New Constitutional Convention Discussion

[StevenNick]

This is a thread for the discussion of the possibility of having a new constitutional amendment as Attorney General Peter Bell has brought up.

At this current juncture in time I have no opinion on whether or not the current constitution should be greatly amended or replaced with an entirely new constitution, however I think we can all agree that the current constitution does suffer from a number of faults.

If we are going to have a new constitutional convention, though, we need to do it right.  We need to have each region elect delegates to be sent to a continental congress that will draft a new constitution.  The new document would then need to be ratified by a vote of three or four regions.  These votes could be conducted by referendum or by regional legislatures.

And any new constitution would effectively render every bill, resolution, and amendment passed by this body null and void.  We would have to spend some time revoting on past bills that we wish to keep.

[A18]

Why don't you just base it off the real Constitution?

[Jake]

This is a thread for the discussion of the possibility of having a new constitutional amendment as Attorney General Peter Bell has brought up.

At this current juncture in time I have no opinion on whether or not the current constitution should be greatly amended or replaced with an entirely new constitution, however I think we can all agree that the current constitution does suffer from a number of faults.

If we are going to have a new constitutional convention, though, we need to do it right.  We need to have each region elect delegates to be sent to a continental congress that will draft a new constitution.  The new document would then need to be ratified by a vote of three or four regions.  These votes could be conducted by referendum or by regional legislatures.

And any new constitution would effectively render every bill, resolution, and amendment passed by this body null and void.  We would have to spend some time revoting on past bills that we wish to keep.

I support the idea of a new Constitution. Peter Bell and Ernest seem to be good candidates for the head of the convention if we ever have one. I would say 3-5 members per region with representation from all the major parties required.

[StevenNick]

I support the idea of a new Constitution. Peter Bell and Ernest seem to be good candidates for the head of the convention if we ever have one. I would say 3-5 members per region with representation from all the major parties required.

I think the regions should be allowed to decide for themselves how they would like to choose delegates.  Each regions governor could make the decision.  I would imagine that Peter Bell and Ernest would both be chosen by their respective districts to be delegates at any new constitutional convention.  However, I think any chairman of the convention should be decided by the delegates at the convention and not by any other body before the convention begins.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And any new constitution would effectively render every bill, resolution, and amendment passed by this body null and void.  We would have to spend some time revoting on past bills that we wish to keep.

Not necessarily , altho we probably would need to include something like Article XVII Section 11 of the SC Constitution of 1895 which explicitly kept all laws that had been passed under the previous 1868 Constitution in force unless they had been made explicitly unconstitutional under the new Constitution.

[King]

I want a government design that doesn't mimic the US or any real country. We should invent our own system...

[MAS117]

I will suppport this. I will send delegates to the convention from the Northeast if this happens.

[Sam Spade]

I want a government design that doesn't mimic the US or any real country. We should invent our own system...

How about a dictatorship?  Those always seem to have the most interesting leaders. 

[King]

I want a government design that doesn't mimic the US or any real country. We should invent our own system...

How about a dictatorship?  Those always seem to have the most interesting leaders. 

That's not our OWN system. I want a form of DEMOCRACY that is unique.

[Sam Spade]

I want a government design that doesn't mimic the US or any real country. We should invent our own system...

How about a dictatorship?  Those always seem to have the most interesting leaders. 

That's not our OWN system. I want a form of DEMOCRACY that is unique.

I want a Republic, not a Democracy... 

[Fritz]

I could support the idea of a new constitution ONLY if the laws already passed don't have to be declared null and void as a result.  The various Senates have done too much work to have it all thrown away.  If that is the way it has to be, I oppose ratifying a new constitution- lets fix the problems with the one we have.

[Jake]

I could support the idea of a new constitution ONLY if the laws already passed don't have to be declared null and void as a result.  The various Senates have done too much work to have it all thrown away.  If that is the way it has to be, I oppose ratifying a new constitution- lets fix the problems with the one we have.

I agree, though I assume evryone has a few laws they want thrown out

[Nym90]

Ugh. I was President at the time the first Convention was drafted. It took a full 2 months of work. I'd really rather not have to go down that road again. I think anything that needs changing can be accomplished with Amendments.

[Jake]

Pete said it would take something like ten amendments to fix it. Why don't we redraft it, keep what is alright and finish it with one thing instead of ten. Either way, the way we conduct Constitutional Amendment votes needs to change. Post the vote in the thread like you would for an election.

Ugh. I was President at the time the first Convention was drafted. It took a full 2 months of work. I'd really rather not have to go down that road again. I think anything that needs changing can be accomplished with Amendments.

[Nym90]

I would be fine with a new Constitution, as long as we keep the good parts, and keep all bills that have been passed.

I just don't want to spend another 2 months fighting over the thing like before.

[Sam Spade]

I would be fine with a new Constitution, as long as we keep the good parts, and keep all bills that have been passed.

I just don't want to spend another 2 months fighting over the thing like before.

Agreed.  Though I wasn't around for the fight.

I'd like another fight, though, if we could settle it out with duels.

[Peter]

The present draft that I am working on keeps all laws, resolutions and judicial rulings in full force, unless contradicted by the Constitution, future laws, resolution or judicial rulings.

Beyond the amendments that I consider necessary to fix the logical contradictions in the Constitution, there are the following amendments presently floating around:

1. Balanced Budget
2. Repeal of the Original Districts amendment
3. Swap New Mexico and Montana.
4. The Tax Amendment.
5. Line Item Veto.
6. Raise the Standard

That brings us up to 15 amendments, since we already have nine (in only 7 months I might add), which already span 5 sides of A4, with the Constitution spanning about 7 sides. For those of us who use the Constitution on a regular basis, it is becoming more and more problematic to work out which bits of the Constitution remain, and also as I use it more and more, I continue to see the logical contradictions.

In order to fix a lot of these, it will require amendments such as "The nth sentence of Article X Section Y Clause Z is hereby repealed". A lot of these, and the Constitution will become incredibly confusing for anybody that tries to read it, for this reason alone I think it needs a rewrite.

With all the amendments on the table at this time (including the ones that I would want to put on the table), we have a mass of constitutional amendments necessary - the only sensible way without amending the Constitution to a stupid degree to deal with this backlog is by Constitutional Convention.

[minionofmidas]

Pete said it would take something like ten amendments to fix it. Why don't we redraft it, keep what is alright and finish it with one thing instead of ten. Either way, the way we conduct Constitutional Amendment votes needs to change. Post the vote in the thread like you would for an election.

Now this is a change that I'd support enthusiastically.
Given that current praxis is based on precedent and an unclearly worded constitutional provision, it could probably be done by a simple law.

[Peter]

Now this is a change that I'd support enthusiastically.
Given that current praxis is based on precedent and an unclearly worded constitutional provision, it could probably be done by a simple law.

You cannot change the way that Constitutional Amendments are voted on by simple statute - whatever the Constitution says outranks that Statute. The Senate has already imposed an arbitrary time limit on constitutional amendment public polls of one week via an SPR; I don't know where they managed to get this authority from - but the Constituion is not decided upon by Senate Procedural Resolutions.

Due to the Constitution's silence, all votes on amendments remain theoretically open forever until they have gained a majority of ALL registered voters. Its too much work to bother to check, but I doubt that all if any of the present amendments "passed" have actually gained a majority of registered voters. This causes a pretty extreme problem which can only be resolved by overthrowing the Constitution and writing a new one.

[King]

We need to hold a more formal Constitutional Convention, my idea:

There shall be 3 delegates from each region that are either appointed by the Governor or elected by the region's legislative / electoral body. The delegates will write a constitutional draft, 10 of the 15 delegates must sign for it to become the official draft. Then the draft will be sent to the regions for a vote, 3 of the 5 regions must vote to approve the new constitution for it to become the official Atlasia Constitution.

[MAS117]

We need to hold a more formal Constitutional Convention, my idea:

There shall be 3 delegates from each region that are either appointed by the Governor or elected by the region's legislative / electoral body. The delegates will write a constitutional draft, 10 of the 15 delegates must sign for it to become the official draft. Then the draft will be sent to the regions for a vote, 3 of the 5 regions must vote to approve the new constitution for it to become the official Atlasia Constitution.

I like this idea, the delegates should be appointed by the Governor, we dont need anymore elections then we already have. I think that the constitution should be passed by 4 out 5 regions also. Besides these I agree.

[Peter]

A question that needs to be addressed is what we are going to do with all the Constitutional Amendments that are presently floating around. I've already built the language necessary to include them in my draft, but I think that the Senate needs to stop considering them if there is going to be a Convention, especially if, as I believe, the Amendment procedure is broken.

[minionofmidas]

Now this is a change that I'd support enthusiastically.
Given that current praxis is based on precedent and an unclearly worded constitutional provision, it could probably be done by a simple law.

You cannot change the way that Constitutional Amendments are voted on by simple statute - whatever the Constitution says outranks that Statute. The Senate has already imposed an arbitrary time limit on constitutional amendment public polls of one week via an SPR; I don't know where they managed to get this authority from - but the Constituion is not decided upon by Senate Procedural Resolutions.

Due to the Constitution's silence, all votes on amendments remain theoretically open forever until they have gained a majority of ALL registered voters. Its too much work to bother to check, but I doubt that all if any of the present amendments "passed" have actually gained a majority of registered voters. This causes a pretty extreme problem which can only be resolved by overthrowing the Constitution and writing a new one.

Well, in Germany, when the Constitution provides only a skeleton on how to do things, it's the lawmakers' job to beef it up.
The constitution talks of a "public poll". Nobody knows what a "public poll" is - I guess even at the time nobody except maybe DemRepDan knew what it was supposed to mean.

[Peter]

I assume that this discussion has died.

I still believe a Constitutional Convention is necessary to creating a sound legal framework for our Nation, but if the forum does not choose to agree with me, then so be it.

[JohnFKennedy]

I assume that this discussion has died.

I still believe a Constitutional Convention is necessary to creating a sound legal framework for our Nation, but if the forum does not choose to agree with me, then so be it.

I echo the sentiments of Peter Bell. Our constitution is contradictory and not well thought out. We need to hold a new constitutional convention to develop a new document more legally consistent and with a full amendment process listed.