Constitutional Amendment to Remove the Balanced Budget Requirement

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As introduced by Senator Gabu:

Amendment to Remove the Balanced Budget Requirement

§1. Clauses 8-10 of Article I, Section 8 in the Constitution are hereby stricken.

I hereby open debate on this Ammendment

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I haven't actually checked up on this, but would this also remove the necessity to pass a budget at all? 

No:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

He PM'ed me earlier today:

The Senate Rules require your permission to bump legislation to the top of the agenda.

Given that it is absolutely urgent that we pass a budget before the end of the year, I request your permission to bump Gabu's constitutional amendment to the front of the agenda.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The OSPR says that they must "[act] in unison publicly"; a private message is not exactly public.

What if I wave the letter around?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And I know my legalism there may seem onerous, but it was put there to prevent abuse of the clause.

Understandable

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1) It keeps the budget and the economy a vital part of the game.  Without it, we would just ignore these very important asspects altogether or at least, only a few people would really care about them.

Hmm... I can see your point, but then again I don't think the budget and all that is an especially important part of the game most of the time anyway, and when it is it tends to be in a very surreal way.
Then again, keeping people interested in budgets in real life is hard enough; more worrying is the lack of attention given to the economy as a whole.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but if this little experiance has shown us anything it's that straightjacketing doesn't really work with this sort of thing. It might be better to make it a sort of convention that the Senate tries to make sure that they don't grossly overspend.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, people in the government should be interested in budgets.

They only are every few months as a rule...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hopefully; it'd also be a good idea if candidates could make more of it in elections and for it to be made very well known how well they've actually done at managing the economy when they come up for re-election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm...
I should probably have made that clearer actually; what I was thinking of would be a Senate procedural thingy saying that when the Senate does a budget it must not grossly overspend (or words to that effect). Again this could tie up with re-election; if the Senate breaks it's own rules then the Senate can be held responsible for doing so. The threat of the electoral reaper should be a fairly good incentive for not going crazy with spending.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How about something that says the budget defecit must have a net decrease over a three-budget period?

Good idea. Do you all think that this should be added as an amendment to the amendment, or that we should have it as part of a procedural resolution or whatever?
Opinions needed; we all need to work together on this issue.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Could Hugh write that up nicely so we can vote on it?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I call a vote on this ammendment to the ammendment:

a. The Senate, over a three-budget period, must decrease any existent budget deficit by at least 2%.

b. Any individual budget can increase or decrease the deficit, but cycles must meet the criteria in a)

c. Cycles of three budgets are fixed with the first cycle starting with the budget of November 2005-February 2006

d. If the budget is in surplus, this amendment will not influence any budget deliberations.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One more vote and the ammendment to the ammendment is dead

I've consulted with some of my constituents and have decided to vote...

Nay

With five votes to two, this ammendment to the ammendment is defeated. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can I just ask: What is the exact subject of the vote right now?

From what Al seems to be suggesting, its the change of the word "bill" to the word "amendment", but everybody else seems to be treating it as a vote on the whole Constitutional Amendment.

We were voting on Hugh's ammendment to the ammendment

[Filuwaúrdjan]

True.
O.K then, here's what I suggest we do; pass this (and if it doesn't pass this Senate it will in all probability pass the next one; might as well do it now) and then make a serious effort to take out waste (if we have to redo, for example, welfare from scratch then that's what we should do). It might also be a good idea to think about doing some procedural resolutions to improve the way the budget system works.
Please think very carefully before deciding how to vote.

I open a vote on this Constitutional Ammendment

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This doesn't include Hugh's amendment, correct?

It doesn't include Hugh's amendment

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Constitutional amendments, I believe, require a two-thirds majority of the full Senate, not just a two-thirds majority of those voting.

The Constitution says [Article VII, Section I]...

"The Senate, whenever two-thirds of its number shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution"

No mention is made of the full Senate (unless this has been replaced by an amendment) and bearing in mind how most legislatures work, I don't think that one is implied either.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It was accepted by two people (neither of which are Senators) in what could be thought of as an informal conversation.
Seeing as the Constitution does not make itself clear over this, I don't see what's so very wrong with the Senate regulating it's own actions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, if DanielX were to vote Nay, all of this discussion really wouldn't matter.

Unless Hugh switches his vote to an aye o/c. In which case it would be 6:3.

And even if he doesn't it still matters, as this whole thing will probably just crop up in the next Senate...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This amendment has recieved enough votes to pass and has done so. As per Article Four, Section Four, Clause Three of the Senate Procedural thing, this vote is now closed and Senators are no longer permitted to change their votes.

This all goes to public poll now IIRC.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Uh, did Colin resign or is he still a member of the Senate?

He's still a member, I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's not voted on anything as far as I'm aware

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually no mention is made of a minimum time; the procedural thing says "This vote shall last for a maximum of seven (7) days". If the intention was to make it so that a vote has to last for 7 days or until all Senators have voted, it isn't written down.
I could be misreading things though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough, although if it hasn't been improperly approved, it would be by accident rather than design.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, true. Misread the OSPR. Sorry.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I believe his point is that the vote could still be 6-4-0, which is obviously not a two-thirds majority.

True; I was just fooling around

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looking back at older votes, that does seem to be the way that things have usually been done, yes. It would have been helpful if it had been written down somewhere though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sorry to inconvenience, but could someone lay out the amendment in full here, for clarification. Thank you.

Amendment to Remove the Balanced Budget Requirement

§1. Clauses 8-10 of Article I, Section 8 in the Constitution are hereby stricken.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Technically as the previous vote is null and void, I don't think there's anything stopping such a vote.

I would think it's a good idea for all Senators to re-read the arguements for and against this proposed amendment. I will also point out that the removal of the requirement does not rule out the possibility of making further cuts into the deficit. This is not a vote for or against fiscal responsibility nor will this vote automatically change the situtation; it has to go to a public poll first. This is just a vote on whether or not we should ballot the public on this amendment to the Constitution. I will ask you all (and this includes non-Senators) not to snap at each other over this.

I hereby call another vote on this Amendment to the Constitution.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ahem... with 7 ayes, the Constitutional Amendment to Remove the Balanced Budget Requirement has passed.

BEFORE THE GOVERNERS OPEN THE VOTES ON THIS I would like to see a public debate on this issue.