Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)

[Lincoln Republican]

proposed amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I object to evergreen's proposed amendment.

This amendment sets a dangerous precedent.  All regions are part of one nation, and therefore the federal government, which represents the entire nation, should have input into such an important and far reaching action as secession. 

Seceding from the nation should not be a simple procedure.  There should be more input in this matter than, for example, a referendum in the region that passes by one vote, or whatever.

[Lincoln Republican]

I believe there should be three regions in Atlasia.

We definitely have to get away from having five regions.  Even four regions would be too many.

[Lincoln Republican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is an Admendment.

I support this amendment, perhaps re-worded

6.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.

[Lincoln Republican]

I like the map from the standpoint of having three regions that make sense geographically.

The populations in the regions can be adapted to.

[Lincoln Republican]

Yea

[Lincoln Republican]

I can see secession if you are living under a tyrannical central government, who is imposing their will on a region, and forcing you to live in fear, i.e. Russia/Ukraine.

But in a democracy with all the rights enjoyed by Atlasians, giving unquestioned authority to a group of malcontents to secede is ridiculous.

We have passed an amendment banning secession.

Time to move on.   

[Lincoln Republican]

Nay.

I have stated reasons previously.

We have spent enough time on this issue.

As far as I'm concerned, this issue has already been settled, and secession has been banned in the new constitution.

[Lincoln Republican]

Nay

[Lincoln Republican]

Mr. Presiding Officer, we have approved a motion to not allow secession.

Please put an end to this circus about secession and move on to other matters.

We cannot spend the next six months debating various and sundry motions about secession.

[Lincoln Republican]

Now, it's time for Leinad's amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Delegates have 24 hours to object.

I object to this amendment.  I have no objection to anyone having the right to discuss secession. Obviously, anyone has the right to discuss anything they want.

But now he is introducing states into the equation.  States discussing seceding from the nation?  This is a bit much.

This amendment is too vague, as it talks about a referendum for independence, but it does not clarify if this is a referendum in a region or in a state.  Are we to assume he is talking about a referendum in a region?  I believe this is what he is referring to.  But in the previous sentence, he talks about states as well, not just regions.

Besides, a three-fifths majority may not be enough to start dismantling the country over.      

[Lincoln Republican]

Nay

[Lincoln Republican]

NO!

[Lincoln Republican]

How much longer is this secessionist circus going to go on?

Until the secessionist advocates keep on offering amendment after amendment after amendment until they get their own way?

If the right of secession is embedded in the constitution, we will have malcontents and jokesters trying to take advantage of this law every second week, and attempting to disrupt the nation and to break up the country.   

[Lincoln Republican]

Wonderful, so we embed secession in the constitution.

This convention has failed in its most important task, preserving a united Atlasia, both for this generation of Atlasians, and for generations of Atlasians yet unborn.

[Lincoln Republican]

Let's not screw the regions issue up as well.

Clearly, three regions is the only way to go.

Something along these lines, give or take.

[Lincoln Republican]

I would say adopt three regions, then do a quick vote on which region certain states should be in. For example, thinking of population centers, it would make more sense for Kansas to be linked with Missouri and Oklahoma.

Like this

[Lincoln Republican]

Wonderful, so we embed secession in the constitution.

This convention has failed in its most important task, preserving a united Atlasia, both for this generation of Atlasians, and for generations of Atlasians yet unborn.

At this point perhaps we should think about making Atlasia a confederacy without centralized power. The scary thing is, I bet a majority would support that. It's like they're trying to kill Atlasia off by making it useless to participate in. Who saw that coming?

But yes, let's not consider a two region system. 3 is the way to go. It's a no brainier, although I can see us dropping the ball yet again.

Yes, I thought this constitutional convention was supposed to save Atlasia, not give secessionists and malcontents a vehicle by which to legally pursue independence every two weeks.   

[Lincoln Republican]

1.  3 regions  (first preference)
2.  4 regions  (second preference)
3.  2  regions (third preference)
4.  5  regions (fourth preference)
5.  0  regions (fifth preference)
6.  1  region  (sixth preference)

[Lincoln Republican]

I object.

I like the map, however, Jefferson was a slave owner, and I do not believe a region of Atlasia should be named after a slave owner.

I know he advocated for emancipation, however, the fact remains that he was a major slave owner throughout his lifetime.

This does not reflect well as a name for a region I believe.

[Lincoln Republican]

I do not like the idea at all of naming the regions after Atlasians.

I much prefer historical figures.

I have come up with a list of three individuals who have all served as Chief Justice of the United States.

Ellsworth, from Connecticut (north), appointed by Washington, no party

Vinson, from Kentucky (south), appointed by Truman, Democrat

Warren, from California (west), appointed by Eisenhower, Republican

I believe these are three good picks, of historical significance from each region, one appointed by a President of no party, one appointed by a Democratic President, one appointed by a Republican President.

I believe this list is fair and balanced, and all three names are suitable names for  geographic locations.

Although they do have political backgrounds, nevertheless, their significant achievements and what they are most remembered for is their service on the Supreme Court and as Chief Justice.

[Lincoln Republican]

There are many good names that could be used for the regions, and for many of these names, there could be some controversial aspects to their careers.  Being a slave owner is no better than supporting internment camps though.  Had I known, or remembered, that aspect about Warren, internment camps, I would not have suggested him.  

The names I put forward were merely suggestions, but I really don't want my region nor any other region named Gustaf or Demrepdan either.

I like the names Franklin and Fremont, and we should probably approve them as a convention, but I really think we should come up with something besides Jefferson for the south.

The problem is that so many prominent individuals in the early history of America were slave owners.

Suggestion, Rayburn, after Congressman Sam Rayburn from Texas, the longest serving Speaker of the U.S. H/R, known for his honesty, integrity, ability, who had the respect of the entire House, as well as much of the nation.

That is, if we even decide to name the regions after public figures at all.

So, we simply might end up with North, South, West anyway.

[Lincoln Republican]

Classic Conservative, do you know approximately how many members would be in each region for this map?

[Lincoln Republican]

I agree.  This must be the only map pick, if it is the one previously agreed upon during the boundary process deliberations. 

As to names, we cannot leave it to the regions.  That would simply lead to some off the wall, ridiculous selections.

The names must be decided upon in this convention.

A possibility as suggested, Franklin (for the north), Rayburn (for the south), Fremont (for the west).

Or simply The North Region, The South Region, The West Region. 

[Lincoln Republican]

If this is the map chosen in the selection process, there is no need to flip any states.

[Lincoln Republican]

Nay

As I have tried to explain to this convention, we should not have a region named after a major slave holder, "Jefferson".

Personally, I think this is insulting to the people of the south to have their region named after a major slave holder.

Truman was OK with the suggestion of "Rayburn" so I don't know why his proposal doesn't reflect that.

And furthermore, why should the regions have the names of people anyway?

What's wrong with the non controversial, no problem to understand names of The North Region, The South Region, The West Region?

Why complicate things with particular names of individuals?  

I will propose an amendment to move Minnesota and Iowa to the West Region, if that will keep everyone happy, and it makes sense to have Minnesota and Iowa in the West Region.

I will also propose an amendment using the names The North Region, The South Region, The West Region.

Either that, or an amendment changing "Jefferson" to "Rayburn".

No region should have to be named after a major slave holder.  It sends the wrong message.