Line-Item Veto Bill

[King]

As this amendment now has eight votes in favour I shall put it to the public vote shortly as it has passed the senate.

I have been informed by Peter Bell that any public vote I put this to would be unconstitutional, what exactly should I do?

How can a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT be UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

[JohnFKennedy]

As this amendment now has eight votes in favour I shall put it to the public vote shortly as it has passed the senate.

I have been informed by Peter Bell that any public vote I put this to would be unconstitutional, what exactly should I do?

How can a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT be UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

The amendment itself isn't, but there is no process of passage that is constitutional.

[King]

As this amendment now has eight votes in favour I shall put it to the public vote shortly as it has passed the senate.

I have been informed by Peter Bell that any public vote I put this to would be unconstitutional, what exactly should I do?

How can a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT be UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

The amendment itself isn't, but there is no process of passage that is constitutional.

Wait, so we can no longer amend the Constitution?

[JohnFKennedy]

As this amendment now has eight votes in favour I shall put it to the public vote shortly as it has passed the senate.

I have been informed by Peter Bell that any public vote I put this to would be unconstitutional, what exactly should I do?

How can a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT be UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

The amendment itself isn't, but there is no process of passage that is constitutional.

Wait, so we can no longer amend the Constitution?

Well, apparently we cannot amend the constitution using the public vote method we have used as apparently it is unconstitutional, we established the method using a senatorial procedure resolution which acording to Peter we cannot do.

[King]

As this amendment now has eight votes in favour I shall put it to the public vote shortly as it has passed the senate.

I have been informed by Peter Bell that any public vote I put this to would be unconstitutional, what exactly should I do?

How can a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT be UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

The amendment itself isn't, but there is no process of passage that is constitutional.

Wait, so we can no longer amend the Constitution?

Well, apparently we cannot amend the constitution using the public vote method we have used as apparently it is unconstitutional, we established the method using a senatorial procedure resolution which acording to Peter we cannot do.

Peter is incorrect. The Constitution created this method, the resolution just made sure the Senate followed the guidlines...

Article VI (Amendment Ratification)

The Senate may propose new amendments to the Constitution. In order for an amendment to be passed it must have a majority of the vote of a public poll administered by the President pro tempore of the Senate, as well as two-thirds vote from the Senate.

[Peter]

The problem is the following:

The method of voting presently used is a joke that has only prevailed through precedent; That can easily be overcome by JFK simply setting a new precedent.

I have stated privately that I will live with the one week time limit on the poll, even though it is unconstitutional, though I do think it should be entirely revised by a Constitutional Convention.

It is unconstitutional for this reason:

It was established by an SPR. SPRs have authority only to affect the proceedings of the Senate. A public poll on a constitutional amendment is by definition not a proceeding of the Senate, therefore cannot be affected by SPRs.

This basically leaves the system with only one viable procedure: The system that is used in the real United States.

i.e. All amendments put to public poll must wait to gain a majority of all registered voters (as opposed to those voting) before they become part of the Constituion. They have an indefinite ratification time (see the recall 27th amendment which took about 200 years to be ratified).

I have said that I will live with a one week voting time; I will not live with the public polling that has been used to date. This also forms a strong case for a Constitutional Convention. If JFK wants to poll this amendment publically I won't attempt to stop him.

[StevenNick]

I think we really need to just get rid of the public poll all together and have regional legislatures that vote on amendments.

[Sam Spade]

I think we really need to just get rid of the public poll all together and have regional legislatures that vote on amendments.

And a certain amount of legislatures (either 3 or 4) have to pass it before the amendment can be ratified.

I agree, in some way the amendment procedure needs to be made much harder, otherwise you're going to have one of two things happen:

1.  You'll have so many amendments that the constitution becomes so bloated and complex, no one will understand what's really going on.  I lived in Texas, a state much like this forum, where amendments are put on the public vote.  After 135 years, they're at about 3,000 amendmnents and counting.

2.  You're going to have to rewrite the constitution constantly to take care of all of the amendments that are passed.