The Constitutional Convention (Completed)

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Shouldn't we use the child board from the last ConCon for this?  I assumed that's what we would do.

My hope is that we can achieve everything in here given the narrow scope and smaller size of the Convention this time around. If it turns out that this is too constrained a setting, we can always move it over there.

Isn't there risk of this getting overwhelmed especially if a large numbers of non-delegates seek the chance to comment and opine. Would the creation of a discussion thread be a wise investment or unecessary in your opinion?

Let's play it by ear and see what happens.

Like playing a song on a piano?

I believe play it by ear means just "as we go" or "as things happen."

Anywho, signing in to proudly represent the Northeast.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

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.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye to all.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

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.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Just wondering, but do you want to write some sort of Question Time thing into here next to the state of the union?

Given the nature of the forum, how much benefit do we foresee from a Question Time, and one written into the Constitution? The presidency tends to be a pretty transparent office and questions tend to be asked and answered in regular interaction. You're free to offer something though if you feel it would be beneficial, though legislation may be the best route.

IMO, I don't think there should be a constitutional provision for Question Time. Legislation would be preferable, since it would only require a law to repeal if it didn't pan out too well.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.
Nay.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

For...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is assumed that this may only be done with the consent of the region in question, correct? I know one of the other clauses would imply that, but just for clarification.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Nay!

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

If I may make a suggestion, would it be possible to address the issue where ILV needed 75% to vote against him for him to lose? Not that we don't all love our dearest Verin, but it seems kind of anti-democratic and harmful to the game... I think we should add something that would prohibit such practices. What do you guys think? I admittedly may have waited to long to suggest it, if so, not a big deal.

The condorcet voting system?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

If I may make a suggestion, would it be possible to address the issue where ILV needed 75% to vote against him for him to lose? Not that we don't all love our dearest Verin, but it seems kind of anti-democratic and harmful to the game... I think we should add something that would prohibit such practices. What do you guys think? I admittedly may have waited to long to suggest it, if so, not a big deal.

The condorcet voting system?

No, they had a system for a while where 75% had to vote against the incumbent for there to be a run-off or something.

Good lord.

How about an amendment to the effect of "No voting system in the Republic of Atlasia may be be used that is biased towards incumbents."? Though, that in itself is a bit too vague.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree that I'd like to hear other delegates on this, but they seem to be silent on the matter

Personally, I don't really see us as losing anything if we turn 18th century English into 21st century English, but I understand that it would help promote continuity.

Well, what if we changed...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

to

You must be logged in to read this quote.

?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

A majority of delegates having voted in the affirmative, Article V is approved with 4 ayes, 0 nays and 0 abstentions.

ILV, if more delegates don't chime in we can simply put them up for a vote and see what people prefer. I just don't want to give the Supreme Court too much of a headache.

And Dallasfan, I think at that point we might as well keep the original version.

Well, I would be supportive of that too.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

No dual office-holding, period.

I second this.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.