SENATE BILL: Fair Amendment Procedure Amendment (Failed)

[Napoleon]

Personally, I'm less concerned about regions than allowing a simlle popular majority to amend the constitution. I've been in the senate since 2011 and I've seen some stupid amendments passed by the senate and I've seen stupid amendments receive a majority of voters support. By stupid, I mean absolutely stupid, not just things I happen to disagree with.

[President Tyrion]

I would be fine with 55%, but 2/3 seems excessive. That's essentially more difficult than 4/5 regions, IMO.

[Napoleon]

I would be fine with 55%, but 2/3 seems excessive. That's essentially more difficult than 4/5 regions, IMO.

55% is too low, but what about 60%? Or we could could turn this into Mideast budget debate part deux, but I don't think a single senator wants that.

[President Tyrion]

I would be fine with 55%, but 2/3 seems excessive. That's essentially more difficult than 4/5 regions, IMO.

55% is too low, but what about 60%? Or we could could turn this into Mideast budget debate part deux, but I don't think a single senator wants that.

I'd prefer 55%, but I'd accept "60% OR 2/3 of the regions" as a compromise.

Would we have 7 Senators in support of the latter plan?

[Maxwell]

I'm not sure that makes much sense (kind of like the process we have for registration), and I would prefer the old system to 60% or 2/3rds of the regions, but then again, I do prefer the old system anyway.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Except for the extreme reactionaries who would let the Regions write all the laws of Atlasia if they had their way, I cannot fathom opposition to this bill. It is democratic, it is fair, and it is equitable. I ask the Senate to give this amendment a chance.

The problem is you have a standpoint from which nothing you see as good could ever become bad, more or less horrible, if taken too far.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would be fine with 55%, but 2/3 seems excessive. That's essentially more difficult than 4/5 regions, IMO.

55% is too low, but what about 60%? Or we could could turn this into Mideast budget debate part deux, but I don't think a single senator wants that.

I'd prefer 55%, but I'd accept "60% OR 2/3 of the regions" as a compromise.

Would we have 7 Senators in support of the latter plan?

I'll give you "3/4 of the regions or 67% of the people".

I would point out that that 2/3rds of the Regions = 67% of the Regions

3/5 =60%
4/5 =80%

So by defintion, 2/3rds, 3/4ths and 4/5ths of the regions is the same standard as long as we have five regions, which may or may not be the case six monhs from now.

So the debate between you and I atleast centers on the magic percentage.

For the record, I do think it's reasonable to have some process to protect a minority from the excesses of the majority (which I assume is part of Yankee's point, especially since we all know he likes the Federalist papers ). I don't necessarily think that the regions do much to protect any minority but the regions themselves, though. I think that if there was reasonable grounds to state that a minority is being disenfranchised or discriminated against, the Supreme Court should be the body to protect the minority (through an immediate stay on the amendment, perhaps, and then careful deliberation on the case). However, no framework really exists for the Supreme Court to review the constitution, and perhaps we could change that.

Faulty logic. The Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supreme Court will be no protection against a tyrannical popular majority having its will impacted on the Constitution, if the amendment procedure has failed to do so. As a Pacifican, you should know that with brutal clarity.

Yes I love the Federalist, and I also love Burkean logic (which is built entirely on a good thing going bad when taken too far, since Burke was a liberal for decades until that business in Paris. Which is why TNF doesn't fathom it). You have your democracy, and your most highest ideals imprinted on a document. It makes sense that amending that would be as difficult as possible, lest they be eroded or corrupted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: A vote to come later tonight (I might not get on until tomorrow morning though).

[President Tyrion]

The REAL question here is why Napoleon wants to cut The People out from here, and yet wants to reinsert The People into the Pacific Constitution. Let's take a moment and really think about that, shall we?

I would be fine with 55%, but 2/3 seems excessive. That's essentially more difficult than 4/5 regions, IMO.

55% is too low, but what about 60%? Or we could could turn this into Mideast budget debate part deux, but I don't think a single senator wants that.

I'd prefer 55%, but I'd accept "60% OR 2/3 of the regions" as a compromise.

Would we have 7 Senators in support of the latter plan?

I'll give you "3/4 of the regions or 67% of the people".

I would point out that that 2/3rds of the Regions = 67% of the Regions

3/5 =60%
4/5 =80%

So by defintion, 2/3rds, 3/4ths and 4/5ths of the regions is the same standard as long as we have five regions, which may or may not be the case six monhs from now.

So the debate between you and I atleast centers on the magic percentage.

For the record, I do think it's reasonable to have some process to protect a minority from the excesses of the majority (which I assume is part of Yankee's point, especially since we all know he likes the Federalist papers ). I don't necessarily think that the regions do much to protect any minority but the regions themselves, though. I think that if there was reasonable grounds to state that a minority is being disenfranchised or discriminated against, the Supreme Court should be the body to protect the minority (through an immediate stay on the amendment, perhaps, and then careful deliberation on the case). However, no framework really exists for the Supreme Court to review the constitution, and perhaps we could change that.

Faulty logic. The Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supreme Court will be no protection against a tyrannical popular majority having its will impacted on the Constitution, if the amendment procedure has failed to do so. As a Pacifican, you should know that with brutal clarity.

Yes I love the Federalist, and I also love Burkean logic (which is built entirely on a good thing going bad when taken too far, since Burke was a liberal for decades until that business in Paris. Which is why TNF doesn't fathom it). You have your democracy, and your most highest ideals imprinted on a document. It makes sense that amending that would be as difficult as possible, lest they be eroded or corrupted.

Yank, we should be legislating for the possibility that regional consolidation might pass. In the case that it does, should we really require regional unanimity (which would be the case with a 3/4 standard)? I feel as though that might be excessive.

Now, as for the national percentage, it's nigh impossible to get 2/3 of the people to vote the same way. The marginal difficulty of the additional 7% between 60% and 67% in a national poll is rather high. I understand that we would like to make amendments difficult, but regional unanimity or 2/3 of the voting public might be a lot closer to impossible than difficult.

Now, talking about the Supreme Court, I do understand that amendments fall out of the purview of the Court as it's currently formulated. I wouldn't mind perhaps even requiring the Supreme Court to review any amendment, since it's a civilian document being added to the Constitution. Then we could get away with passing with a lower standard while still having another set of (qualified) eyes look over the document.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The REAL question here is why Napoleon wants to cut The People out from here, and yet wants to reinsert The People into the Pacific Constitution. Let's take a moment and really think about that, shall we?

I would be fine with 55%, but 2/3 seems excessive. That's essentially more difficult than 4/5 regions, IMO.

55% is too low, but what about 60%? Or we could could turn this into Mideast budget debate part deux, but I don't think a single senator wants that.

I'd prefer 55%, but I'd accept "60% OR 2/3 of the regions" as a compromise.

Would we have 7 Senators in support of the latter plan?

I'll give you "3/4 of the regions or 67% of the people".

I would point out that that 2/3rds of the Regions = 67% of the Regions

3/5 =60%
4/5 =80%

So by defintion, 2/3rds, 3/4ths and 4/5ths of the regions is the same standard as long as we have five regions, which may or may not be the case six monhs from now.

So the debate between you and I atleast centers on the magic percentage.

For the record, I do think it's reasonable to have some process to protect a minority from the excesses of the majority (which I assume is part of Yankee's point, especially since we all know he likes the Federalist papers ). I don't necessarily think that the regions do much to protect any minority but the regions themselves, though. I think that if there was reasonable grounds to state that a minority is being disenfranchised or discriminated against, the Supreme Court should be the body to protect the minority (through an immediate stay on the amendment, perhaps, and then careful deliberation on the case). However, no framework really exists for the Supreme Court to review the constitution, and perhaps we could change that.

Faulty logic. The Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supreme Court will be no protection against a tyrannical popular majority having its will impacted on the Constitution, if the amendment procedure has failed to do so. As a Pacifican, you should know that with brutal clarity.

Yes I love the Federalist, and I also love Burkean logic (which is built entirely on a good thing going bad when taken too far, since Burke was a liberal for decades until that business in Paris. Which is why TNF doesn't fathom it). You have your democracy, and your most highest ideals imprinted on a document. It makes sense that amending that would be as difficult as possible, lest they be eroded or corrupted.

Yank, we should be legislating for the possibility that regional consolidation might pass. In the case that it does, should we really require regional unanimity (which would be the case with a 3/4 standard)? I feel as though that might be excessive.

Now, as for the national percentage, it's nigh impossible to get 2/3 of the people to vote the same way. The marginal difficulty of the additional 7% between 60% and 67% in a national poll is rather high. I understand that we would like to make amendments difficult, but regional unanimity or 2/3 of the voting public might be a lot closer to impossible than difficult.

Now, talking about the Supreme Court, I do understand that amendments fall out of the purview of the Court as it's currently formulated. I wouldn't mind perhaps even requiring the Supreme Court to review any amendment, since it's a civilian document being added to the Constitution. Then we could get away with passing with a lower standard while still having another set of (qualified) eyes look over the document.

I am not sure what you define as "cutting out the people" or what Nappy is desiring in the Pacific. I find it perfectly consisted to insist on both popular sovereignty and a high standard for the reasons I previously detailed.

Actually, Tyrion, that was basically what I was trying to say about cosnolidation but I would point out that the consolidation itself will necessitate amendemnt to the Constitution in order to effect the alterations to the Senate once it goes into effect. So such isn't as big of a cocnern as it might seem.

I never called for regional unanimity. I said in the previous post that our disagreement is the magic percentage for the popular alternative.

I don't see it is as practical. There is no way for the Court to be a practical check against abuse of amendments to the Constitution. How does it happen that the Court could react. Can they block it? What standards or grounds should be present to do that? The present purpose of the court wtih regards to constitutionality is to review the laws against the Constitution and to strike down laws that conflict with said document. With Amendments to the Constitution? WHat takes precedence, the previous or the new? What is the standard and what ist he process that will not be entirely arbitrary?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Senators a vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Senator Spiral]

Aye

[Maxwell]

Abstain

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I think two thirds is reasonable.

Has anyone gone back to see which amendments would have passed if we had changed it to a simply majority? I am willing to wager most amendments passed by the senate, some which were incredibly stupid, would have passed.

[President Tyrion]

I am not sure what you define as "cutting out the people" or what Nappy is desiring in the Pacific. I find it perfectly consisted to insist on both popular sovereignty and a high standard for the reasons I previously detailed.

Actually, Tyrion, that was basically what I was trying to say about cosnolidation but I would point out that the consolidation itself will necessitate amendemnt to the Constitution in order to effect the alterations to the Senate once it goes into effect. So such isn't as big of a cocnern as it might seem.

I never called for regional unanimity. I said in the previous post that our disagreement is the magic percentage for the popular alternative.

I don't see it is as practical. There is no way for the Court to be a practical check against abuse of amendments to the Constitution. How does it happen that the Court could react. Can they block it? What standards or grounds should be present to do that? The present purpose of the court wtih regards to constitutionality is to review the laws against the Constitution and to strike down laws that conflict with said document. With Amendments to the Constitution? WHat takes precedence, the previous or the new? What is the standard and what ist he process that will not be entirely arbitrary?

I was mostly making a joke about the term "The People", not really making a cut at Napoleon for any actual transgression.

As long as we're willing to go over the text and make the changes necessary to prevent the need for regional unanimity, then I'll be happy.

As for the Courts, I withdraw that point. I think you're right, in that it would be difficult to regulate, and almost entirely arbitrary, especially if we want to protect against stupid amendments which aren't contradictory.

[President Tyrion]

Abstain

[bore]

Nay

[tmthforu94]

Reluctant Aye

[President Tyrion]

Abstain

Changing my vote to AYE on the basis of Nix's research.

[Napoleon]

Aye

[TNF]

Nay.

A majority is good enough to elect public officials, it should be good enough to amend the Constitution.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This amendment still cuts the regions entirely out of the process so NAY

[tmthforu94]

This amendment still cuts the regions entirely out of the process so NAY

I only vote Aye because if this were to pass, I think the amended version is still better than the original version. I am still a strong Nay overall, though.

[Gass3268]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 58:16 by Napoleon

Aye (5): Gass3268, Napoleon, Spiral, Tmthforu94, and TyriontheImperialist
Nay (3): bore, NC Yankee and TNF
Abstain (1): Maxwell
 
Didn't Vote (1): Xahar

With five votes in the affirmative, the amendment has been adopted.