SR 115-33: Fair Democracy Amendment (Debating)

[West_Midlander]

I object. I prefer the "at least three members" language.

[West_Midlander]

Objection withdrawn

[West_Midlander]

Wulfric, I would prefer a 3-seat minimum. I don't know if a 1-2 member legislature could represent a region well.

[West_Midlander]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

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

Which part says this?

[West_Midlander]

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.

[West_Midlander]

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?

[West_Midlander]

I understand both sides of this argument. On one hand, balancing out how long terms can be across all branches combined is wise. On the other, the wording of the current amendment could be cleaned up to make it clearer what is being signified.

I'll vote Nay for now, in the hopes we can streamline this more.

How do you think the language of the Ninja amendment could be improved?

[West_Midlander]

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?

[West_Midlander]

In accordance with the Senate rules the bill should be automatically tabled however I will not object to a motion to suspend the rules here, allowing it to stay on the floor.

It also might be a good idea to extend the aforementioned provision from 36 to 72 hours in the Senate rules to give the Senate more leeway.

[West_Midlander]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

Nay

[West_Midlander]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

Switch to Nay

[West_Midlander]

Section 4 as written does break down the federalist system between the regions and the federal government although the proposed amendment needs to be worded better.

Nay.

[West_Midlander]

Nay.

This amendment does a lot of good but I can't justify giving the President the power to appoint regional executives. The separation of powers has been respected since the country's original founding nearly 250 years ago. We must be so hubristic as to believe the founders had it so wrong. Even when the Civil War broke out and came to a close we added freedoms to the Constitution instead of embracing centralization. With the guidance of Almighty God, this crisis has been resolved without bloodshed—unlike the terrible Kansas Crisis—so this abuse of the rights of the people, the states, and the Regions is not warranted.

I would have supported this if the Lord Richard amendment were adopted but alas it was not.