MA: Fix the Constitution Act (Final Vote)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

For the sake of simplicity, could the sponsor explain what changes or additions this amendment makes?

I'd be happy to. My original intention when I conceived this bill was to make a few minor alterations to the Constitution, specifically the addition of sections listing the powers held by the governor and the Assembly. I quickly realized, however, that the Mideast Constitution as it currently stands is highly disorganized: election regulations are scattered throughout three different Articles; passages governing the Assembly are stuffed in odd places throughout the document. There are also large portions of the Constitution that clearly need to be removed: Article III Section 2, for example, allows the governor to bypass the rest of the regional government by holding referendums on legislation that has been rejected by the Assembly, essentially throwing the principle of separation of powers out the window.

Basically, this bill is a reorganization of the current Constitution. I have made some changes to the structure of government (adding an enumeration of powers for the governor and Assembly, for example), but most of what I have done is reorganize and rephrase the current document so as to make it easier to find applicable information. Election regulations, for example, have been collected under Article IV, whereas previously only 50% or so of the clauses relating to elections were listed there. I have also pruned some of the more out-of-date or unused portions, such as Sections 4 and 5 of Article III, which set up a system for ballot initiatives and recall elections that does not appear to have been much used.

For reference, here is a list of all major changes proposed by this bill:

Changes to Article I

• Added enumeration of powers held by the governor and lt. governor
• Eliminated Section 4 of the current Constitution, which removes the governor from office if he fails to update the Wiki
• Added "State of the Region Address"
• Moved election specifics to Article IV
• Added minimum residency of 30 days to gubernatorial qualifications
• Added procedure for replacing Senators (previously in Article III)

Changes to Article II

• Added minimum residency of 30 days to qualifications for Judgeship

Changes to Article III

• Added enumeration of powers held by the Assembly
• Removed Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the current Article III, which allowed the governor to hold referendums on legislation that has been rejected by the Assembly (violating the separation of powers) and set in place a little-used ballot initiative  and recall system
• Moved procedure for replacing Senators to Article I
• Added section concerning the budget (previously in Section VI). New Section does not mandate that the budget be balanced
• Added section describing the process of enacting legislation

Changes to Article IV

• Added election specifics previously in Articles I and III
• Added description of voting method to be used in regional elections (current Constitution references a piece of federal legislation)
• Otherwise consolidated election regulations previously scattered throughout the document.

Changes to Article V

• Combined Sections 21 and 22 of the current Constitution
• Added section prohibiting officials from holding more than one office simultaneously

Changes to Article VI

• Removed Section 2, which described the process of adopting the Constitution and is therefor no longer needed
• Added procedure for calling a Constitutional Convention

Article VII of the current Constitution is folded into Articles I and III

This bill is far from perfect (I think JCL mentioned that the recent Lt. Governor amendment was omitted), and I'm open to negotiating pretty much all of it. This is simply intended to be a starting point for a much-needed pruning of the Constitution.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm fine with the content of the amendment, though I agree with the Speaker that they could be cleaned up in the interests of simplicity.

I propose the following amendment (essentially the same as New Canadaland's, but more compact):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NOTE: In the clause outlining the circumstances in which the Lt. Governor can cast a tie-breaking vote, I removed the part about abstentions from the third circumstance, since if all five members of the Assembly voted on a bill, that one or more of the members voted "abstain" is a given. I also eliminated clause 1 of Section 5, as the office of Lt. Governor was already established in Article I.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm very concerned by the low threshold for holding a referendum under Section 10. It seems to me that this would effectively nullify the ability of the Assembly to pass laws that are supported by less than 86% of the people, which would effectively paralyze the regional government and make the outcome of Assembly elections virtually meaningless. What's the point of having a legislature to propose and pass legislation if any law opposed by 15% of the electorate then has to be approved by a referendum? What's the point of running candidates for office when you can force a public vote on virtually every bill approved by the government without ever electing a single officeholder? In such a case we might as well abolish the Assembly entirely and set up some sort of Soviet where zombie voters and political tacticians control the legislative process.

I object to Shua's amendment in its current form, but I would consider voting for it if the threshold in Section 10 is raised significantly.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Twenty-five percent seems reasonable, though I'm still somewhat skeptical of the need for such a provision. Would you mind explaining your rationale for including this?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Twenty-five percent seems reasonable, though I'm still somewhat skeptical of the need for such a provision. Would you mind explaining your rationale for including this?

While not used often, there have been times when a particular bill creates a great deal of controversy, and people become active in debating and organizing on the question.  It is good for activity and engagement within the region to have these questions brought before the public once in a while.

That seems fair enough. Generally speaking, I'd prefer citizens to get involved in the legislative process by running for the Assembly, but I can see how it would be good for voters to have some veto power over their government in certain instances.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Aye

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm rather skeptical in giving citizens veto power over legislation period. Elections should have consequences and giving citizens such a liberal veto on legislation kinda undermines that.

I agree mostly, but there are certain hypothetical situations (ie: the Assembly gives itself a life term) where I can see this passage proving beneficial. Keep in mind that 25% simply triggers a referendum; you would still need a majority to overturn the law. In any case, the fact that this provision does not seem to have been utilized much in the past leads me to believe that it will not be abused.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I propose the following amendment to Article III:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Essentially, the purpose of this amendment is to prevent an inactive governor from paralyzing the regional government.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Aye

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Are there any more amendments/ suggestions?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

What is the basis for the description of the governor's powers in article 1, section 3?  I'm just wondering if there are any changes there from current law.

Our current Constitution does not contain an explicit, compact enumeration of the governor's powers. Specific sections do grant him authority to sign/veto laws, appoint judges, administer elections, and fill vacancies in the Assembly, so I included those here; law enforcement, commanding the militia, and appointing the heads of executive departments are traditional executive powers, so I included those as well.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Two issues I see here:

"Commanding the militia" when this militia is not otherwise established or described in the Regional Constitution.

Actually, Article III, Section 3 allows for the Assembly to "call forth the militia in times of war". As for a more detailed description of the militia, I would support a "Militia Law" outlining the structure of the militia (after the ruckus surrounding the Civil Rights Act, it seems like a good idea to have one), but I don't think it's a good idea to enshrine such an Act in the Constitution.

Exclusive authority over the voting booth, which would make it impossible to conduct an election if the governor was for whatever reason not available.  Also the region at one point iirc enacted conditions for a separate voting booth administrator in cases where there seemed to be a conflict of interest, and this would prohibit that.

The governor's power to conduct elections is not exclusive. Article IV, Section 4 states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hope this sufficiently addresses your concerns!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Thank you for the response, but I believe there is a contradiction here between Article I and IV, and the language gives exclusive authority to the governor in terms of appointments (Lt Gov and Judicial) which are presently, by tradition if not by law, subject to assembly approval. I'll see if I can come up with something to address this.

Article III lists confirming gubernatorial appointments as one of the powers held by the Assembly. For some reason, I did not specify that in Article I. We could fix that by adding "with the consent of the Assembly" to the end of that clause. As for the contradictions between Articles I and IV, there are a number of potential ways to resolve that, from deleting the word "exclusive" (which has the downside of somewhat weakening the separation of powers) to simply removing the applicable clause from Article I entirely (which would defeat the idea of centralizing all gubernatorial powers in one section). Thoughts?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Shua's amendment seems sensible and preserves the succinctness of the original draft. I also approve of the change to Article III.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm not unalterably opposed to a balanced budget provision, but I feel like there are some issues with this that need to be rectified before I can support it. First, I think what constitutes an "emergency" needs to be clearly defined. Second, I feel the two-thirds threshold is unnecessary: if there is a genuine emergency, we shouldn't be restricting the ability of the government to respond to that emergency. (In any case, 2/3 of 5 is 3.33, which rounds down to 3, so this threshold accomplishes very little.) Third, I don't think it's necessary to establish a "Mideast Emergency Fund" in the actual text of the Constitution: this could be better provided for by law and only adds unnecessary length to the document. Fourth, from a stylistic standpoint, the proposed text is somewhat bulky. In the interests of brevity and maintaining uniformity throughout the Constitution, I think this should be condensed, such inelegant phrases as "and/or" removed, and percentages replaced with fractions or with their everyday equivalents.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'd be interested to hear what EarlAW has to say on this issue. If I remember correctly, he opposed New Canadaland's bill to repeal this amendment earlier in the session.

if there's a genuine emergency it should be no problem to secure a high enough majority.

This makes no sense. If it's actually an emergency, why are we making it harder, even theoretically, for the Assembly to respond to it?

As I said before, I support having a balanced budget on principle and could be persuaded to back Constitutional checks to reckless spending, but I'm not sure how to do this without creating a recipe for chaos in the event of a natural disaster or the like. Having a raised threshold for support concerns me, because as Windjammer noted there's no guarantee that the minority is going to act rationally in a true crisis. I also don't like the "emergency" language because this is fraught with holes. Does the Assembly declare the "emergency"? Does the governor? The first is vulnerable to abuse and the second to inactivity. There's also the possibility of holding a referendum, but I fear that this might take too long, and in the case of a true crisis that could be a problem. 

My best thought for a compromise would be allowing the public to call a referendum on any budget that contains expenditures exceeding the total sum of collected revenue. Perhaps, to increase transparency on this issue, we could mandate the budget be given its own thread in the Fantasy Elections Board as well.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I motion for a vote on Shua's first amendment.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I think Shua's amendment included changes to Article I as well.

In any case, AYE

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Incorporating the Governor Pardon Amendment proposed by the Governor Motley:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE

I don't feel like a gender-neutral amendment is necessary, both because of Atlasian demographics and because it's generally understood that the Constitution applies to both men and women. Even during the suffrage movement, it was never argued that the use of male pronouns in the old US Constitution excluded women from the rights of citizenship; as such, going through the entire document and replacing "he" with "he or she" seems overly specific.

As for Shua's amendment, I'd at the very least like to see it pared down in terms of length; the present text is somewhat wordy, which defeats the purpose of forming a more compact document. I also stand by my previous concerns about mandating a balanced budget; as Earl is the only one who hasn't weighed in on this yet, I wonder if he has any suggestions for a compromise? Otherwise, I will likely end up opposing it: there's just too much that could go wrong with such a provision, and I can't think of any way to fix it without mutilating the sponsor's intent.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

What do people think about the "suspend all other legislation in debate" part?  Is that necessary?

I see this as the least offensive part of the amendment.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The revised text is certainly better in terms of length. A few quibbles:

• I don't think it's a good idea to establish the Mideast Reserve Fund in the actual text of the Constitution. Since this is in essence a budgetary tool, it should be placed directly in the hands of the people who craft the budget: the Assembly. Furthermore, I feel like the nature of the Fund is somewhat ambiguous. Is this a savings account? Can the funds be drawn at any time, or only under specific circumstances? Establishing the MRF by ordinary legislation allows us to flesh this proposal out much more thoroughly than we can in a Constitution.
• Clause 4 leaves the definition of "appropriate measures" very much up in the air. While it is generally a good idea to build some flexibility into the Constitution, I feel like this is much too loose.
• As Windjammer pointed out earlier, we cannot always count on having a 2/3 majority in a severe crisis, such as a natural disaster or a severe economic recession. In the event of such an emergency, time would be of the essence, and the risk that the Regional government would fail to respond in time is simply too high. This point continues to trouble me, because I don't see a way to address it without rendering this amendment effectively meaningless.

My question for the sponsor is: Why is it necessary to have a balanced budget enshrined in the Constitution, as opposed to being an understood ideal? In other words, couldn't the Regional Government acknowledge that it is best to balance the budget whenever possible, but not require the Assembly to do so? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question: I'm actually curious to hear what you think.

The way I see it, having a balanced budget be an understood responsibility rather than an explicit one would have two benefits: allowing the Assembly flexibility in times of crisis and providing an added topic for campaigns. If a balanced budget is mandated by the Constitution, there's little reason to bring it up on the campaign trail; if it is merely one of many options, there's more opportunity for a heated debate over fiscal policy.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

What does everyone think of specifically naming circumstances in which the 2/3 rule can be discarded?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

What does everyone think of specifically naming circumstances in which the 2/3 rule can be discarded?

I don't see the point of that.  If there is a general consensus it important enough, then the assembly will be able to override it.

The point is that we cannot necessarily depend upon politicians to be reasonable in times of crisis. Suppose, for example, that the Stock Market crashed tomorrow (not an implausible scenario with our current GM): swift and decisive action would be required to address this emergency, and it very well might require deficit spending. Because progressives and conservatives differ greatly on how to respond to such a crisis, however, it might not be possible to respond quickly enough with the 2/3 rule in place. As a result, the economy plunges into Depression and the Assembly is too deadlocked to do anything about it.

My concern is that building a consensus on sensitive budgetary issues may not always be as easy as this amendment assumes. What this ultimately comes down to is whether you trust politicians to act maturely: I do not. Unless there is some provision to prevent a government shutdown during a state of emergency, I cannot support this proposal.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there is an emergency, and there isn't a 2/3 majority in the assembly, should the voters have to wait until the next election cycle to implement a budget that would address it? Might be too late.

Agreed. Look at what happened during the Great Depression: by the time the voters had a chance to replace Hoover, unemployment was at 24%.