The Constitutional Convention (Completed)

[Ebowed]

Aye

[ilikeverin]

[afleitch]

Aye

[Purple State]

Representin'.

[ilikeverin]

Representin'.

Doncha' know!

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[bgwah]

aye

[Bacon King]

Aye

[Purple State]

With 6 ayes and 0 nays, the rules of order and procedure have been approved.

[Purple State]

Here is a rough draft of a consolidated Article I, posted in Wiki formatting (if you want to see what it looks like, copy/paste it here and press "Show Preview."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Purple State]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bacon King]

4.5 should specify that a special election doesn't have to occur if the vacancy occurs when the normally scheduled election is only a couple of weeks away.

[Bacon King]

Also, the line-item veto process in 3.4 should be redone. I've always thought it weird that the Senate can't return to debate without first voting in a manner that allows the bill's sponsor to decide between reopening debate and sending the original back to the president.

[ilikeverin]

Aren't we... uh... temporarily adopting the first article and then voting on amendments?  Or did I misinterpret the order?

[Purple State]

Aren't we... uh... temporarily adopting the first article and then voting on amendments?  Or did I misinterpret the order?

I said I would provide 24-48 hours for review before the preliminary adoption vote to make sure I got all of the little, non-controversial things. I will accept smaller edits as friendly before the initial vote unless a motion in opposition is raised (per the rules of order and procedure).

In this case, BK's first recommendation would be one of the edits best suited for this period (BK, do you have a recommendation for language?), while his second is likely something that will need further discussion.

[ilikeverin]

Sure.  I was thinking about "translating" sections 5-7 into modern English.  Obviously, many of those protections are important, but many could be stated in a way that improves clarity while maintaining the intent.  (e.g. Section 6, Clause 1 could be split up into two separate clauses: "No legislative act may declare any person or group of persons guilty of a crime and punish them without a trial." and "No legislative act may punish people for states in effect or actions committed before the passage of the law.")  At the very least, the Use of random Capital Letters seems a bit antiquated.

Would this fall under the current period or a later one?

[afleitch]

I see no reason why the Convention should not look at a more radical reform of the Senate including the introduction of a second chamber.

[ilikeverin]

I see no reason why the Convention should not look at a more radical reform of the Senate including the introduction of a second chamber.

I'll be introducing a proposal to eliminate regional senate seats, so that it can be summarily voted down and we can move on with our lives.  But that's for the second stage of revisions.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I see no reason why the Convention should not look at a more radical reform of the Senate including the introduction of a second chamber.

Would a second house be practical? We already are seeing some state legislatures struggling to find enough candidates to fill the house. Of course, I assume the idea is it being a federal house would increase interest in it, but it also brings back the old regionalists v. federalists war. Perhaps a compromise can be made that guarantees the regional senate seats are kept in tact if the newly created house is an at-large election?

I see no reason why the Convention should not look at a more radical reform of the Senate including the introduction of a second chamber.

I'll be introducing a proposal to eliminate regional senate seats, so that it can be summarily voted down and we can move on with our lives.  But that's for the second stage of revisions.

Don't do it!

[Bacon King]

In this case, BK's first recommendation would be one of the edits best suited for this period (BK, do you have a recommendation for language?)

I'll look it over and think of something, yeah.

Also, Verin, I don't think this is the proper venue to propose such a radical shift. This Convention was convened in the manner it was (quickly and with a small number of delegates) so it could perform the basically custodial task of tidying up the Constitution. If we attempt too much of a controversial change here, we risk having the voters throw out our proposed document, leaving the Constitution in the exact confusing state it was before and nothing having been accomplished.

I recommend that you look at this "new" Constitution as a cleaned template for you to later apply potentially radical amendments onto, if you so desire. I'll even introduce something in the Senate for you after the Convention, if you so desire.

Oh, and I also agree with putting terms in plain English wherever possible.

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Purple State]

I don't object to this Convention looking at wider changes than the basic ones that VP Blue and I presented during our campaign, but I do want to make sure we have preliminary, tidied up versions of each article before we discuss further changes to that article.

Does that sound fair?


I will extend the preliminary review period for Article I until Friday at noon EST to allow for additional review. If anyone has friendly amendments they wish to present for this period, rather than during the regular debate period, please write them up and post them here before that time. Otherwise, all amendments will be considered and voted on during regular debate period.

I will accept BK's amendment (modified for clarity) unless any delegate objects. Section 4 will now appear as follows (changes in bold):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ilikeverin]

In this case, BK's first recommendation would be one of the edits best suited for this period (BK, do you have a recommendation for language?)

I'll look it over and think of something, yeah.

Also, Verin, I don't think this is the proper venue to propose such a radical shift. This Convention was convened in the manner it was (quickly and with a small number of delegates) so it could perform the basically custodial task of tidying up the Constitution. If we attempt too much of a controversial change here, we risk having the voters throw out our proposed document, leaving the Constitution in the exact confusing state it was before and nothing having been accomplished.

I recommend that you look at this "new" Constitution as a cleaned template for you to later apply potentially radical amendments onto, if you so desire. I'll even introduce something in the Senate for you after the Convention, if you so desire.

Oh, and I also agree with putting terms in plain English wherever possible.

Obviously I'm aware of that; I'm just hoping there will be some sort of pro forma vote on the matter, so I can feel like I put in at least a little bit of an effort.  I don't think there's any question where the chips will fall

I'll take a look through the articles to see if there are any preliminary changes that I see need to be made.

[bgwah]

"#The Senate shall be divided into two classes: Class A, which shall comprise the Senators elected from the Regions, and Class B, which shall comprise Senators elected by a form of proportional representation."

Would it be wise to throw in "as determined by the Senate" for the proportional representation part, since it doesn't specify what kind of proportional representation?

[Хahar 🤔]

If it doesn't specify how, it's implied that it's as determined by the Senate.