The Constitutional Convention (Completed)

[Marokai Backbeat]

I really don't see how this seems so chaotically disorganized considering that this is a much more narrowly designed convention with a grand total of, what, 6 delegates? We probably need a discussion thread or something but since we're probably only going to be discussing a very limited number of proposals here, I can't imagine it being too difficult to keep track of unless someone has trouble reading more than a handful of posts at a time.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If the ConCon would do something for me - it would be to reword the 22nd amendment (now Clauses 30 and 31), which is horribly confusing.

On this subject, would anyone be opposed to scrapping that whole section and replacing it with a somewhat better worded Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution? It just seems overly worded for what we want the Senate to be able to do.

I would support that.

I'm certainly not. Why exactly is this being proposed? Section 5 is fine. I didn't want to add any crazy new stuff to it, I certainly don't want to gut the entire thing either. Let's just leave it alone.

[Marokai Backbeat]

No term limits?

Aye ftr to the last stuff, btw.

I don't believe any term limit currently exists, actually. If you want them it's worth putting it to a vote of the Convention in the next phase.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if this bars somebody from returning after 2 terms, or if this just means somebody who only served one term would be capable of having another go at two terms after only serving one term. It doesn't seem as an out-and-out term limit, though.

It's just a consecutive term limit. Lief, for instance, couldn't run again after serving two terms, but after being out of office for one term, he could've ran again if he wanted to.

I don't like straight-up term limits, but consecutive ones I've no problem with.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Why not require "State of the Nation/Forum" speeches? At least once per presidency or something. It's a tragically ignored provision.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Why not require "State of the Nation/Forum" speeches? At least once per presidency or something. It's a tragically ignored provision.

Oh, I remember those!  A tiresome and unnecessary requirement as I recall (not so fondly, but from experience nonetheless), which is why it was eventually abandoned.  Kind of like the budget.

Well the budget was a huge task that required a crapload of work. I suppose it doesn't really matter that much to me whether we require the speeches or not, but it can't possibly be that difficult for someone who actually wants to be President to type out a short speech once or twice.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I guess what I'm saying is simply a recommendation to not cause history to repeat itself.

Fair enough, old timer.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm a bit puzzled by that change as well.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Maybe this one will provoke a little debate

*sigh*

I think "provoking" anything in this thing is the last thing we should be doing. None of this is going to pass the public vote at this point. We're needlessly rewording every little thing. Why. Why. Why. Why. Why. Why.

This could've been so much easier, you guys.

/resumes pulling my hair out

[Marokai Backbeat]

Maybe this one will provoke a little debate

*sigh*

I think "provoking" anything in this thing is the last thing we should be doing. None of this is going to pass the public vote at this point. We're needlessly rewording every little thing. Why. Why. Why. Why. Why. Why.

This could've been so much easier, you guys.

/resumes pulling my hair out

Again: if you didn't want a Constitutional Convention, you didn't have to call one.  It was that simple.

Most of your revisions are cosmetic changes that make it seem like we're changing alot of things, even though we're not. But perception is reality here. You are the one proposing these things, you don't have to made it needlessly difficult and time consuming unless you actually want to.

[Marokai Backbeat]

No dual office-holding, period.

I second this.

Thirded.

In the past I've been on both sides of this debate but now I think I'm comfortable on the opposition to dual office holding. What would be the rationale? Two years ago we had problems with getting people into offices and absolutely no room for expansion but we certainly don't have this problem now. The only way I'd see an end to a dual office holding ban would be under an entirely new system of government.

Which of course won't be happening.

There are so many people on the sidelines looking to get into an office that it wouldn't be good for the game to hog even more offices. (Although, talk about expanding the Senate more, and maybe we can talk..)