Mideast Assembly Thread

[Badger]

My fellow Assemblymen, dear Governor,

I'm sorry to be contrarian as soon as we begin our session, but I can't approve the Freedom to Roam Bill and my reasons are mostly principled ones.

- First, the right to private property and to peacefully use it is sacred, of course in Atlasia, but even in old European Bills of Rights. This right should not be infringed in any way, even by Law.

Our Mideast citizens want to be quiet in their own properties and to use peacefully their private lands.

That's a principle but it's also a matter of being realistic, as I've said in August.
When you allow someone, even within strict limits, to stay on other's private property, there's always a risk of squatting beyond those limits (of time, of land, etc) and, AFTERWARDS, it's very hard to put the squatters off, because you need a decision from a judge and you need the police, etc.
So, don't take the risk... Only voluntary landowners should be allowed to greet roamers, campers or whoever they want.

- The radiuses around houses are entirely theoretical and wouldn't prevent roamers AT ALL from infringing the Clause 14 of our Bill of Rights: All persons shall have the right to privacy in resepct of their personal and family lives.
How would a roamer be aware he is inside or outside this radius ?

- Another problem with this proposal is that, when roamers or campers wound themselves on someone else's land (e.g. because there are wounding wastes or because this land isn't maintained and a dead tree falls on the campers), some of them may try to make the landowner responsible.
And I cannot agree on a Law which force a private owner to open his property and then, he is the one who is sued for other people's behaviour.

- The 11th clause is of course an unrealistic illusion. It's not at all a protection for a private owner who, again, hasn't asked for anything.
Someone who wants to camp freely doesn't go the owner's house to declare his identity and give his card number in case he should be fined at the end becaue of problems...
It wouldn't be possible to legally prove who is responsible for "disturbances".

Another point is that the relative amounts of fines (500-250) for a roamer who is responsible for "disturbances" that may be really serious and for a private owner who is just putting signs in his property (maybe because he wouldn't be aware that he has to declare that his property is closed) are quite... surprising. All the more that the private owner may finish in jail...
Here, I think that, here, an atomic bomb is used to kill a fly.

- What is more, some damages can't be compensated for,
as they may be massive (an entire forest burnt after just a small barbecue, for example)
or with consequences on the long term (a chemical pollution with products that "live" for decades or just one multi-centennial tree that is cut)
or just because money can't make it for nature, for natural diversity, for small ecological equilibrium.

- The problem with all these points is that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the side of the private owner, not on the side of the roamer or the camper, whereas it's the owner's right who is infringed.
Again, on principle, I cannot agree with this.

BTW, the closing after written notice to the local police is a technocratic procedure that will clutter our police, whose mission isn't a purely administrative and archiving one.

- All those procedures, all those controls, all those clauses trying to put limits were introduced with a kind and fine spirit of compromise and we must thank the authors for that.
But, in some cases, compromise may lead to excessively complicated and technocratic clauses: Law must remain simple.

- The only way I can agree on such a proposal is when it's changed to be about PUBLIC lands only, which may be more open to camping if you want, for example,
and about PRIVATE lands that their owners VOLUNTARILY and EXPLICITLY declare open to free roaming.
You may even ease roaming where it's possible by gathering and spreading information in official websites, leaflets, etc. about private lands voluntarily open and public lands.

I thank you for your attention.

With due respect Fab, I don't think you've read this bill very closely. Or at least not reviewed the profound differences between this bill Inks proposed and the original one. For all your pronouncements about the the importance of not "forcing" campers and hikers onto private property you've ignored the fact that this is voluntary with the landowner. Campers and hikers come on to their land with their consent or they're tresspassing, the same as the law has always been. It's as simple as that.

Secondly, I don't understand your opposition to this bill based on potential hazards to private property and the burden of proof for proving damages being upon landowners. That situation is already the law. If this bill were defeated tomorrow what you described would still be the status quo, and has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill.

Finally, regarding the proposed penalties, I wrote the possible--not mandatory--jail sentence as a penalty for persons previously convicted who cannot claim ignorance as an excuse, and as a way for a court to suspend jail as a way forcing militia types who refuse to follow the law, or even impose it for the most extreme defendants. Look, if you have a problem with the proposed penalties, offer an amendment proposing reasonable changes and I for one would be open to considering it. I suspect you might not though as your opposition to this bill is obviously far more fundamental then that.

Inks did a good job ensuring this bill would protect landowners rights and making the program voluntary, so I'm sorry but I'm having real trouble figuring out where you're coming from here.

[Vepres]

My fellow Assemblymen, dear Governor,

I'm sorry to be contrarian as soon as we begin our session, but I can't approve the Freedom to Roam Bill and my reasons are mostly principled ones.

- First, the right to private property and to peacefully use it is sacred, of course in Atlasia, but even in old European Bills of Rights. This right should not be infringed in any way, even by Law.

Our Mideast citizens want to be quiet in their own properties and to use peacefully their private lands.

That's a principle but it's also a matter of being realistic, as I've said in August.
When you allow someone, even within strict limits, to stay on other's private property, there's always a risk of squatting beyond those limits (of time, of land, etc) and, AFTERWARDS, it's very hard to put the squatters off, because you need a decision from a judge and you need the police, etc.
So, don't take the risk... Only voluntary landowners should be allowed to greet roamers, campers or whoever they want.

- The radiuses around houses are entirely theoretical and wouldn't prevent roamers AT ALL from infringing the Clause 14 of our Bill of Rights: All persons shall have the right to privacy in resepct of their personal and family lives.
How would a roamer be aware he is inside or outside this radius ?

- Another problem with this proposal is that, when roamers or campers wound themselves on someone else's land (e.g. because there are wounding wastes or because this land isn't maintained and a dead tree falls on the campers), some of them may try to make the landowner responsible.
And I cannot agree on a Law which force a private owner to open his property and then, he is the one who is sued for other people's behaviour.

- The 11th clause is of course an unrealistic illusion. It's not at all a protection for a private owner who, again, hasn't asked for anything.
Someone who wants to camp freely doesn't go the owner's house to declare his identity and give his card number in case he should be fined at the end becaue of problems...
It wouldn't be possible to legally prove who is responsible for "disturbances".

Another point is that the relative amounts of fines (500-250) for a roamer who is responsible for "disturbances" that may be really serious and for a private owner who is just putting signs in his property (maybe because he wouldn't be aware that he has to declare that his property is closed) are quite... surprising. All the more that the private owner may finish in jail...
Here, I think that, here, an atomic bomb is used to kill a fly.

- What is more, some damages can't be compensated for,
as they may be massive (an entire forest burnt after just a small barbecue, for example)
or with consequences on the long term (a chemical pollution with products that "live" for decades or just one multi-centennial tree that is cut)
or just because money can't make it for nature, for natural diversity, for small ecological equilibrium.

- The problem with all these points is that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the side of the private owner, not on the side of the roamer or the camper, whereas it's the owner's right who is infringed.
Again, on principle, I cannot agree with this.

BTW, the closing after written notice to the local police is a technocratic procedure that will clutter our police, whose mission isn't a purely administrative and archiving one.

- All those procedures, all those controls, all those clauses trying to put limits were introduced with a kind and fine spirit of compromise and we must thank the authors for that.
But, in some cases, compromise may lead to excessively complicated and technocratic clauses: Law must remain simple.

- The only way I can agree on such a proposal is when it's changed to be about PUBLIC lands only, which may be more open to camping if you want, for example,
and about PRIVATE lands that their owners VOLUNTARILY and EXPLICITLY declare open to free roaming.
You may even ease roaming where it's possible by gathering and spreading information in official websites, leaflets, etc. about private lands voluntarily open and public lands.

I thank you for your attention.

With due respect Fab, I don't think you've read this bill very closely. Or at least not reviewed the profound differences between this bill Inks proposed and the original one. For all your pronouncements about the the importance of not "forcing" campers and hikers onto private property you've ignored the fact that this is voluntary with the landowner. Campers and hikers come on to their land with their consent or they're tresspassing, the same as the law has always been. It's as simple as that.

Secondly, I don't understand your opposition to this bill based on potential hazards to private property and the burden of proof for proving damages being upon landowners. That situation is already the law. If this bill were defeated tomorrow what you described would still be the status quo, and has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill.

Finally, regarding the proposed penalties, I wrote the possible--not mandatory--jail sentence as a penalty for persons previously convicted who cannot claim ignorance as an excuse, and as a way for a court to suspend jail as a way forcing militia types who refuse to follow the law, or even impose it for the most extreme defendants. Look, if you have a problem with the proposed penalties, offer an amendment proposing reasonable changes and I for one would be open to considering it. I suspect you might not though as your opposition to this bill is obviously far more fundamental then that.

Inks did a good job ensuring this bill would protect landowners rights and making the program voluntary, so I'm sorry but I'm having real trouble figuring out where you're coming from here.

*Takes a deep breath through nose* I smell a December at-large candidate

[Badger]

I'm still of the opinion that it's not a Freedom to Roam law unless you actually give people the freedom to roam where they please. As I see it this bill is just a fancy way to keep the statues quo. Landowners already have the right to open their lands to the public if they want to, just as they can close them. This bill will technically change nothing.

I think we should either do a proper Freedom to Roam bill, or if that's not what people want, then no Freedom to Roam at all.

I urge you to reconsider, my friend. I realize this bill is nowhere near as extensive as what you offered, but it will still open up hundreds, if not thousands of square miles to camping and hiking and keep peace with landowners. You're a reasonable person so I hope you won't oppose this measure simply because it only provides a half loaf instead of a full loaf, particularly as there is no real downside to the bill from the perspective of freedom to roam enthusiasts.

[Badger]

Aye.

[big bad fab]

To Vepres: a respectful LOL at your smelling. I'm not candidate to anything. Don't misinterpret Hamilton's recent vocal break from the gallery .

To Badger: no, I think it's not voluntary.
The rule is the freedom to roam, the exception is the landowner who should notify to the government that he doesn't want to be included in "open areas".
And, BTW, it's not really fair to force landowners that don't want to open their properties to buy signs and to make them "clear" (it may be difficult and many roamers would, volutnarily or not, pretend that they don't have seen the signs... if you've passed through some forests, you will understand what I'm saying).
I won't rewrite the law the other way, because it would be far too different from Sweedish Chesse's initial proposal.

As for the burden of proof, of course, you have currently to prove when someone damages your property, but the landowner is presumed to be right.
When you let everybody pass through properties, judges will take into account that, without any more evidence, a person who passes through is presumed to be right.

As for penalties, you're right, I won't propose any amendment as my reasons are principled ones, as I've written.

My opposition may seem to be harsh, but the Freedom to Roam wouldn't be only allowing nice families quietly walking through some desert woods.
This is about private property, which is an important constitutional right and, I may say, even more than that. (It will be the subject of one of the proposals I'll put forward this week, BTW.)
And this is about being careful about the environment. With due respect, I may say that Sweedish Cheese's idea is a bit too much a city-dweller's one (and of course duely inspired by far more civic behaviour in some North European countries ).

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*Looks out through the window above my desk on the cows strolling the fields. Turns and looks out through the other window in my room, at the barn, the kennel, and the woods behind them.*

Strangely enough I don't feel like a city-dweller.

Anyway, I have finally made up my mind, after some lobbying from Badger's part.


  Aye


The Ayes have it. The bill is transmitted to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.

[big bad fab]

I'd like to introduce the following bill to the Assembly:

Public procurement policy Bill:

1. The government and all public institutions of the Mideast, when they intend to purchase goods, works or services, shall make a call for tenders. In their call, they shall explain the consistence of goods, works or services required, the cost estimate, the ceiling set for public spending, the process for bidding, the information required from the bidders, the criterias set to be selected.

2. Among the criterias set to select among the bidders the one who will provide the goods, works or services, the public institution shall include the compliance with standards and labels of sustainable development, organic agrivulture and environmental quality.
This criteria shall be the first one in 15% of calls for tenders in 2010, in 30% in 2012, in 50% in 2014, in 65% in 2016, in 75% in 2018 and in 90% in 2020 and thereafter.

3. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for businesses whose registered office is located in the Mideast. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, the business located in the Mideast shall be selected.

4. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for small and middle-sized businesses. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias and when they are both located in the Mideast, the smaller business shall be selected. The size of a business shall be set in the call for tenders, by a mix between the number of people employed by the business and the amount of its sales.

The aim is to boost the local economy, while setting clear rules for public purchases (which should reinforce real competition) and promoting an eco-friendly policy.

This draft needs of course debates and amendments.
But I think that, on the principle, these 3 main points in the bill may be agreed on as priorities for the Mideast.

[Badger]

I'd like to introduce the following bill to the Assembly:

Public procurement policy Bill:

1. The government and all public institutions of the Mideast, when they intend to purchase goods, works or services, shall make a call for tenders. In their call, they shall explain the consistence of goods, works or services required, the cost estimate, the ceiling set for public spending, the process for bidding, the information required from the bidders, the criterias set to be selected.

2. Among the criterias set to select among the bidders the one who will provide the goods, works or services, the public institution shall include the compliance with standards and labels of sustainable development, organic agrivulture and environmental quality.
This criteria shall be the first one in 15% of calls for tenders in 2010, in 30% in 2012, in 50% in 2014, in 65% in 2016, in 75% in 2018 and in 90% in 2020 and thereafter.

3. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for businesses whose registered office is located in the Mideast. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, the business located in the Mideast shall be selected.

4. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for small and middle-sized businesses. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias and when they are both located in the Mideast, the smaller business shall be selected. The size of a business shall be set in the call for tenders, by a mix between the number of people employed by the business and the amount of its sales.

The aim is to boost the local economy, while setting clear rules for public purchases (which should reinforce real competition) and promoting an eco-friendly policy.

This draft needs of course debates and amendments.
But I think that, on the principle, these 3 main points in the bill may be agreed on as priorities for the Mideast.

Interesting bill, Fab. Let me ask whether section 3 might be better written to be based on the amount of the product or service is produced/manufactured in the Mideast as opposed to having a "registered office" . A company could produce the products or services outside the Mideast and have a "registered office" here that amounts to little more than a post office box or cubicle with an single secretary, which would bring no economic benefit to the region. Conversely, Honda might be denied a contract for government vehicles based on their corporate HQ being in Japan, even if the vehicles could be contracted for production at their Marysville, Ohio plant (or elsewhere in our region).

My only other concern is while the criteria you aim for in section 2 are laudable, the bill currently seems far too vague in establishing what levels of sustainable development, etc. will be demanded from businesses. The goal for 2010, for example, is 15% of what exactly?

Don't get me wrong: It's a good start. I just want to make sure I'm not fundamentally misreading this bill before I start offering amendments.

[big bad fab]

You're welcome and right on both remarks.

The problem with the amount of products or services produced in the Mideast is that it may be hard to assess precisely. But rules can be set: location of factories, of HQ, of offices; location of sites on which the society intervenes (when she delivers outside services).
The text should be amended on this point, you're right.

As for the percentages, it must be better written, you're right too. The percentages apply to the amount of goods or services produced with the quoted standards (which are officially certified by specialized societies) and delivered to the public institution.

And my law English language may be weak. So, do not hesitate to make amendments on this too .

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Looks like good legislation to me. The changes suggested by Badger seems to be very sensible as well. All three of us seem to be rather united on this one.

Since there has been no further debate on this bill for well over 24 hours, I'd really like us to move forward quite soon. I presume Badger intends to prupose an amendment, and will therefor allow him some extra time to do so though.

 

 



 

 

[big bad fab]

While our colleague Badger is working on amendments, I just want to ask my fellow assemblymen about the meaning they give to the word "Law" specified in our Constitution.

Does it refer to no specific level of legislation, or to constitutional level of legislation, or to legislative level of legislation ?

I don't want to misinterprete our supreme "rule" in my next proposals.

[Badger]

Hi Guys:

Here's the problem: I'm going to be super busy with work and other real world matters for the next week. Tonight's bout with insomnia might be one of the few chances I have to work for more than a couple minutes on Atlasia stuff until at least next Monday or Tuesday. I would love to invest the time to properly offer amendments to make the bill sufficiently specific. It's stuff I'll need to sit and really think out for a spell!

So in the interim I propose 3 options:

1) Wait until next week. I'm sure my fellow Assemblymen, like me, abhor the idea of leaving the Assembly thread dormant that long.

2) Let you two take the lead in offering amendments, and I'll use what time I can spare to offer inevitable suggestions and nitpicking as only an American-trained lawyer can do. ;-)

3) We temporarily table this bill for a week and I'll offer the DUI bill I've been planning, as between it being close to my everyday job and having the language pretty much written in my head for a month now, I can spit it out in about 5-10 minutes. Plus, with the new national bill passed by the Senate, we need to pass changes to our regional DUI laws by NOV. 1 of this year or see federal highway funds cut off.

I figure a week should be enough time to pass that bill (hopefully) with relatively little time needed from me, then I can properly work on mutually acceptable amendments to the language of Fab's bill and we can move towards passing it. That should hopefully give Swede enough time to finish his economic development bill which, I suspect, is going to be the major legislation of this Assembly session.

I defer to you, my colleagues, on how we want to proceed here.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

FYI, I signed the last bill.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

If it's ok for BBF I wouldn't mind if we prosponed this bill to next week when you're back full time. This really isn't my area of expertise so I don't believe I'd personally be able to offer any good constructive amendments to it.

So I think it'd be better if we got your DUI out of the way this week (plus a small bill I'm planing to introduce) and then hit this current bill full power once your back. That way we'd be able to make sure this bill ends up being the best bill we could get, without the Assembly going into a coma for the whole week.

As this is BBF's bill though, I'll leave the decission to him. If he wants this done now, I promise to make sure we'll still end up with a great bill.


 

[big bad fab]

If it's ok for BBF I wouldn't mind if we prosponed this bill to next week when you're back full time. This really isn't my area of expertise so I don't believe I'd personally be able to offer any good constructive amendments to it.

So I think it'd be better if we got your DUI out of the way this week (plus a small bill I'm planing to introduce) and then hit this current bill full power once your back. That way we'd be able to make sure this bill ends up being the best bill we could get, without the Assembly going into a coma for the whole week.

I agree.

[big bad fab]

While our colleague Badger is working on amendments, I just want to ask my fellow assemblymen about the meaning they give to the word "Law" specified in our Constitution.

Does it refer to no specific level of legislation, or to constitutional level of legislation, or to legislative level of legislation ?

I don't want to misinterprete our supreme "rule" in my next proposals.

Don't forget my question !

[Badger]

FYI, I signed the last bill.

If I forgot to mention it at the time, thanks Gov!

[Badger]

MIDEAST DRUNK DRIVING REFORM BILL

1) The minimum fine for a first conviction under the existing Mideast DUI Statute is hereby raised to $500. The minimum fine for any second or more conviction under the Mideast DUI Statute is hereby raised to $1000.

2) After lawful arrest for DUI and proper request by a peace officer pursuant to Mideast law for chemical testing of the arrestee's breath, blood or urine, refusal by the arrestee to submit to chemical testing as requested is punishable by law.

3) The degree of offense and minimum and maximum penalties for violation of section 2 above shall be equivalent to penalties for violation of the Mideast DUI Statute.

4) To the extent that the degree of offense and minimum and maximum penalties are determined by the defendant's number of prior convictions, prior convictions of this statute and/or the Mideast DUI Statute are considered "prior convictions" for enhancing penalties for both this statute and the Mideast DUI Statute.

5) Prosecution or conviction under this statute does not preclude prosecution or conviction under the Mideast DUI Statute arising out of a single incident, but sentence may not be imposed for both offenses out of any one single incident.


This proposal accomplishes two things: First, it increases the minimum mandatory fines as required by federal statute signed by President Lief on 10/8/09 to continue receiving federal highway funding after 11/1/09.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102250.msg2166403#msg2166403

Secondly, the bill criminalizes refusing to submit to a breath test and the like after a lawful DUI arrest. I can attest that DUI offenders--especially repeat offenders--know the system and will frequently refuse the breathalyzer after arrest. Yes, they automatically lose their license under state implied consent laws, but if you know you've had too much to drink and are going to test over, then you're going to be convicted of DUI and lose your license anyway if you test. So defendants all too often refuse the test hoping their lawyer can get charges reduced without the clear cut evidence of a breath test result against them, or try their luck with a jury.

In sum, I submit that short of a rare circumstance like an asthmatic (more on that latter), OVI defendants give up their license by refusing breath tests for one reason: They're over the limit and know it. Allowing them to play games with the system perverts justice, is unfair to the Defendants who play by the rules and submit to a breath test (and are almost always convicted as a result) while defendants who refuse get off easy, and such refusals drastically burden the court system. The large majority of hearings and trials in Ohio, not to mention time spent on pretrial negotiations, are consumed by OVI refusal cases.

Y'know, before I go ahead and argue all the many many points as planned, I think I'll wait to see if there are other objections or questions regarding the bill first. :-)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

For section 3 - are the penalties the same as in the new bill or are you using the penalties from the original statute?  That seems like it needs clarification.

Other than that, it looks good.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think he's going for the new penalties. Personally I think it'd be slightly odd to have the old fines for section three, after raising them in section one, but I definatley see that it can be interpeted either way as it is now written.

It should probably be amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I couldn't find much to object about as far as this bill is concrned. To me there isn't any good arguments in favour of letting someone who's been arested get out of taking necessary tests to prove (or potentionally disprove) that person's crime. I was actually quite surprised the first time Badger told me that an arrested person in this region could refuse to coropurate in this manner, as I consider it a matter of course for our police to have the right to make these basic tests on persons who're on good grounds suspected for comiting a crime.

[big bad fab]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think he's going for the new penalties. Personally I think it'd be slightly odd to have the old fines for section three, after raising them in section one, but I definatley see that it can be interpeted either way as it is now written.

It should probably be amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I couldn't find much to object about as far as this bill is concrned. To me there isn't any good arguments in favour of letting someone who's been arested get out of taking necessary tests to prove (or potentionally disprove) that person's crime. I was actually quite surprised the first time Badger told me that an arrested person in this region could refuse to coropurate in this manner, as I consider it a matter of course for our police to have the right to make these basic tests on persons who're on good grounds suspected for comiting a crime.

I agree with my fellow assemblyman Sweedish Cheese.

It's a good, useful and necessary bill.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think he's going for the new penalties. Personally I think it'd be slightly odd to have the old fines for section three, after raising them in section one, but I definatley see that it can be interpeted either way as it is now written.

It should probably be amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I couldn't find much to object about as far as this bill is concrned. To me there isn't any good arguments in favour of letting someone who's been arested get out of taking necessary tests to prove (or potentionally disprove) that person's crime. I was actually quite surprised the first time Badger told me that an arrested person in this region could refuse to coropurate in this manner, as I consider it a matter of course for our police to have the right to make these basic tests on persons who're on good grounds suspected for comiting a crime.

I agree with my fellow assemblyman Sweedish Cheese.

It's a good, useful and necessary bill.

Thank all three of you for your support and observations. SC is correct in his interpretation of my intent for penalties to include the new federally mandated minimum mandatory fines. I accept his amendment as friendly.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In that case,  intend to sign the bill.

[Badger]

In that case,  intend to sign the bill.

Cool. In that case, as there appears to be unanimous support, unless there are any further questions, concerns, suggestions, amendments or debate, may I suggest Mr. Speaker we move this to a vote soon?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

In that case,  intend to sign the bill.

Cool. In that case, as there appears to be unanimous support, unless there are any further questions, concerns, suggestions, amendments or debate, may I suggest Mr. Speaker we move this to a vote soon?

Unless there is no further debate I will be able to start a vote tomorrow around 3.00 pm. (9.00 am your time) When it has passed 24 hours since debating on the bill stopped.

But since we seem to be pretty much done on this subject I can probably introduce this:

Tie Vote Clerification Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

 The following clause shall be added to Section 2, Article III, of the Third Mideast Constitution.

7.   Should the Assembly split evenly on an issue, with one Assemblyman voting in favour of the presented legislation, one against, and one abstain, and thereby creating a tie, the Governor shall be given the power to vote to break that tie.


So the reason for this amendment is that before when I was reading up on our constitution, I couldn't find any clear rules of how exactly a tie in the Assembly is supposed to be broken. Since that could potentionally be a problem in the future, I'd really like there to be an amendment clearifying how such a situation should be dealt with.

Since we don't have a Lt Governor, I thought we might as well give the power to the Governor.