currently written, would require the expelled member to vote for their own expulsion to be valid (for 4 member or fewer legislatures). While perhaps this body doesn't care about how that would impact the South, I'd hope the representatives of Fremont and Lincoln would at least look out for their own region in that regard.

[reagente]

What exactly do Amendments to clauses 1 and 2 accomplish? Is it saying people ineligible to vote regionally according to federal region locking rules nevertheless must be allowed to be elected regionally? People who move regions are allowed to immediately be elected in that region?

I also again ask what is problematic about regional office holders having the same term length as federal senators. Is there a reason for the change beyond "own the South"?

[reagente]

So citizen-proposed constitutional amendments are now banned? All amendments must go through the legislature first?

[reagente]

I object to the amendment. I think that the tighter wording is absolutely necessary for making the South accept democracy again. Limiting this only further enables Reagente (and the SNP) who belongs in a prison cell, not drafting a slightly less rigged constitution in the South. Fremont and Lincoln are already in compliance with it anyway.

Democracy dies when regional legislators can have the same term length as you

[reagente]

So citizen-proposed constitutional amendments are now banned? All amendments must go through the legislature first?

Which part says this?

9. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region shall proceed to amend its constitution without a minimum of two thirds affirmative support of its membership with ratification through a popular referendum by eligible voters of the region.

I have to imagine this requires the regional legislature to pass the Amendment first, since a citizen-referred constitutional amendment definitionally wouldn't have been proceeded by two-thirds affirmative support of legislature (or unanimous support in four person or less legislatures).

[reagente]

So citizen-proposed constitutional amendments are now banned? All amendments must go through the legislature first?

Which part says this?

9. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region shall proceed to amend its constitution without a minimum of two thirds affirmative support of its membership with ratification through a popular referendum by eligible voters of the region.

I have to imagine this requires the regional legislature to pass the Amendment first, since a citizen-referred constitutional amendment definitionally wouldn't have been proceeded by two-thirds affirmative support of legislature (or unanimous support in four person or less legislatures).

Does this not mean that the region cannot enact constitutional changes without 2/3rds voter support? I don't see why voting on or beginning a vote on a citizen-sponsored amendment would be illegal.

I believe "membership" means the legislature, since "members" is used synonymously with legislators. So 2/3rds of membership (except when legislatures are 4 or fewer, then unanimous, per clause 6)

While a citizen referred constitutional amendment could be voted on by the legislature, under this current framework, such an amendment would presumably have to receive 2/3rds (if the legislature is 5+ members) or unanimous support (if legislature is 3 or 4 members) from the legislature before going to a vote by the people. There would be no mechanism by which the people could directly propose an amendment.

It also begs the question if pre-empts constitutional conventions in the same way. Very unclear.

Though certainly the fact there's potential ambiguity here suggests that it may warrant the text being changed.

[reagente]

So citizen-proposed constitutional amendments are now banned? All amendments must go through the legislature first?

Which part says this?

9. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region shall proceed to amend its constitution without a minimum of two thirds affirmative support of its membership with ratification through a popular referendum by eligible voters of the region.

I have to imagine this requires the regional legislature to pass the Amendment first, since a citizen-referred constitutional amendment definitionally wouldn't have been proceeded by two-thirds affirmative support of legislature (or unanimous support in four person or less legislatures).

Does this not mean that the region cannot enact constitutional changes without 2/3rds voter support? I don't see why voting on or beginning a vote on a citizen-sponsored amendment would be illegal.

I believe "membership" means the legislature, since "members" is used synonymously with legislators. So 2/3rds of membership (except when legislatures are 4 or fewer, then unanimous, per clause 6)

While a citizen referred constitutional amendment could be voted on by the legislature, under this current framework, such an amendment would presumably have to receive 2/3rds (if the legislature is 5+ members) or unanimous support (if legislature is 3 or 4 members) from the legislature before going to a vote by the people. There would be no mechanism by which the people could directly propose an amendment.

It also begs the question if pre-empts constitutional conventions in the same way. Very unclear.

Though certainly the fact there's potential ambiguity here suggests that it may warrant the text being changed.

Do you have any suggestions in particular to make the intent of the Amendment more clear?

Which intent? My read or your initial read of the Amendment?

[reagente]

So citizen-proposed constitutional amendments are now banned? All amendments must go through the legislature first?

Which part says this?

9. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region shall proceed to amend its constitution without a minimum of two thirds affirmative support of its membership with ratification through a popular referendum by eligible voters of the region.

I have to imagine this requires the regional legislature to pass the Amendment first, since a citizen-referred constitutional amendment definitionally wouldn't have been proceeded by two-thirds affirmative support of legislature (or unanimous support in four person or less legislatures).

Does this not mean that the region cannot enact constitutional changes without 2/3rds voter support? I don't see why voting on or beginning a vote on a citizen-sponsored amendment would be illegal.

I believe "membership" means the legislature, since "members" is used synonymously with legislators. So 2/3rds of membership (except when legislatures are 4 or fewer, then unanimous, per clause 6)

While a citizen referred constitutional amendment could be voted on by the legislature, under this current framework, such an amendment would presumably have to receive 2/3rds (if the legislature is 5+ members) or unanimous support (if legislature is 3 or 4 members) from the legislature before going to a vote by the people. There would be no mechanism by which the people could directly propose an amendment.

It also begs the question if pre-empts constitutional conventions in the same way. Very unclear.

Though certainly the fact there's potential ambiguity here suggests that it may warrant the text being changed.

Do you have any suggestions in particular to make the intent of the Amendment more clear?

Which intent? My read or your initial read of the Amendment?

To allow citizen proposals of constitutional amendments?

LT's language is pretty complicated as is. If you want to guarantee citizen right to directly refer constitutional amendments, it would probably be wise to add an additional clause, saying "notwithstanding the preceding clauses..." and then some language guaranteeing a right for citizens to directly propose constitutional amendments to be approved by popular vote.