Legislation: Constitutional Plebiscite Amendment, 1789 (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:44:31 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Election and History Games
  Mock Parliament (Moderators: Hash, Dereich)
  Legislation: Constitutional Plebiscite Amendment, 1789 (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Legislation: Constitutional Plebiscite Amendment, 1789 (Passed)  (Read 564 times)
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 11, 2018, 10:08:27 PM »
« edited: July 16, 2018, 07:57:57 PM by Lumine »

Constitutional Plebiscite Amendment, 1789

Be it resolved, the following Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the Sponsor:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Galaxie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2018, 10:21:20 PM »
« Edited: July 11, 2018, 10:27:46 PM by Galaxie »

Mr. Speaker,

I urge my fellow delegates to look around them. When we crafted this new system of government, did we craft it around a system of plebiscite -- of a democracy contingent on the debate, discussion, and deliberation of the entire populace over each bill, each law?

We didn't, delegates.

Our government was built off of the tenants of elected representation for a reason -- to vest power in a select few who are chosen by the people, a select few with the ability to engage in prolonged and thoughtful debate over each item, each amendment proposed.

It is my great fear that by going against the fundamental tenants of our democracy, the creation of this chamber, the Senate, the Presidency, that we will subject these United States to no more than mob rule, where a demagogue can sway a vulnerable populace against a reasonable amendment -- or towards a dangerous one.

Let us not open our nation up to these needless risks. Let me remind you, delegates, that the power is vested where it is for a reason.

I yield.
Logged
terp40hitch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,618
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2018, 10:42:00 PM »

Mr. Speaker,

The constitution is the rules the people give to the government so I must ask the assembly, shouldn't the people decide these rules. The answer is, they should. This is why I am in full support of this amendment and urge my fellow deputies to join with me to let the people decide the rules of the government.

I yield
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2018, 11:05:20 PM »

Mr. Speaker,

No government which does not trust its people, may expect or indeed deserve be trusted by its people. No college, no Assembly, no Magisterial Court may supplant the people as the foundation and embodiment of a free State. Insofar as the Constitution of such a State may be understood as the common property of the people, it is essential that the people by their ballots have the final say in its amendment.

I confess, Mr. Speaker, that on this principle I am unsurprised (though no less unhappy) to hear the opposition of the British Hamiltonians, who prove themselves Tory in their inclination and, with the late defections, Tory also in their composition. It is their stated policy, expressed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to ignore the voice of the people, and to oppose at all costs their consultation, for fear the popular will may otherwise be insufficiently obscured and distorted by the deliberations of this body. To this bad system the gentleman from Pennsylvania gives the name 'democracy,' which we presume is his idea of a joke.

I will say it again, gentlemen: a government which trusts not its people, deserves not the trust of its people; and furthermore no faction which purports to represent 'American democracy,' while arguing against the consultation of the people on constitutional questions, may be known by any other name than liars and scoundrels.

I vote that the amendment to the federal Constitution be adopted, and recommend my fellow Whigs to follow so.

I yield my time to the chair.
Logged
Boobs
HCP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,510


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2018, 11:21:47 PM »

Mr. Speaker,

No government which does not trust its people, may expect or indeed deserve be trusted by its people. No college, no Assembly, no Magisterial Court may supplant the people as the foundation and embodiment of a free State. Insofar as the Constitution of such a State may be understood as the common property of the people, it is essential that the people by their ballots have the final say in its amendment.

I confess, Mr. Speaker, that on this principle I am unsurprised (though no less unhappy) to hear the opposition of the British Hamiltonians, who prove themselves Tory in their inclination and, with the late defections, Tory also in their composition. It is their stated policy, expressed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to ignore the voice of the people, and to oppose at all costs their consultation, for fear the popular will may otherwise be insufficiently obscured and distorted by the deliberations of this body. To this bad system the gentleman from Pennsylvania gives the name 'democracy,' which we presume is his idea of a joke.

I will say it again, gentlemen: a government which trusts not its people, deserves not the trust of its people; and furthermore no faction which purports to represent 'American democracy,' while arguing against the consultation of the people on constitutional questions, may be known by any other name than liars and scoundrels.

I vote that the amendment to the federal Constitution be adopted, and recommend my fellow Whigs to follow so.

I yield my time to the chair.

Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, I rise to support the statement made by the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts and to support this amendment as well.

Our government derives its power from the people, and thus the consent of the governed must be the ultimate decider in the fate of our nation. The Hamiltonian faction, time and time again, has consistently shown itself to believe that power flows in the opposite direction, and has sidelined the rights of the people in favor of its own prospects for power.

I see no reason why a plebiscite ought to be opposed, for if an amendment is thusly popular enough to be ratified by both chambers, and by all states, it ought to be able to muster enough support among the voting populace to pass as well. And if it cannot, it demonstrates that the government assembled here is deeply out of touch with the body politic, which ought to be of grave concern.

I urge all members of the Radical faction, few as they may be, to support this amendment.

I yield.
Logged
Galaxie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2018, 11:36:56 PM »

Mr. Speaker,

Before myself have spoken two men who forget that the basis of our government is not derived directly from the people. From their rhetoric, it seems the previous speakers would even prefer this Chamber here today be abolished in favor of sending all decisions to the public!

The question of national plebiscite is as dangerous as it is ambitious. To the previous Radical speaker, of which currently only three of your Faction serve -- would you trust a bill of yours at the hands of the people of these United States, when they clearly vote in droves against your party? Our government, and yes, our democracy is built off of the principal of elected representation. That is us, gentleman -- no humor there.

So why then, does the "democracy-hating Hamiltonian" oppose this amendment, surely designed to liberate the people?

One such reason is a fear of demagoguery -- that the people will be misled by dangerous men with dangerous intents. That is surely what our Congress here today is designed to mitigate. While we in the Congress have a studied knowledge of the bills we pass, can we ensure the people will have the same? Gentlemen, I have seen the propaganda of the many factions here today -- surely campaigns regarding these constitutional amendments will turn into political bloodbaths in which lie and deceit will be used to win over the ill-informed common person, not fact and logic.

For those who before wished to see our government -- our President, our Courts -- more non-partisan, and yet support this Amendment -- you are wishing a partisan and protracted battle upon the hill of each Amendment this government passes. That makes this Congress less effective, and makes our Democracy less sound.

Gentlemen, we all care about the preservation of this democracy. My disagreement here is not to destroy that democracy, but to hopefully defend it. Let not the passions of the heart control this debate, but the toils of the mind.

I yield.
Logged
GoTfan
GoTfan21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,577
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2018, 12:43:48 AM »

Mr Speaker,

I claim to be utterly misrepresented. We are not British in any sense of the word, and demand an immediate retraction.
Logged
_
Not_Madigan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,103
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2018, 12:13:58 PM »

Mr. Speaker,

I believe this Amendment would give the people a voice that should be required in their government.  This voice would not be having a plebiscite on every bill passed by congress, merely every constitutional amendment from the, which I believe is necessary.  This Amendment would make sure that any amendment passed by congress and the state legislatures be ratified directly by the people, making sure that the amendments are directly supported by the people, and not just their representatives.

Thus, I am fully in support of this Amendment, and urge my fellow Deputies and Patriots to support this Amendment.

I yield.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2018, 09:25:06 AM »

Mr. Speaker,

The impotence of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (or perhaps he finds "nobleman" more to his liking) on the subject of democracy should be no surprise as the words of one whose professed political principle, as he was until recently the fervent disciple of British Toryism, is the establishment of an monarch in the person of the presidency over these States. It should be equally unsurprising, that he holds his opinion and his judgement in such high regard as to imagine himself a statesman of uncommon ability—far more able than those deluded peasants to ascertain whether a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution is conveyant to the general good.

Democracy, the good gentleman will remember, is rule by the people—not rule by the landed aristocracy. It is the case that under our present system, the people have yielded a part of their sovereignty to their elected representatives, that they may be untroubled by the minor matters of the conduct and administration of the State. It nevertheless remains that save God, their is no higher authority than the people in a republic, and the Will of God may flow through them. We do not call for every measure adopted by this Assembly to be put before a plebiscite as condition for its ratification. Yet on a matter as significant, as broad, and as permanent as an amendment to the Constitution—one which touches all and binds all—the people must be consulted, or else our federal Union ceases to be a republic and transforms itself as an oppressive oligarchy, wherein power is wielded upon, not on behalf of, the people.

If this second prospect seems British in its character or constitution, it is through no fault of mine. It was not my hand who signed the gentleman from Pennsylvania's name on the charter of Toryism in the late election. It was not my tongue what spoke from the gentleman from Westchester's mouth for shackling our economy to the whims of British merchants. It is not I, furthermore, who argue against consulting the people on questions of Constitutional significance on the grounds that they are too stupid, too base, and too easily deluded to know a good law from a bad one.

As it has been said before, I will say it again and again, that no government which trusts not its people deserves to be trusted by its people. The question before us is not a difficult one: either you are in favor of hearing the undiluted voice of the people on amendments to the Constitution, or you are not.

I yield my time to the chair.
Logged
Galaxie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2018, 12:20:25 PM »

Mr. Speaker,

Before me has spoken a man of hypocrisy. He who claims to not be high and mighty and yet still claims moral superiority in the most boisterous and haughty way possible.

Though the delegate that spoke before me may have forgotten the tenants of representative rule that our democracy so follows -- or perhaps just neglected to speak of them for the sake of his moral crusade -- he failed to bring a substantial response to the arguments I have made in this chamber previously.

This is what the supporters of this bill look like -- and perhaps that's why they fail to see my critique of it. They follow blindly and vote blindly, with the glare of a supposed patriotic superiority preventing a thorough and critical look at the legislation before us.

Perhaps then it is not such a bad idea for our nation to have plebiscites. If our Congress is steered by blind emotion and disdain, perhaps the common people, less haughty in their ways, would be better.

I yield.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2018, 12:34:14 PM »

(A reminder, vote is simulated tonight)
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2018, 01:24:47 PM »

Mr. Speaker,

Truly, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is so incensed by his own mad devotion to British monarchism that he now imagines to have heard whole orations which exist solely within the rotunda of his sturdy crown. The claims he attributes to me are wholly fictitious in their substance and origin—never have I, nor will I, claim a 'moral superiority' in comparison to any member of this honorable house, save as the humble vessel of almighty God, through whose unworthy form flows His divine, unalterable Will. If such devotion may be termed a moral crusade, then I submit myself as guilty to the charge.

As for the substance of his argument, the gentleman had better consult the record, for I have not the time to repeat myself again. If he does, he will find that I call for a plebiscite only on proposed amendments to the Constitution—trusting in other matters to the arbitration of the people's representatives. This is the model held to by our constituent States—indeed, by his own State of Pennsylvania—and I fail to see why its duplication by the federal Power should somehow bring about the horrors of anarchy and despotism he seems so to fear.

I yield my time to the chair.
Logged
DKrol
dkrolga
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,542


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2018, 03:39:53 PM »

Mr. Speaker,

I oppose this bill. We have a government built around delegation and representation. This bill is not conducive to that idea.

I yield.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2018, 07:57:27 PM »

Debate having been closed, the Speaker called for a vote on Amendment to the United States Constitution:

National Assembly Vote:

Moving into the final vote, the result was 55 in favor, 7 against, 3 abstentions.

Senate and President:

After debate in the Senate the Constitutional Plebiscite Amendment recieved 21 votes in favor (five opposed), surpassing the two-thirds necessary for a Constitutional Amendment. The Amendment was therefore sent to the states for ratification.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.038 seconds with 13 queries.