MA: Preventing an Oligarchy Amendment (Failed)

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Preventing an Oligarchy Amendment

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Mideast Constitution shall be amended to read:

Should the Assembly pass ordinary legislation by a majority vote, then the Governor may sign such legislation into Law, or veto such legislation. A veto may be overturned upon the two-thirds vote if the Assembly consists of five members or by a unanimous vote if the Assembly consists of three members.

Sponsors: Tmthforu94 & Gass3268

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I really don't see the need for this.  If a law is really that bad and unpopular, it can be brought up to the people for a vote.

[For Oklahoma]

I really don't see the need for this.  If a law is really that bad and unpopular, it can be brought up to the people for a vote.

Yeah, this.

[Jayhawker]

Under current law, with 3 Assemblymen, 2 people can completely run this region. This change is how we had it before when we had 3 Assemblymen, it just wasn't added with the new amendment back in March or so.

I didn't think this would be so controversial.

[For Oklahoma]

Under current law, with 3 Assemblymen, 2 people can completely run this region.

But they wouldn't.

[Jayhawker]

Under current law, with 3 Assemblymen, 2 people can completely run this region.

But they wouldn't.

Sure, you'd have the long process of public referendum. But only two people could turn a bill into a law. That seems like a lot of power when you consider how many active folks we have in this region.

[ZuWo]

I agree with Inks and 20RP12. The Mideast Constitution makes it quite easy for citizens to overturn a bill passed by the Assembly. I don't think this amendment is necessary.

[For Oklahoma]

Under current law, with 3 Assemblymen, 2 people can completely run this region.

But they wouldn't.

But only two people could turn a bill into a law.

If the law were so controversial, I'd guarantee you that there'd be outraged citizens who would seek to have the bill repealed.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Under current law, with 3 Assemblymen, 2 people can completely run this region.

But they wouldn't.

Sure, you'd have the long process of public referendum. But only two people could turn a bill into a law. That seems like a lot of power when you consider how many active folks we have in this region.

So your argument is that 2 people controlling a region is a bad idea, but 3 people is fine?  And this really isn't happening in cases where we have active folks.  During periods of activity, the Assembly is made up of 5 people, making the concern irrelevant.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Aye

[Jayhawker]

It would have been nice if some of these concerns would have been addressed the multiple times I have previously brought this up.

I disagree with the concept of it taking just as many Assembly to pass a bill as to override a veto. The Governor is potentially in a position of no power, as they can't veto with 3 Assemblymen.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Aye

Voting hasn't started yet.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Seeing no debate for 24 hours, I'll bring this to a vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 48-hour vote.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

NAY

[Jayhawker]

I disagree with the concept of it taking just as many Assembly to pass a bill as to override a veto. The Governor is potentially in a position of no power, as they can't veto with 3 Assemblymen.

[For Oklahoma]

NAY

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Aye

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 1, and the NAYs are 2.  The NAYs have it, and the bill has failed.