Amendment to the Constitutions

[Blair]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsored by Rpyor and Cris

[Senator Cris]

This is the current text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the amendment presented:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm fully behind this amendment. Reaching the necessary signatures in each region is very hard and I think that the Senate should have the power to do something.
However, according to the amendment, a majority of the Senate shall show their support for a Convention. Then the President shall call the Convention with the consent of the Senate (that means a Senate vote). Then the Convention shall be costituted under regulations determined by the Senate. I think it's tortuous, what do you think?

[Senator Cris]

It's not an amendment, just a suggestion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     On the one hand, I would say the amendment makes a convention much too easy to call. On the other hand, anything coming from a convention must still be approved as any amendment. I am ambivalent about this.

[Lumine]

While the work on signatures has been active and it's not of the question to reach them, I think the current mechanisms do make it incredibly hard to call a convention, even it's beyond evident that one is needed. Indeed, we might have spared Atlasia from some troubles had we been able to call for one during the early Duke Administration.

In that sense, I don't see why the Senate should not be allowed to call for a convention, and Cris's mechanism doesn't override the President since it allows him the veto power he can use on other pieces of legislation.

[bore]

I support Cris's amendment

[Senator Cris]

I'd like to present this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators have 36 hours to object.

[Boston Bread]

If only the President and a majority of the Senate are needed to call a convention, then a convention is as easy to pass as any bill, which I don't think is right.

[Senator Cris]

If only the President and a majority of the Senate are needed to call a convention, then a convention is as easy to pass as any bill, which I don't think is right.

It's an objection to the amendment?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Cris, so that I can understand you correctly here, instead of adding the ability of the Senate to call a convention on its own like the underlying amendment, your amendment offered above merely removes the ability of the Senate to block a convention called by the regions. Is this the accurate reading of the text and is your intended change?

[Senator Cris]

Cris, so that I can understand you correctly here, instead of adding the ability of the Senate to call a convention on its own like the underlying amendment, your amendment offered above merely removes the ability of the Senate to block a convention called by the regions. Is this the accurate reading of the text and is your intended change?

It is adding the ability of the Senate to call a ConCon (it's not present in the current constitution) and at the same time is removing the ability of the Senate to block a ConCon called by the regions.
But if this passage (removing the ability of the Senate to block a ConCon called by the regions), it can be fixed with another amendment.

[Senator Cris]

The amendment has been adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Thats why I was confused, because it seemd to me your latest amendment removed the ability of the Senate to call a con-con.

[Senator Cris]

Bump

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When it comes to the Senate calling a Con-Con there was some resistance to a majority threshold. Would we be able to get the necessary support for passage for this amendment, if that threshold were raised? Since I am assuming we still have to add that back in, now would be the best time to debate the matter.

[Senator Cris]

Senators?
I'm ok with the current treshold (simple majority of sitting senators). What do you think?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     In my capacity as Emperor, I was often frustrated by the Senate's tendency to propose amendments that had no hope of passing, as it wastes the time of those people who we are supposed to serve. If there is serious concern over this amendment's ability to pass, I would suggest increasing the threshold.

[Lumine]

Two thirds would be too high, I think. A majority already involves six Senators, and since it's virtually impossible for any single party to win that number said majority would already suggest a degree of consensus on the matter.

[bore]

I don't really care either way, but I think the public expects this to pass quickly so whatever we do we should do it soon.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Two thirds would be too high, I think. A majority already involves six Senators, and since it's virtually impossible for any single party to win that number said majority would already suggest a degree of consensus on the matter.

     I recall Labor recently having six Senators, albeit for a brief time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Two thirds would be too high, I think. A majority already involves six Senators, and since it's virtually impossible for any single party to win that number said majority would already suggest a degree of consensus on the matter.

Unless it is a left of center party, they don't have the same limitation.

[Senator Cris]

Bump.
I'm ok with the simple majority, but if someone wants to present an amendement, it's welcomed. But let's do it quickly.
If there won't be new amendments and discussion, I'll motion for a final vote tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.

[Lumine]

Bump.
I'm ok with the simple majority, but if someone wants to present an amendement, it's welcomed. But let's do it quickly.
If there won't be new amendments and discussion, I'll motion for a final vote tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.

I second this, the more time we wait the worse, because the situation is all but improving.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Though I am in favor of reform, I must say stacking so much on some massive reform being the magic bullet was always dangerous because everyone has their own minimum expectations nad elevating to such an extent posing a big risk should it pass and not deliver results.

That said I am fine with a simple majority and will do my best to get that passed in the Senate. I would recommend though that the text be read one last time to look for anything that might incure opposition or cause problems when it ghoes to the regions.

[Senator Cris]

Though I am in favor of reform, I must say stacking so much on some massive reform being the magic bullet was always dangerous because everyone has their own minimum expectations nad elevating to such an extent posing a big risk should it pass and not deliver results.

That said I am fine with a simple majority and will do my best to get that passed in the Senate. I would recommend though that the text be read one last time to look for anything that might incure opposition or cause problems when it ghoes to the regions.

No problem.
I will wait another few hours to allow the Senators to read the text one last time. Then, if there will not be discussion, I'll motion for a final vote.