The Constitutional Convention (Completed)

[afleitch]

Aye

[Purple State]

With 5 ayes, 0 nays and 1 not voting, the preliminary draft of Article II passes.

There will be at least 48 hours of discussion and debate of amendments, after which all motions will be considered simultaneously, as was done for Article I. Please make sure to formally propose any amendments that you want to see voted on.

[Bacon King]

aye ftr again, sorry I've been so slow with these votes

[Purple State]

This must be a really boring article.

Just a reminder to delegates that there are about 24 hours remaining of debate. If no substantive discussion emerges by then we can simply move on to Article III since what we have has already been approved.

[Bacon King]

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

[Purple State]

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.

[#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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

[Joe Republic]

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.

[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.

[Joe Republic]

Sure, but I think JFK (the forum poster, obv) was the only President to actually write any of them before the requirement was abandoned.  I don't think anybody really cared when it did.

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

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

Fair enough, old timer.

[Purple State]

Plus my endorsements are meaningless enough. Why force people to ignore even more of my ramblings?

[Badger]

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.

Hmmmm. If only there was an office designated with domestic policy---"internal affairs" one might say---that was short on actual things to do that would have time to do the work a functioning budget requires.

Ah, if only......

[ilikeverin]

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Proposed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Proposed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Proposed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Purple State]

Good timing ILV.

Alright, I'm going to accept ILV's amendments as friendly and waive the need for a vote unless a delegate objects within 48 hours. They are pretty straightforward and don't seem worth spending the 48 hours to vote on.

We will now immediately move on to Article III, of which a preliminary version is posted below. Same drill as last time, 48 hours for noncontroversial amendments, followed by a vote, followed by additional debate and a vote on amendments if necessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Badger]

Good timing ILV.

Alright, I'm going to accept ILV's amendments as friendly and waive the need for a vote unless a delegate objects within 48 hours. They are pretty straightforward and don't seem worth spending the 48 hours to vote on.

We will now immediately move on to Article III, of which a preliminary version is posted below. Same drill as last time, 48 hours for noncontroversial amendments, followed by a vote, followed by additional debate and a vote on amendments if necessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if this is the place for non Convention members to make suggestions, but...

I've often considered that when a judicial case is heard at the federal trial level (i.e. the charge is not filed first in a regional court nor proceeds directly to appellate review by all 3 Supremes; most criminal cases filed under federal law fit this bill) the trial is heard by one of the 3 Supreme Crt. Justices. Any appeal arising from the verdict is heard by all 3 members of the Supreme Court, including the one who presided over the trial and rendered sentence. By my estimation this last happened in January this year in Giovanni v. Atlasia, and then a couple months earlier in Rowan Brandon v. Atlasia, plus numerous times before that.

Even by the standards of an on-line government/election sim with less than 200 participants, this just seems wrong. When an appeal inevitably claims the trial judge somehow erred in his rulings, how likely is the trial judge to be able to seriously and impartially rule on the issue of "did I screw up"? (Just curious, does anyone know if this has ever happened in Atlasia?) This puts an appellant already one near certain vote in the hole on a 3 member panel. An appellant still could succeed with the other 2 justices' support (see Rowen Brandon, Id.), but notwithstanding such exceptions it is worthwhile and more fair to altogether avoid that situation.

Alternatives to the status quo include:

Creating a fourth justice and having federal trials heard by one of the justices who wouldn't rule on an appeal. If desired, only 3 of the 4 justices could rule on case that aren't appealed from trial to avoid recurrent tied decisions, with the odd justice out in any given case either chosen randomly by the CJ or by rotating assignment. (How does the CJ assign trial judges now, CJ Spade? Volunteers? Rotation? Names from a hat?).

Alternatively, the Supremes/CJ could temporarily appoint someone to preside over a particular trial, leaving the Supremes to hear any appeal. It should be allowed that such temporary appointment would not constitute an "office" requiring resignation of any current position, much like being a delegate to this Convention.

I suppose appeals could simply be left to the remaining two Justices, but the high likelihood of 1-1 ties makes that prospect unappealing, IMHO.

With any plan I think we should avoid rotating assignments to keep plaintiffs from "forum shopping" for the right judge, but I'm not picky about the details. The point here is its unfair for a trial judge to participate in deciding an appeal of their trial, as any appeal by definition accuses the trial judge of error.

[Purple State]

Badger, once the 48 hours on noncontroversial amendments has passed and the preliminary version is passed, I will write up an amendment along the lines of your recommendations and put it to a vote of the Convention. While I don't necessarily pass judgement on the wisdom of the change, I think it's worth consideration and a vote.

[ilikeverin]

Since my textual revisions seem to be pretty non-controversial:

Old:
#In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the region wherein the crime shall have been committed, which region shall have been previously ascertained by law.

New:
#In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the region wherein the crime shall have been committed, as defined by law.

Old:
#No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.

New:
#No person shall be tried again for the same crime following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.

Old:
#The accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

New:
#The accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him, shall be confronted with the witnesses against him, shall have the power to obtain witnesses in his favor, and shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Old:
#A jury shall be selected according to the laws of the Region in which the crime was committed, as defined by law, and each juror shall post their verdict publicly.

[Purple State]

Since my textual revisions seem to be pretty non-controversial:

Old:
#In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the region wherein the crime shall have been committed, which region shall have been previously ascertained by law.

New:
#In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the region wherein the crime shall have been committed, as defined by law.

Old:
#No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.

New:
#No person shall be tried again for the same crime following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.

Old:
#The accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

New:
#The accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him, shall be confronted with the witnesses against him, shall have the power to obtain witnesses in his favor, and shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Old:
#A jury shall be selected according to the laws of the Region in which the crime was committed, as defined by law, and each juror shall post their verdict publicly.

I will accept all of those, though the last one seems to be missing the new line, so I'll wait for that before incorporating them and moving on to a vote.

[ilikeverin]

Whoops, heh.  That was the New line, the old one is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Purple State]

Thanks ILV, I accept those as friendly barring an objection by a delegate.

Since I won't be online to open the vote until Saturday night, I'll just go ahead and extend this part another 24 hours. So the vote on the preliminary draft will begin tomorrow night.

[Purple State]

There is now a vote on the preliminary version of Article III, with ILV's amendments included. Please vote aye, nay or abstain or some similarly indicative character. The vote is open for 48 hours or until a majority has been reached.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ilikeverin]

[Ebowed]

Aye