Northern Regional Committee

[cinyc]

Okay, since apparently nobody else has anything to say on the matter, I propose that we (a) immediately strike Section 3 of Article VII; and (b) adopt Scott's bill mandating a referendum on the Regional capital alongside the ratification vote on the Constitution. If there are no objections, we will move ahead with a final vote on the Constitution posted above, less 7.3, on Wednesday morning.

Where is Scott's bill?  I think we shouldn't strike Section 3, but say "The capital of the North shall be determined by the referendum run at the time of the ratification of this constitution."

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Okay, since apparently nobody else has anything to say on the matter, I propose that we (a) immediately strike Section 3 of Article VII; and (b) adopt Scott's bill mandating a referendum on the Regional capital alongside the ratification vote on the Constitution. If there are no objections, we will move ahead with a final vote on the Constitution posted above, less 7.3, on Wednesday morning.

Where is Scott's bill?  I think we shouldn't strike Section 3, but say "The capital of the North shall be determined by the referendum run at the time of the ratification of this constitution."

I'll send it to you.

[Gass3268]

I respectfully introduce the following amendment to the Declaration of Rights. I hope that this illustrious committee at least takes up a debate on this amendment. I am willing to discuss this issue through PM if it means we can come up with a compromise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kingpoleon]

I object to Gass's amendment and call it out in the most extreme way possible for its vagueness and lack of specifics.

[Gass3268]

I object to Gass's amendment and call it out in the most extreme way possible for its vagueness and lack of specifics.

Help me figure out a way to make it better. What specifics would you like to see added?

[Kingpoleon]

I object to Gass's amendment and call it out in the most extreme way possible for its vagueness and lack of specifics.

Help me figure out a way to make it better. What specifics would you like to see added?

Define a law biased towards a certain region. Otherwise, "no! we can't have legal coastal ports! That's bias towards the coast!" could be an argument.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I object to Gass's amendment and call it out in the most extreme way possible for its vagueness and lack of specifics.

a nonsense objection. all of the provisions of the bill of rights are vague and unspecific, to varying degrees.

[Gass3268]

I object to Gass's amendment and call it out in the most extreme way possible for its vagueness and lack of specifics.

Help me figure out a way to make it better. What specifics would you like to see added?

Define a law biased towards a certain region. Otherwise, "no! we can't have legal coastal ports! That's bias towards the coast!" could be an argument.

Well in that situation the argument would be that there should also be legal ports on the Great Lakes. I do think there is a compromise somewhere to be found on this issue.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Could the gentleman from Wisconsin explain why he feels this amendment is necessary? In particular, I would like to hear why the protections set in place by Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights ("All citizens shall be afforded equal protection under the laws of this Region") is not a sufficient safeguard against sectional bias.

[Kingpoleon]

I object to Gass's amendment and call it out in the most extreme way possible for its vagueness and lack of specifics.

a nonsense objection. all of the provisions of the bill of rights are vague and unspecific, to varying degrees.

I voted against most of the vaguest provisions.

[Gass3268]

How about this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

How about this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not to be rude, but if we're adding something to the preamble, I would prefer the phrasing to be more elegant. This reads like nails on a chalkboard.

In regards to your original amendment, would something like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

be an acceptable compromise?

[Gass3268]

How about this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not to be rude, but if we're adding something to the preamble, I would prefer the phrasing to be more elegant. This reads like nails on a chalkboard.

In regards to your original amendment, would something like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

be an acceptable compromise?

Is there a way we can make it more general rather than explicitly on ports?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

With all due respect to Gass, I really don't see the need for this amendment at all and I would advise the Committee to vote it down unless its supporters can come up with a pressing need for the amendment or an example of a situation that would necessitate its existence.  The Constitution already affords the same rights to all people as written, so residence in historical boundaries should apply.  I say this as someone who's voiced support for moving the capital to a more central location to ensure fairness and respect to the people of the old Mideast.

Maybe I'm being impatient, but I believe this whole process has been very thorough and seeing as we're the last region not to have a government yet in place, we ought to think about wrapping things up.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Is there a way we can make it more general rather than explicitly on ports?

To be frank, the lack of specificity in your proposal is what makes me so disinclined to endorse it.

On further consideration, I have to concur with Scott: the protections set in place by Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights are more than sufficient to guard against the potential for sectional bias, and an attempt to further expand on this topic could end up doing more harm than good by inadvertently striking down positive examples of sectionally-conscious legislation (e.g. farm subsidies).


In accordance with Cynic's suggestion, I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Gass3268]

I will withdraw my concern, if we can get a bill passed early in the first session that more explicitly deals with this issue. Would that be possible?

[Kingpoleon]

I will withdraw my concern, if we can get a bill passed early in the first session that more explicitly deals with this issue. Would that be possible?

This Committee is not responsible for the actions of any future Assemblies or Governors.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

I will withdraw my concern, if we can get a bill passed early in the first session that more explicitly deals with this issue. Would that be possible?

This Committee is not responsible for the actions of any future Assemblies or Governors.

Let the assembly do it. You can sign a petition or something

[cinyc]

Truman's proposed change looks good to me.  I'd vote Aye.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seeing no objection, the amendment has been ADOPTED.

As such, and seeing no further debate, I motion for a FINAL VOTE on the proposed Constitution of the North. Delegates have 24 hours to object.

[cinyc]

I think you technically need to get my blessing to do so under the rules we promulgated. I have no objection to voting on the proposed constitution now.

[Kingpoleon]

I also third for a final vote, and with no objections appearing we should be able to go to a vote, especially if someone fourths it.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I think you technically need to get my blessing to do so under the rules we promulgated. I have no objection to voting on the proposed constitution now.

Right you are. In that case, we will now begin a FINAL VOTE on the proposed Constitution. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain. Voting will last 24 hours or until all delegates have voted.

The proposed Constitution may be read in full here.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE!

[Kingpoleon]

Aye!