Northeast Assembly Thread

[Napoleon]

I can't support this Constitution if the capital isn't moved.

Why not?  This is a pretty minor thing.  It doesn't change procedure or anything significant.

Just joking man. I'm fine with changing this. Anything to help this pass is good enough for me.

[Cincinnatus]

Anyways, on the amendment-- I personally don't believe it matters, and I don't really want to vote for or against it and take "sides" or whatever.  That's all I have to say about that.

You don't have to vote for it.  As sponsor this amendment originated from me.  If I deemed it unfriendly (which I have asked already), then yes, it would be voted on at the end of the debate.

Edit:  Well, you do have to vote on it for the Final vote technically.  In the grand scheme of things, it's not a crucial point.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Anyways, on the amendment-- I personally don't believe it matters, and I don't really want to vote for or against it and take "sides" or whatever.  That's all I have to say about that.

You don't have to vote for it.  As sponsor this amendment originated from me.  If I deemed it unfriendly (which I have asked already), then yes, it would be voted on at the end of the debate.

I'll probably abstain when the vote comes up.  I don't want to be on record for supporting or opposing something that I don't think will make any big changes.

Wait, I'm confused.  You can amend the bill, and it only comes to a vote if you deem it unfriendly?

[Cincinnatus]

Anyways, on the amendment-- I personally don't believe it matters, and I don't really want to vote for or against it and take "sides" or whatever.  That's all I have to say about that.

You don't have to vote for it.  As sponsor this amendment originated from me.  If I deemed it unfriendly (which I have asked already), then yes, it would be voted on at the end of the debate.

I'll probably abstain when the vote comes up.  I don't want to be on record for supporting or opposing something that I don't think will make any big changes.

You misunderstand me.  There will be no vote on this amendment as it's friendly to the sponsor (me).  Therefore, it will be in the final version of this constitution, and you will vote on said constitution as a whole, when debate is over.  Of course, other amendments could be introduced n the time being.

FTR.. If you are the sponsor of a bill, during debate you can choose to accept an amendment as friendly, or unfriendly (If you're a Rep).  If unfriendly, it goes up for a vote at the end of debate.  If friendly, it's incorporated into the bill.

[Napoleon]

It is easy to get confused when discussing amendments to an amendment.

Totally understandable.

[Cincinnatus]

It is easy to get confused when discussing amendments to an amendment.

Totally understandable.

It's not very hard to misunderstand the procedure anyway.  Indeed, when the wiki doesn't display the proper text, it's also rather annoying.

No big deal.  If you have any more questions they'll be answered

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Anyways, on the amendment-- I personally don't believe it matters, and I don't really want to vote for or against it and take "sides" or whatever.  That's all I have to say about that.

You don't have to vote for it.  As sponsor this amendment originated from me.  If I deemed it unfriendly (which I have asked already), then yes, it would be voted on at the end of the debate.

I'll probably abstain when the vote comes up.  I don't want to be on record for supporting or opposing something that I don't think will make any big changes.

You misunderstand me.  There will be no vote on this amendment as it's friendly to the sponsor (me).  Therefore, it will be in the final version of this constitution, and you will vote on said constitution as a whole, when debate is over.  Of course, other amendments could be introduced n the time being.

FTR.. If you are the sponsor of a bill, during debate you can choose to accept an amendment as friendly, or unfriendly (If you're a Rep).  If unfriendly, it goes up for a vote at the end of debate.  If friendly, it's incorporated into the bill.

Oh, okay.  I assumed Napoleon was the sponsor, not you.

[Lincoln Republican]

Mr. Speaker, can you clarify, the section dealing with impeachment, has the amendment that I proposed received approval to be included in the new constitution?

[Cincinnatus]

Forgive me Governor, but only one amendment has been proposed during this debate.  If you are referring to your previous amendment in the "Legislation Introduction Thread", no, it was introduced under the last session, and was skipped.

Reason being, this new constitution take care of more then just this single issue.  However, I will point you to what I believe you are seeking in the new constitution;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would like to formally introduce an amendment to the section in question that it may read as such.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Napoleon]

The Governor would like to see the impeachment clause changed.

[Cincinnatus]

Forgive me, because I may not be reading it correctly just getting home, but can I ask how the amendment from the Gentleman from MA actually changes the text?  I'm fairly certain it's verbatim the text already included in the constitutions proposal.

[Napoleon]

At the end of the recall section I'd like to add, for clarity purposes: Recalled officials shall forfeit their offices immediately.

[Cincinnatus]

At the end of the recall section I'd like to add, for clarity purposes: Recalled officials shall forfeit their offices immediately.

Amendment introduced;  Origination

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No vote will occur, and the amendment is incorporated.


Does the Governor have any further comments, or was his question fully answered?

[Lincoln Republican]

Article II: The Executive

6.  A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region. Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.

I am uncomfortable with the wording of Article II, Section 6 about impeachment.  Even if two thirds of the Assembly wish to impeach a Governor, they should have to have just cause to do so, not simply because some of them may think it is a good idea.

[Cincinnatus]

Do you have a specific amendment you'd like to be introduced in regards to this?

Does the author have any comments?


Impeachment itself means you're being accused of doing something unlawful.  I would imagine this word would make the meaning clear, but I can understand your concerns. 

[Lincoln Republican]

OK, just leave it.  I believe it could be more clear, however, I will not press the issue.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The Governor has a point.  The Constitution does not explain what qualifies for impeachment.

[Cincinnatus]

Does the Representative have an amendment to offer that would clarify? 


Debate will end in less than 24 hours, around 8:30 tomorrow (Sept 11th) morning.

[tpfkaw]

Given Napoleon was making the argument under the previous constitution that he could impeach any elected official for no reason, the fact that the wording of the clause in the proposed constitution he has authored says nothing about grounds for impeachment is extremely troubling.

[Cincinnatus]

I doubt that was his intention.  However, I'm more than willing to consider an amendment friendly that would clarify this section.  All one needs to do is propose one..

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I propose the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Forgive me, because I may not be reading it correctly just getting home, but can I ask how the amendment from the Gentleman from MA actually changes the text?  I'm fairly certain it's verbatim the text already included in the constitutions proposal.

Unless such amendment has already been carried and I missed it, it changes the word 'convicted' to 'accused'.

[Lincoln Republican]

I concur with the Governor's proposed amendment. If he will propose an exact text therefor I will officially introduce it.

Thank you Representative Nathan. 

Article II: The Executive

6.  A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region following having been found guilty of an impeachable offence.  Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.

Not part of the amendment:  That is assuming of course that a Representative is serving as the Lieutenant Governor.  If the office of Lieutenant Governor is elected as Lieutenant Governor in the election, then "excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor" will no longer part of Article II Section 6.

I made the following proposal on August 8, 2011.

When I asked if the impeachment matter had been introduced as an amendment and passed, this is what I was referring to.

My proposed changes to this section add clarity to this matter.  It is my hope that this has been adopted and passed by the assembly, or that at least it will be adopted and passed, in  fairness to all future Governors of the Northeast.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

My amendment defines "impeachable offense" and allows for the impeachment of other officials.  I didn't see anything in the Constitution that allows for non-governors to be impeached, which is a little unfair.  Both the proposals would work for the final bill.