SENATE BILL: Fair Amendment Procedure Amendment (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: TNF

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to commence advocacy for this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will never support any amendment that reduces the standard necessary to ratify amendments to the Constitution, more or less to one that removes the regions entirely and replaces them with whatever the simplest of national majorities fancies at that present moment. Considering the same people who support this also want to remove the Regions completely in their ideal scenario, and thus by extension the Regional Senate seats, this will lead to a completely free hand to the wildest excesses of the temporary popular majority being imprinted on the Constitution without the slightest check or balance.

Those who will support this may claim it as a measure to gard against the kind of Regional excess as it pertains to the ratification of amendments such as that we have seen this past summer; however, the perpetuation of the never ending golden goose of an anti-Regionalist Xanatos gambit that Operation Rimjob turned into, falls short in my opinion in terms of offering sufficient justification. If anything, the sheer reduction in the standards necessary to amend the Consitution presented here is the most stark example of the history of that event being ignored and thus should be even more reason for the defeat of this amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I helped Antonio with one that had "4/5ths of the regions or 3/4ths of all voting citizens." back in the day. Was deated in the regions. That is my floor man. 


Also, I would point out that if I consider this to be an emergency I can get another TNF bill on the floor, which I thus did. Since becoming a Senator there has been no greater emergency then attempts to enact too low standards for amending the Constitution.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think I meant 2/3rds.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nix you know full well I tried to fix those problems with the 17th Amendment, twice as I recall.

For months Emperor Dereich has been contacting all IDS residents about amendments brought up for ratification.  The problem has almost invariably been in the Pacific and or the Midwest with the low turnouts you mention. In the Pacific, they have not had popular ratification since just before Rimjob, which is part of why we failed those times to fix the 17th. As I recall, they just had in the Pacfic squeaker elections fo both the Senate and Governorship, and people are working towards going back to the popular ratification. I would point out that the Region's themselves can require that their Governors open amendment votes under the very 17th Amendment and appoint seconds and thirds to take over in case it doesn't happen.

I plan to use the very PAC I used to petition the IDS and on the Senate this Amendment, to push for those very things in the other four regions, once I have organized a structure that includes people from those regions to take the lead.

We also need to get more public advocacies for or against the Amendments,
1) So people understand what they are about
2) Will be more motivated to pick a side.
Both will increase turnout.

As for holding them concurrently with Federal Elections, that may lead to too big a pile to be ratified and exceed the ability to have informed voters on them.

As for the last one 67% is my floor as I meant to say before. Jeez that was a one hell of a number fail on my part there.

[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).

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ideally, we would at the very least pass an amendment ensuring the SoFE is in control of the amendment voting booth so we can avoid that happened in the pacific and IDS recently.

Yes, because relieving them of yet one more aspect of responsibility, is sure to ensure they will become more responsible in the areas of governance that remain. That road leads someone man, and I don't think you will like where it is going either.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It preserves the balance I like, though the threshold is too low for my tastes. It involves the Regions but not in the administration process and removing more responsibilities from them isn't going to help our situation with activity problems, just create a self-fullfilling process of inactivity. 


A reluctant nay.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 58:25 by bore:

Aye (3): bore, Gass3268, and Tyrion
Nay (4): Maxwell, NC Yankee, Spiral and TNF
Abstain (1): Tmthforu94

Didn't Vote (2): Napoleon and Xahar

With four votes in the negative and three in the affirmative with time havign expired, the Amendment is rejected.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What now?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators, this Amendment to the Constitution is now at final vote on Senate passage, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This has enough votes to fail, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This has enough votes to fail, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

It's tied.

A final vote can be ended once it has enough votes to pass or fail, provided twenty four hours had been given for vote changes. It would last seven days otherwise.

A Constitutional Amendment requires 67% of those voting, which rounds up to seven, to pass Four votes against equals 40% nays leaving only 60% total to possibly vote Aye, in other words, enough votes to fail.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Senate Passage of the Fair Amendemnt Procedure Amendment:

Aye (5): bore, Gass3268, TNF, TyriontheImperialist, and Xahar
Nay (4): Maxwell, NC Yankee, Spiral, and Tmthforu94
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Napoleon.

The Amendment has been rejected.