Third Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think a two thirds majority in both houses with no national referendum is the best way to add a duty to the enumerated powers.  Also Ernest, I would just like to make sure you added the minimum wage to your list of enumerated powers.

But then it isn't the people granting the power.  The minimum wage issue is intended to be covered by the addition of "and such services" to the proposed clause 10 from the version of that clause in the current constitution.

So since it failed a vote through the constitutionally required procedure, you just want to throw it in the new constitution anyway?

I'm accommodating people's desire to add things to list of enumerated powers in my amendment in order to get the list in place.  I'd prefer to handle tweaking the list back towards what the current list is via other amendments once the concept of enumerated powers is in place, as the enumeration is to me more important than the specific set of powers granted

[True Democrat]

I think a two thirds majority in both houses with no national referendum is the best way to add a duty to the enumerated powers.  Also Ernest, I would just like to make sure you added the minimum wage to your list of enumerated powers.

So since it failed a vote through the constitutionally required procedure, you just want to throw it in the new constitution anyway?

It failed as a constitutional amendment because most people believe regions should set mimimum wage.  However, because there are no regions in this constitution, somebody must be able to set the mimimum wage.  The federal government is the only option.

[True Democrat]

Honestly people, debate on this constitution should be put above any other bill.  We need to vote on the amendments and pass a reformed constitution as soon as possible.

[Democratic Hawk]

Honestly people, debate on this constitution should be put above any other bill.  We need to vote on the amendments and pass a reformed constitution as soon as possible.

Given that debate has ceased, I see no time like the present to start voting on the amendments that have, thus far, been proposed. This is not meant to preclude any senator from submitting any further amendments at a later date

I hereby open the vote on the following amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain

Demi-Amendment 1

1. Article I Section 1 Clause 1 is struck and replaced by "1. Members of the National Assembly shall be elected in a single nationwide vote in such numbers and using such method as is established by Law.  Any change in numbers or method shall take effect as of the next general election of the National Assembly."

2. The introductory provisions of Article VII Section 2 Clause 2 is struck and replaced by "The National Assembly shall consist of fifteen members, elected using the Sainte-Laguë system, with the following characteristics:

This amendment moves the initial number of Members to Article VII and makes clear that the number of members can't be changed mid-session.

'Hawk'

[Јas]

Aye

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Aye, And I shall be submitting further amendments should the Enumerated Powers Amendment succeed.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

While I agree the electoral system needs a change, PR is not going to work here. I'd prefer a multi-member Single Transferable Vote system.

Nay.

[True Democrat]

BRTD, this amendment is really just clearing up the language in the constitution.  It's not really changing the structure.

[Colin]

Aye

[Democratic Hawk]

Aye

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

A quorum of Senators (5) have voted on this amendment. With 4 Ayes, 1 Nay and 0 Abstentions, this amendment has passed

We should ever even be in this kind of situation struggling with a quorum, 5 senators of 9 voting, frankly, isn't good enough

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I hereby open the vote on the following amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain (for those of you who can actually be bothered )

Demi-Amendment 2

The existing clauses of Article IV Section shall be reordered as follows and then renumbered sequentially:
15, 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

This pushes the reserve clause of the Bill of Rights to the start of the list so that if additional clauses are later added, it doesn't get buried in the middle of the list and moves the clause corresponding to Amendment III of the Second Constitution to where I think it belongs stylistically in the current list.

'Hawk'

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Aye

[Gabu]

A quorum of Senators (5) have voted on this amendment. With 4 Ayes, 1 Nay and 0 Abstentions, this amendment has passed

We should ever even be in this kind of situation struggling with a quorum, 5 senators of 9 voting, frankly, isn't good enough

'Hawk'

I'm not a senator, but how is 4 out of 9 in favor enough to pass an amendment?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A quorum of Senators (5) have voted on this amendment. With 4 Ayes, 1 Nay and 0 Abstentions, this amendment has passed

We should ever even be in this kind of situation struggling with a quorum, 5 senators of 9 voting, frankly, isn't good enough

'Hawk'

I'm not a senator, but how is 4 out of 9 in favor enough to pass an amendment?

For an amendment to an amendment it is.  There were 5 votes total, which out of 9 is a quorum and then 4 of the 5 votes were in favor.  Altho, if BRTD hadn't cast his Nay vote, we'd have had only 4 votes and thus no quorum.

[Јas]

Aye

[TomC]

A quorum of Senators (5) have voted on this amendment. With 4 Ayes, 1 Nay and 0 Abstentions, this amendment has passed

We should ever even be in this kind of situation struggling with a quorum, 5 senators of 9 voting, frankly, isn't good enough

'Hawk'

I'm not a senator, but how is 4 out of 9 in favor enough to pass an amendment?

For an amendment to an amendment it is.  There were 5 votes total, which out of 9 is a quorum and then 4 of the 5 votes were in favor.  Altho, if BRTD hadn't cast his Nay vote, we'd have had only 4 votes and thus no quorum.

I see Jas has voted, making this irrelevant, but your assertion that 4 out of five votes makes a majority seems erroneous. The Senate rules clearly call for a majority of office holding Senators. Five gets the quorum, but the vote must still be out of nine Senators:

1. Once a senator calls for a vote on the Amendment(s) under consideration, per Clause 2 of Section 3 of this article, or once debate time expires, per clauses 3 and 4 of Section 3 of this article, the PPT shall open a vote on said Amendment(s). This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if a majority of office-holding Senators has approved or rejected said Amendment(s). Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained.

A majority of office-holding Senators had not approved; four approved, one rejected, and four abstained. You got a quorum but not a majority approving.

I see the amendment has passed now, but I'd like clarification on the rule that states four out of nine is a majority.

[Јas]

I see Jas has voted, making this irrelevant...

My above vote is on the second demi-amendment (I think).
I had already voted on the first demi-amendment (at issue).

[True Democrat]

This has to be added to Article VII (I think Section One):

The first Senate election shall be in Febuary 2007.

Right now, the first Senate election wouldn't be for two months after the first National Assembly election.

Also, is someone changing the wiki version with the passed amendments?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A quorum of Senators (5) have voted on this amendment. With 4 Ayes, 1 Nay and 0 Abstentions, this amendment has passed

We should ever even be in this kind of situation struggling with a quorum, 5 senators of 9 voting, frankly, isn't good enough

'Hawk'

I'm not a senator, but how is 4 out of 9 in favor enough to pass an amendment?

For an amendment to an amendment it is.  There were 5 votes total, which out of 9 is a quorum and then 4 of the 5 votes were in favor.  Altho, if BRTD hadn't cast his Nay vote, we'd have had only 4 votes and thus no quorum.

I see Jas has voted, making this irrelevant, but your assertion that 4 out of five votes makes a majority seems erroneous. The Senate rules clearly call for a majority of office holding Senators. Five gets the quorum, but the vote must still be out of nine Senators:

1. Once a senator calls for a vote on the Amendment(s) under consideration, per Clause 2 of Section 3 of this article, or once debate time expires, per clauses 3 and 4 of Section 3 of this article, the PPT shall open a vote on said Amendment(s). This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if a majority of office-holding Senators has approved or rejected said Amendment(s). Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained.

A majority of office-holding Senators had not approved; four approved, one rejected, and four abstained. You got a quorum but not a majority approving.

I see the amendment has passed now, but I'd like clarification on the rule that states four out of nine is a majority.

We're both wrong here.  The part you bolded refers to the length of time that an amendment to a measure before the Senate.  If must last at least five days unless a majority of all Senators approve or diapprove.  The vote opened on  December 30, 2006, 02:56:22 pm  and in order for it to end sooner than  January 4, 2006, 02:56:22 pm, it would have needed 5 ayes or nays under the OPSR.  The requirement for 5 days instead of 72 hours as is the time limit on other Senate voting procedures is no doubt what led to the procedural error.  I suppose that a Senator could raise a point of order, but I hope none will in this case.

[Colin]

Aye

[Democratic Hawk]

A quorum of Senators (5) have voted on this amendment. With 4 Ayes, 1 Nay and 0 Abstentions, this amendment has passed

We should ever even be in this kind of situation struggling with a quorum, 5 senators of 9 voting, frankly, isn't good enough

'Hawk'

I'm not a senator, but how is 4 out of 9 in favor enough to pass an amendment?

For an amendment to an amendment it is.  There were 5 votes total, which out of 9 is a quorum and then 4 of the 5 votes were in favor.  Altho, if BRTD hadn't cast his Nay vote, we'd have had only 4 votes and thus no quorum.

I see Jas has voted, making this irrelevant, but your assertion that 4 out of five votes makes a majority seems erroneous. The Senate rules clearly call for a majority of office holding Senators. Five gets the quorum, but the vote must still be out of nine Senators:

1. Once a senator calls for a vote on the Amendment(s) under consideration, per Clause 2 of Section 3 of this article, or once debate time expires, per clauses 3 and 4 of Section 3 of this article, the PPT shall open a vote on said Amendment(s). This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if a majority of office-holding Senators has approved or rejected said Amendment(s). Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained.

A majority of office-holding Senators had not approved; four approved, one rejected, and four abstained. You got a quorum but not a majority approving.

I see the amendment has passed now, but I'd like clarification on the rule that states four out of nine is a majority.

Basically, I announced the vote on the following basis. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 reads:

2. The Senate shall have fulfilled a quorum if a majority of its members are capable of discharging their offices and sworn in into office. A quorum of Senators shall have voted on any Resolution, Bill, Impeachment of Constitutional Amendment for it to be considered valid.

I've taken a quorum to mean a majority of those senators, who have sworn in. We have 9 senators, as of now, and 5, which I've interpreted as being, quorate. 4 voted in favor, 1 agains;  therefore, I've called the  amendment as having passed. I intepreted a majority of the quorum, rather than a majority of the Senate, as being sufficient for to announce the amendment as having passed

Though, it's now clear I was mistaken to do so

'Hawk'

[True Democrat]

Can we stop this procedural debate and get back to the substantive stuff?

[Democratic Hawk]

Can we stop this procedural debate and get back to the substantive stuff?

I'd like senators to vote as sharp as you would sir, but it's not always the case and I had to answer the issues that were raised with my announcement of the vote on the previous Amendment

Anyway, Aye on Senator Ernest's Demi-Amendent 2 [and that I suspect will be my last ]

'Hawk'

[minionofmidas]

I don't say that Colin, you say that I say that.  The concept of enumerated powers is independent of any concept of federalism, Colin.  To provide a real world example, the Constitution of the State of Texas (and of the Republic of Texas that preceded it) also limits its government to enumerated powers.

In the case of the existing Regional governments, I am willing to tolerate their lack of enumerated powers because they are direct democracies and not republics.

I'll grant that because of the elimination of the Regions we may wish to add to the existing list of enumerated powers.  I'm even including as a starting point the addition of powers such as the regulation of Abortion that have been the province of the Regions heretofore and that you or others have expressed a desire to have the consolidated government deal with.

I do not accept the proposition that merely denying a republic certain powers and guaranteeing certain rights is sufficient protection against the abuse of power as it permits those running the republic to abuse those powers not envisaged at the time the constitution was written and puts the people at the disadvantage in such cases.

To repeat, the concept of enumerated powers is a requirement for my support of this proposal, while the specific powers enumerated is something I'm willing to leave to the considered judgment of the Senate.

Clearly the way forward, in this case, is to make Atlasia into a direct democracy.