Special Commission on the Constitution

[Peter]

Special Commission on the Constitution

The Special Commission webpage is HERE

I will simply re-iterate our mandate for those too idle to click the link:
"The Special Commission shall review the Constitution in order to identify any weakness or failing within its present structure. It shall propose remedies to these in the form of recommendations to be submitted to the Senate."

Only Commissioners should post here, if anybody has any suggestions as to topics they think we should cover, they should email me at [email removed] or PM me. If Commissioners think I've missed something in the Constitution that doesn't make sense, feel free to bring it up.

In considering the Constitution I'm simply gonna go in the rather obvious order of beginning to end.

First thing that I have come across that simply confuses me is Article I Section 3 - this deals with impeachment, it is reproduced in full below:
Clause 1. Upon impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Atlas Forum shall administer a poll to the public to impeach the person whom charges have been filed against. If it is the Chief Justice who is being impeached, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall administer the poll. The poll must be open vote, and all people must make their vote known publicly in the form of a post. The public must vote a majority in order for the person to be impeached.  In order for the Senate to remove the person from office, the Senate must vote two-thirds. Impeachment charges may be brought upon the President and Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices.

Clause 2. The Chief Justice of the Atlas Forum shall preside over impeachment hearings, unless it be for his or her own impeachment, in which case the President pro tempore of the Senate shall preside.

Clause 3. Any person impeached and removed from any position can never hold any position at the Atlas Forum again, be it elected or appointed.
The opening line is actually a brilliant line of cyclical argument and could actually nullify the process of impeachment on the grounds of not making sense. Allow me to paraphrase: In order to impeach an officer he must first be impeached.

My second area of concern in this section is the process of "filing charges": There is no clear method for achieving this - the first stage of impeachment as it is meant is for public poll of the forum - does this mean that any random citizen can call an impeachment hearing? If so then we could have a rather regular turnover of impeachment hearings. If it is the Senators, then why do they once again crop up to try the impeachment at the end of the process? It could be the job of the Executive, but then it would require a selfless President to file charges against himself, or allow one of his own cabinet members to do it.

Feel free to discuss (a) whether I'm right that this needs a rewrite, and (b) what a solution could be.

[Peter]

While I at the moment can't make brilliant analysis of the Constitution, I do have a concern I'd like to voice. The Senate has no structure in terms of growth, or in general expansion of the forum.

Whilst the issue of an expanding population and the corresponding size of the Senate is one that needs to be discussed at some point, it does not represent a major structural difficulty within the Constitution - i.e. federal law won't be torn asunder, nor will other parts cease to operate or contradict themselves without reform. The Commission has a narrow remit only to investigate these sort of structural failings because otherwise this risks turning itself into a Constitutional Convention with seemingly endless scope to rewrite bits of the Constitution. If we honestly want that to happen, the Senate in consultation with the President should call it, its not for us to do.

As to Ernest's points:

We certainly shouldn't view the individual sections in isolation because it was that sort of thinking that actually lead to the crisis in the first place, so thanks for mentioning that.

When I read the Constitution I see it as suggesting that the grand jury phase is the public poll phase, since Clause 1 states: "In order for the Senate to remove the person from office, the Senate must vote two-thirds" - this would seem to indicate that the Senate tries the impeachment, though it is far from clear since there are numerous references to both the public poll and the Senate impeaching the officer concerned.

The lack of the usual legal language, and therefore the usual distinction, is concerning in the Section as it causes me to believe the whole thing is left open mostly to the readers interpretation and could in fact be found by the Supreme Court to be inherently contradictory and therefore inapplicable to any officer. Also note that the Section presently only applies to the President, VP and Supreme Court Justices.

Beyond the suggestion of using the correct legal terminology to describe the process and to clarify the actual process itself, I don't see that much needs to be done here. Though it would be nice if we could settle on what was meant to be the original intent of the Constitution on this matter.

[Peter]

I don't want this Commission to take a month to deliberate, so I'm  going to offer up some possible new language for this Section (I'm going to assume Ernest's version of the original intent, because though I still believe mine is correct, his is much less unwieldy and makes far more sense for our purposes):
1. Article I Section 3 Clause 1 is hereby repealed. The language in Article I Section 5 Clause 2 relating to impeachment is hereby repealed.

2. In the same manner as the proposition of a Bill, a Senator may propose Articles of Impeachment against any executive or judicial officer of the federal government.

3. The Senate will be impanelled as a grand jury to consider these Articles of Impeachment. A majority vote of the Senate under quorum rules will be necessary to impeach the Officer.

4. The People shall have sole power to try such impeachments. The Chief Justice shall administer a public poll to try the impeachment, unless it is the Chief Justice who shall have been impeached, in which case the Senate President pro tempore shall administer the public poll. The public poll shall be held for one week and shall require the consent of two-thirds voting to convict.
If we go with my original intent the two bodies involved are simply swapped, though it will require some original thinking to determine how to file Articles of Impeachment.

[Peter]

This Commission has been inactive for nearly six days.

Unless there is activity by Thursday, I will disband the Commission and write a list of recommendations myself for submission to the Senate.

[Peter]

Section 3 removes an ambiguity.  It might be interpreted on the basis of the sentence that I propose repealing that in the case of a vacancy in a District that is entirely within a single Region, such as District 2 in the old map and District 1 in the new map that the Governor gets to appoint a replacement instead of having a special election.  I doubt that is the intent, but why risk it being misinterpreted?

The original intent in this case was with regard to the time when we had 5 Regional Senators and 5 District Senators. If there was a vacancy in the Regional Senate seat, the governor could fill it.

[Peter]

I'm going to put a finishing date for deliberations of this commission as the noon EST 15th December. I will then put together a report over Xmas.

I would like to submit this:

Article II Section 3 Clause 1:

The President-Elect assumes his or her duties as President the first weekend of the month following the general election. The President must be sworn in between noon Eastern on Friday and noon Eastern Time the Sunday ensuing. The Vice President and the other civil officers must also be sworn in on the same day. The Vice President shall be sworn in first, followed by the President who shall then be followed by the other civil officers.
This seems entirely unnecessary as well as having the potential to render an entire inauguration unconstitutional as it doesn't really define who the "civil officers" are - if its the Senators, then we've never really been able to swear the President, VP and Senators all in on the same day, I doubt we will be able to in the future. If it includes the cabinet, I don't know how we are meant to get them confirmed by the Senate in time.

Amendment:
1. Article I Section 3 Clause 1 is hereby repealed.

2. All federal, elected officials shall begin their new terms at noon EST on the first Friday of the month following their elections.

[Peter]

I have noticed that the Candidacy Declaration Amendment only modified Article V Clause 5, and it was very specific in only modifying that clause.

There are two other instances that I can find where the old twenty day rule is mentioned - I suggest their repeal:

1. The third sentence of Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 is hereby repealed.

2. The language in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 relating to the candidacy registration deadline is hereby repealed.