Anti-Conscription Amendment [Rejected]

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

Ugh more amendments.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have several objectives for doing so.

[bgwah]

nay

[TJ in Wisco]

I am going to re-offer the Polnut amendment without the last Sentence about frontline capacity.

Anti-Conscription Amendment

The Republic of Atlasia shall not conscript or enforce conscription of any citizen unless there is a land invasion of the Atlasian homeland by a sovereign government. In the event of such an attack, conscription must only be used on citizens at least eighteen years of age, and must allow exemptions for conscientious objectors, the infirm or otherwise disabled, those already enrolled in a higher education institution at the time conscription begins, or heads of single parent households.

We already voted on this exact same amendment before Polnut's.

Is there a reason why the vote should turn out differently this time?

[Junkie]

I am going to re-offer the Polnut amendment without the last Sentence about frontline capacity.

Anti-Conscription Amendment

The Republic of Atlasia shall not conscript or enforce conscription of any citizen unless there is a land invasion of the Atlasian homeland by a sovereign government. In the event of such an attack, conscription must only be used on citizens at least eighteen years of age, and must allow exemptions for conscientious objectors, the infirm or otherwise disabled, those already enrolled in a higher education institution at the time conscription begins, or heads of single parent households.

We already voted on this exact same amendment before Polnut's.

Is there a reason why the vote should turn out differently this time?

I can think of two reasons why someone would want to reintroduce the amendment.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am going to re-offer the Polnut amendment without the last Sentence about frontline capacity.

Anti-Conscription Amendment

The Republic of Atlasia shall not conscript or enforce conscription of any citizen unless there is a land invasion of the Atlasian homeland by a sovereign government. In the event of such an attack, conscription must only be used on citizens at least eighteen years of age, and must allow exemptions for conscientious objectors, the infirm or otherwise disabled, those already enrolled in a higher education institution at the time conscription begins, or heads of single parent households.

We already voted on this exact same amendment before Polnut's.

Is there a reason why the vote should turn out differently this time?

I can think of two reasons why someone would want to reintroduce the amendment.

I actually have 5 reasons, but what two did you think of?

[President Marokai]

The previous amendment has failed. Out of respect for Yankee, even though it is a blatant reintroduction of the amendment we voted on previously and I could just strike it.. I'll open a vote on it. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Anti-Conscription Amendment

The Republic of Atlasia shall not conscript or enforce conscription of any citizen unless there is a land invasion of the Atlasian homeland by a sovereign government. In the event of such an attack, conscription must only be used on citizens at least eighteen years of age, and must allow exemptions for conscientious objectors, the infirm or otherwise disabled, those already enrolled in a higher education institution at the time conscription begins, or heads of single parent households.

Aye.

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

Nay.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Senator Napoleon]

Nay

[TJ in Wisco]

Aye

[bgwah]

nay

[MOP]

Nay

[Secretary Polnut]

Aye - with reservations

[Junkie]

Aye

[President Marokai]

5-4, folks.

[Senator Napoleon]

The Senate is 50% coward. I should have known...

[Junkie]

The Senate is 50% coward. I should have known...

Please explain.

[Senator Napoleon]

The Senate is 50% coward. I should have known...

Please explain.

You're the quintessential Moderate Hero.

[Secretary Polnut]

I just find it strange that I believe there are legitimate reasons to oppose the extreme step of making a constitutional amendment.

I'm all for a legislative instrument to make it next to impossible, as opposed to a constitutional ban, which would and I believe that would be a mistake.

It's not moderate-heroism in all cases.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If conviction is a license to be arrogant and self-righteous, then perhaps one is better off without it.

[Junkie]

The Senate is 50% coward. I should have known...

Please explain.

You're the quintessential Moderate Hero.

That would be your opinion.  My opinion is that you are the infected hair on the butt crack of this forum.  Some may believe both, neither, or one of the above.

I would still like an answer to allegations of cowardice.  Who is a coward?  In what way are they cowards?  I stand against this amendment.  I believe that is a bad idea.  I do not think a stand on principle makes me a Moderate Hero, but that is just my opinion.

Really can we have a conversation?  I really hoped that we would move pass this and have held my tongue as long as I could.  No longer.

[shua]

I don't know what all this pointless vindictiveness between people here is about.  But I know this:  This "anti-conscription" amendment is looking a whole lot like the "anti-conscription" amendment that was sent to the people and failed decisively.  I know the Senate doesn't usually care to find out their constituents views on amendments before it approves them, but maybe in this case it'd be worthwhile.

[Senator Napoleon]

There are two reasons one could support the amendment to this proposed constitutional change. The first is that they are scared to stand up and do what is right out of fear of voters or one's peers. The second is a perverse sense of entitlement to force other Atlasians' children off to fight their wars for them. Both are extremely cowardly and it isn't really surprising the same people that think perpetual war is appropriate want to be able to keep their options open for later. Yuck.

There would not be any point in adding this garbage to the constitution. Some of these Senators even claim to be pro-life, can you believe it?

Those who failed to stand up to slave owners, those who wanted to "compromise", they were cowards. Those today voting in favor of allowing government to continue a specific form of slavery: not much different. Too cowardly to even put their beliefs on the line in a vote by the Atlasian people; perhaps they know public opinion is not on their side. It's not like the Senate hasn't made this deeply foolish mistake before now.

I know the Senate doesn't usually care to find out their constituents views on amendments before it approves them, but maybe in this case it'd be worthwhile.

I do.

[Secretary Polnut]

I have determined to change my vote to Nay...

Because I believe this should go to the people to determine, as it effects them.

However, I will be personally opposing such a change.


Respectfully, Senator, and only able to speak for myself, I believe that's a pretty unfair mischaracterisation.

My objections are not based primarily on what you are talking about.

I don't believe a constitution is the place for such things - I believe that there are three purposes for a constitution - 1. to determine how the government is run, 2. to enumerate the rights, powers and responsibilities of the federal and regional governments and individuals and 3. to create heads of power.

I believe a legislative instrument is appropriate, a Constitutional amendment is a melodramatic step, one that I see as unnecessary in practice.

I'll support a Bill, I won't support a Constitutional amendment, and I personally reject any allegations of cowardice, I just happen to be standing on my principles.