Reform Atlasia Plan

[Colin]

What does the speed have anything to do with it? I do not want the Senate to begin legislation. I am, however, fine with it passing resolutions and the like as long as its not actually originating legislation. I'm guessing that something could be included that states that the Assembly leave open one space in its legislative agenda for bills petitioned for by a member of the Senate, however I believe that this could be addressed through procedural resolution within the National Assembly and nothing more.

You may be fine with the Senate twiddling its thumbs for a couple of weeks at the start of each Assembly, but I'm not.

What does the President do at the beginning of every session?

What does the Supreme Court do for months on end?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What does the speed have anything to do with it? I do not want the Senate to begin legislation. I am, however, fine with it passing resolutions and the like as long as its not actually originating legislation. I'm guessing that something could be included that states that the Assembly leave open one space in its legislative agenda for bills petitioned for by a member of the Senate, however I believe that this could be addressed through procedural resolution within the National Assembly and nothing more.

You may be fine with the Senate twiddling its thumbs for a couple of weeks at the start of each Assembly, but I'm not.

What does the President do at the beginning of every session?

Tries to get his cabinet appointed, prepares for legislation on the upcoming calendar and suggests amendments that would make them something other than veto fodder when they come up, or uses the executive authority of his office to prepare or change regulations.  That we have mainly had Presidents who have chosen a laid-back approach doesn't mean that there aren't opportunities for Presidents to do things from the very beginning of their term of office.

[True Democrat]

What does the speed have anything to do with it? I do not want the Senate to begin legislation. I am, however, fine with it passing resolutions and the like as long as its not actually originating legislation. I'm guessing that something could be included that states that the Assembly leave open one space in its legislative agenda for bills petitioned for by a member of the Senate, however I believe that this could be addressed through procedural resolution within the National Assembly and nothing more.

You may be fine with the Senate twiddling its thumbs for a couple of weeks at the start of each Assembly, but I'm not.

What does the President do at the beginning of every session?

Tries to get his cabinet appointed, prepares for legislation on the upcoming calendar and suggests amendments that would make them something other than veto fodder when they come up, or uses the executive authority of his office to prepare or change regulations.  That we have mainly had Presidents who have chosen a laid-back approach doesn't mean that there aren't opportunities for Presidents to do things from the very beginning of their term of office.

The constitution I wrote gives the Senate line item veto power on bills, with the vetoed clauses going back to the National Assembly with an up or down simple majority vote.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm completely done with the new constitution, if anybody wants to see it.

Why not This is such a radical overhaul of the Atlasian government structure that I think the best way forward is a new Constitution, which will incorporate both the plan (and thus, the changes) along with the parts that are retained

I've already stated that I feel its better to do this than to do things piecemeal

Indeed, the more and more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the Second Republic. And this would be its first and, touch-wood, the last Constitution

'Hawk'

[True Democrat]

I'm completely done with the new constitution, if anybody wants to see it.

Why not This is such a radical overhaul of the Atlasian government structure that I think the best way forward is a new Constitution, which will incorporate both the plan (and thus, the changes) along with the parts that are retained

I've already stated that I feel its better to do this than to do things piecemeal

Indeed, the more and more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the Second Republic. And this would be its first and, touch-wood, the last Constitution

'Hawk'

I'm posting it on the wiki as we speak.  It's just taking a little time to format.

[True Democrat]

Here it is:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/User:True_democrat

[Democratic Hawk]

Here it is:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/User:True_democrat

Thanks . I likely won't have any comment until morning, however

'Hawk'

[Colin]

The Senate has alot of power. It seems to have all the major "grandfatherly" powers like vetoing legislation, line item veto, declaring war, nominating Supreme Court justices and GMs, regulate the duties of the GM and debate on issues.

The Senate isn't suppose to be an uproariously exciting body it is supposed to be a mixture of serious debate and executive status. The type of action that is now seen in the Senate will move into the National Assembly while the executive and its more laid-back nature move to the Senate.

I've never considered the nomination of candidates for the Cabinet all that exciting and really it only takes a few days, barring anything like what happened to Hugh. It is also likely that the Senate will still be debating and passing or vetoing bills from the previous National Assembly, though I'm not quite sure how the carry-over from the prior Senates and National Assemblies will work. But I could see a Senate were at the beginning they are debating and voting on legislation from the previous National Assembly, and then slowly their focus turns onto the bills that are being passed by the current National Assembly.

[Colin]

Here it is:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/User:True_democrat

I must give a thoroughly congradulations to True Democrat. Not only has he created a well written and well thought out Constitution but he has also only become the Third Person in Atlasian history to write an entire constitution.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Having seen the draft I have some points to make, and may well make more later.

1. There should be a way other than amending the constitution to change the number of Assemblers.
2.  It is usual for the Head of State to be the de jure Commander-in-Chief even if de facto control of the military is held otherwise.  The President and not the Prime Minister should be Commander-in-Chief.
3.  As far as I can tell it changes us from a Republic of limited and clearly specified powers, to one with limited and clearly specified restrictions on powers.  The difference is subtle but profound and unless changed back to include something like Article I Section 5 of the existing Constitution, I shall be a vocal and persistent opponent of this proposal.  Points 1 and 2 are stylistic differences, but this point is non-negotiable to me.  I don't insist on the exact text of the current list of limited powers, though I think it be preferable that any changes in the powers of government from what is currently in the constitution be kept to the absolute minimum needed to carry through the change in the form of government, but I do insist that there be one.  Trying to turn this attempt at government reform into a back-handed power grab is the surest way I know of to see that this is defeated if not in the Senate then at the ballot box.

[True Democrat]

1. There should be a way other than amending the constitution to change the number of Assemblers.

To change the number of Senators we need an amendment, but I would be open to your idea.  Perhaps three fourths of the both the National Assembly and the Senate can change the number of Assemblers?

2.  It is usual for the Head of State to be the de jure Commander-in-Chief even if de facto control of the military is held otherwise.  The President and not the Prime Minister should be Commander-in-Chief.

I understand that the head of state is usually the official commander in chief, but this is Atlasia, so we need to make things a little simpler.  If the Prime Minister is de facto in control the military, why not just make him actually in control?  We have a good separation of powers, with the Senate declaring war, and the Prime Minister being the Commander in Chief.  However, I wouldn't be opposed to having the President be Commander in Chief and having the National Assembly declare war.

[True Democrat]

3.  As far as I can tell it changes us from a Republic of limited and clearly specified powers, to one with limited and clearly specified restrictions on powers.  The difference is subtle but profound and unless changed back to include something like Article I Section 5 of the existing Constitution, I shall be a vocal and persistent opponent of this proposal.  Points 1 and 2 are stylistic differences, but this point is non-negotiable to me.  I don't insist on the exact text of the current list of limited powers, though I think it be preferable that any changes in the powers of government from what is currently in the constitution be kept to the absolute minimum needed to carry through the change in the form of government, but I do insist that there be one.  Trying to turn this attempt at government reform into a back-handed power grab is the surest way I know of to see that this is defeated if not in the Senate then at the ballot box.

I believed that because there were no regions anymore, I wouldn't need to specify specific powers of the National Assembly, but I am totally open to adding the set of clauses that defines the power of the goverment.  I think adding Section Five with all the Senate rights to the National Assembly part, as long as the necessary and proper clause goes with it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. There should be a way other than amending the constitution to change the number of Assemblers.

To change the number of Senators we need an amendment, but I would be open to your idea.  Perhaps three fourths of the both the National Assembly and the Senate can change the number of Assemblers?

In my proposed Amendments to the current constitution I gave that responsibility to the Senate alone, (along with the ability to choose a method other than Sainte-Laguë) with the restriction that any change would not take effect until the next election.  That should be enough to keep any changes being made for political reasons.

However, while I'm thinking about it, I do have a concern over what happens with a tie during apportionment.  In real elections there are enough voters that a tie messing up a PR system because more than one party should get the last seat is just a theoretical possibility, but with our limited voter pool, ties are all too frequent an occurrence to not have a way to handle them defined.

[Colin]

3.  As far as I can tell it changes us from a Republic of limited and clearly specified powers, to one with limited and clearly specified restrictions on powers.  The difference is subtle but profound and unless changed back to include something like Article I Section 5 of the existing Constitution, I shall be a vocal and persistent opponent of this proposal.  Points 1 and 2 are stylistic differences, but this point is non-negotiable to me.  I don't insist on the exact text of the current list of limited powers, though I think it be preferable that any changes in the powers of government from what is currently in the constitution be kept to the absolute minimum needed to carry through the change in the form of government, but I do insist that there be one.  Trying to turn this attempt at government reform into a back-handed power grab is the surest way I know of to see that this is defeated if not in the Senate then at the ballot box.

This was an honest mistake. We did not, at first, add it in there because we had trouble figuring out how current legislative items, such as abortion or the minimum wage, could become federal legislation and legislative issues. Since Section 5 has a necessary and proper clause I believe that most of this current regional legislative issues would fall under the necessary and proper distinction as there is no other way to regulate them. It is now added to the proposal. This is now added into the proposal.

What I will not stand though is you consider this to be some sort of power grab. I believe in reform not power grabs and I would like it if you, Senator, would not call into question either my belief or True Democrat's belief in limiting the powers of the masses nor our commitment to an equal and fair system. I would like you to refrain from attacking both a collegue and a person who had the intiative to single-handled begin the path to reform.

I would also like to hear what you believe should be added, taken away, or changed concerning Section 5 in order to make it more acceptable to a Parliamentary non-regional form of government.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let me rephrase my concerns as being about a possibly perceived power grab than an intended one.  However, I am troubled about your statement:

Since Section 5 has a necessary and proper clause I believe that most of this current regional legislative issues would fall under the necessary and proper distinction as there is no other way to regulate them.

You seem to be presuming that by default government should be able to regulate everything except where such regulation is specifically prohibited.  That's just the sort of implication that I'm not willing to tolerate in a new constitution.  Under the current system, the minimum wage issue wasn't left to the Regions because it was specified in the Federal Constitution that the Regions would have that power.  Rather, the Atlasian Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government did not have that power under the Federal Constitution, and left the issue of whether each Region did under its own Regional Constitution to the Regional Courts to decide.

[Colin]

Let me rephrase my concerns as being about a possibly perceived power grab than an intended one.  However, I am troubled about your statement:

Since Section 5 has a necessary and proper clause I believe that most of this current regional legislative issues would fall under the necessary and proper distinction as there is no other way to regulate them.

You seem to be presuming that by default government should be able to regulate everything except where such regulation is specifically prohibited.  That's just the sort of implication that I'm not willing to tolerate in a new constitution.  Under the current system, the minimum wage issue wasn't left to the Regions because it was specified in the Federal Constitution that the Regions would have that power.  Rather, the Atlasian Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government did not have that power under the Federal Constitution, and left the issue of whether each Region did under its own Regional Constitution to the Regional Courts to decide.

Well then how do you resolve to fix the problem? What would you propose as a new definition of the restriction upon the Senate and its powers?

There is still the problem about things that are currently regional legislation issues. Would those, in your opinion, remain untouched by a federal government even if the regions are no longer a part of the system?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well then how do you resolve to fix the problem? What would you propose as a new definition of the restriction upon the Senate and its powers?

There is still the problem about things that are currently regional legislation issues. Would those, in your opinion, remain untouched by a federal government even if the regions are no longer a part of the system?

If we keep States (and I don't mean StatesRights ) as a tool for the GM to use then we can keep the current Regional powers as State powers and use the customary real-world practice of bribing or coercing the States to enact certain laws by the using the power of the purse when we wish to make it a Federal matter.  If we abandon completely any form of local government, then such things would need to be added as explicit powers in order to be legislated, though as I pointed out, such changes being done at the same time as the structural reform might cause some people to vote against the structural reform for that reason, particularly if they are neutral to the idea of the structural reform.  In my case, a few tweaks in this area that I disagree with would not be enough to cause me to so oppose, but a large number might.

[Colin]

Well then how do you resolve to fix the problem? What would you propose as a new definition of the restriction upon the Senate and its powers?

There is still the problem about things that are currently regional legislation issues. Would those, in your opinion, remain untouched by a federal government even if the regions are no longer a part of the system?

If we keep States (and I don't mean StatesRights ) as a tool for the GM to use then we can keep the current Regional powers as State powers and use the customary real-world practice of bribing or coercing the States to enact certain laws by the using the power of the purse when we wish to make it a Federal matter.  If we abandon completely any form of local government, then such things would need to be added as explicit powers in order to be legislated, though as I pointed out, such changes being done at the same time as the structural reform might cause some people to vote against the structural reform for that reason, particularly if they are neutral to the idea of the structural reform.  In my case, a few tweaks in this area that I disagree with would not be enough to cause me to so oppose, but a large number might.

Alright thank you for clearing that up for me. I think that your idea is most likely best and while I don't agree with you on the whole GM controlled states idea I do think that it is best to leave both that and the limits of the National Assembly for a later time. Well Section 5 is added and that should hold us over for the needed transition period but I do agree with you that you can't have a government that can do anything but you need to add some of the current legislative powers of the regions to the National Assembly, though this can be done at a later date.

[Peter]

What does the speed have anything to do with it? I do not want the Senate to begin legislation. I am, however, fine with it passing resolutions and the like as long as its not actually originating legislation. I'm guessing that something could be included that states that the Assembly leave open one space in its legislative agenda for bills petitioned for by a member of the Senate, however I believe that this could be addressed through procedural resolution within the National Assembly and nothing more.

You may be fine with the Senate twiddling its thumbs for a couple of weeks at the start of each Assembly, but I'm not.

What does the President do at the beginning of every session?

Tries to get his cabinet appointed, prepares for legislation on the upcoming calendar and suggests amendments that would make them something other than veto fodder when they come up, or uses the executive authority of his office to prepare or change regulations.  That we have mainly had Presidents who have chosen a laid-back approach doesn't mean that there aren't opportunities for Presidents to do things from the very beginning of their term of office.

There is nothing to prevent the new Senate from originating a procedural resolution that establishes a Committee of the Whole Senate that has the power to debate legislation that is proposed by a Senator. Whilst it would have no power of Law to force the lower house to debate it, I would hope that at least one member would be willing to take any final drafts from the Committee and ensure they reach the lower House. This way the primacy of the lower House is preserved, but the Senate does not sit idle.

[Peter]

3.  As far as I can tell it changes us from a Republic of limited and clearly specified powers, to one with limited and clearly specified restrictions on powers.  The difference is subtle but profound and unless changed back to include something like Article I Section 5 of the existing Constitution, I shall be a vocal and persistent opponent of this proposal.  Points 1 and 2 are stylistic differences, but this point is non-negotiable to me.  I don't insist on the exact text of the current list of limited powers, though I think it be preferable that any changes in the powers of government from what is currently in the constitution be kept to the absolute minimum needed to carry through the change in the form of government, but I do insist that there be one.  Trying to turn this attempt at government reform into a back-handed power grab is the surest way I know of to see that this is defeated if not in the Senate then at the ballot box.

If the Regions go, who exactly are you proposing will pass nationwide legislation on issues such as abortion, the death penalty, etc.? Effectively we will have a unitary nation by definition, it makes no sense to restrict the federal legislature to a few stated issues.

[Colin]

3.  As far as I can tell it changes us from a Republic of limited and clearly specified powers, to one with limited and clearly specified restrictions on powers.  The difference is subtle but profound and unless changed back to include something like Article I Section 5 of the existing Constitution, I shall be a vocal and persistent opponent of this proposal.  Points 1 and 2 are stylistic differences, but this point is non-negotiable to me.  I don't insist on the exact text of the current list of limited powers, though I think it be preferable that any changes in the powers of government from what is currently in the constitution be kept to the absolute minimum needed to carry through the change in the form of government, but I do insist that there be one.  Trying to turn this attempt at government reform into a back-handed power grab is the surest way I know of to see that this is defeated if not in the Senate then at the ballot box.

If the Regions go, who exactly are you proposing will pass nationwide legislation on issues such as abortion, the death penalty, etc.? Effectively we will have a unitary nation by definition, it makes no sense to restrict the federal legislature to a few stated issues.

That was my original belief. We would become like the UK before devolution we would be a unitary nation where the National Assembly would not be bound by any need to refrain from some legislation.

Need I remind you Ernest that we have kept all the provision of Article VI in place as well as most of the power denied to the Senate in the current Constitution.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the Regions go, who exactly are you proposing will pass nationwide legislation on issues such as abortion, the death penalty, etc.? Effectively we will have a unitary nation by definition, it makes no sense to restrict the federal legislature to a few stated issues.

That was my original belief. We would become like the UK before devolution we would be a unitary nation where the National Assembly would not be bound by any need to refrain from some legislation.

Need I remind you Ernest that we have kept all the provision of Article VI in place as well as most of the power denied to the Senate in the current Constitution.

You seem to be forgetting Peter, that I am a staunch supporter of federalism and limited government.  I'm willing to forego to some extent federalism because of our lack of numbers, but I'm not willing to give up the concept of a government limited to powers explicitly granted as there is no need.

That we might need to engage in constitutional amendments to deal with issues currently reserved to the Regions is a definite possibility, but if we try mixing that in with the structural reform, we may end up with people voting against the structural reform simply to block the added powers.  Conversely, dealing with issues in the context of amendments instead of legislation doesn't detract from the fact that we would be debating issues such as abortion or the minimum wage.

[Colin]

If the Regions go, who exactly are you proposing will pass nationwide legislation on issues such as abortion, the death penalty, etc.? Effectively we will have a unitary nation by definition, it makes no sense to restrict the federal legislature to a few stated issues.

That was my original belief. We would become like the UK before devolution we would be a unitary nation where the National Assembly would not be bound by any need to refrain from some legislation.

Need I remind you Ernest that we have kept all the provision of Article VI in place as well as most of the power denied to the Senate in the current Constitution.

You seem to be forgetting Peter, that I am a staunch supporter of federalism and limited government.  I'm willing to forego to some extent federalism because of our lack of numbers, but I'm not willing to give up the concept of a government limited to powers explicitly granted as there is no need.

I'm sorry to say this Ernest but at this time almost all federalism would have to go for the time being. I'm not a fan of having phantom states controlled by a GM just to horse around with the government, it seems fake and childish to me and would make this more of a role-playing game than a simulation of any kind.

What would happen to laws such as death penalty laws or abortion? The National Assembly can't regulate them, we don't have these phantom states to "fake" pass resolutions concerning them. So what happens to them? Are they left up to the people? I don't see how abortion could be left up to the people or things like prostitution. What will you have some vigilante groups saying that abortion is illegal while some people believe that abortion is legal? What a way to run a railroad, even if its just until the amendments start coming up dealing with those issues. Does that mean that everytime someone says, "Oops we forgot to add the power for the National Assembly to do 'blank'" we have to go through a huge amendment process? Wasn't that exactly what happened after Fritz v. Ernest because we had forgotten to enumerate all the powers of the Senate?

I understand your belief in federalism and the second that we actually get enough people who are interested in a regional system that we would have the ability to support both this new reform plan and a regional system we should bring back the regions and Section 5 of the Second Constitution. Until that time though I don't see a real need at the beginning to specify all the powers of the Senate since it would probably be easier to just restrain the beast of government with the chains in place within the powers denied to the Senate and Article VI, respectively.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why give only enumerated powers if there is no place else to give the remaining power? What happens if, say, after this amendment process is over the death penalty is part of the National Assembly's enumerated powers but the ability to make laws for abortion and marriage are not. What would become of those two issues? For hypothetical purposes there are no phantom states controlled by the GM only the federal government and the people. What would become of those issues in your opinion? Would some people just say I believe that abortion is legal and others say it isn't since wouldn't powers not enumerated to the Federal Government be vested in the people? Or would these just be issues that are thrown off the table and swept under the rug since the federal government, the only active government within Atlasia, can't debate or legislate anything about them?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What would happen to laws such as death penalty laws or abortion?

Well, if we abolish or ignore local government as we currently plan on doing, there's no reason why we can't legislate on the death penalty.  Previous rulings concerned whether the Federal government could force the Regions to restrict the punishments applied to violations of Regional laws.  The Federal government remains free to choose whether to use the death penalty itself for its own laws.

As for abortion, maybe my memory is playing tricks with me, but wasn't that issue left to the Regions because of a political choice to do so, not a constitutional restriction? A case could be made for the authorization of Federal laws regulating abortion under Article I Section 5 Clause 4 and Article VI Clause 2.  (I'd also add Article I Section 5 Clause 9 except that Bono v. Atlasia II pretty clearly established that services are not included under items of commerce in that clause.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why give only enumerated powers if there is no place else to give the remaining power? What happens if, say, after this amendment process is over the death penalty is part of the National Assembly's enumerated powers but the ability to make laws for abortion and marriage are not. What would become of those two issues? For hypothetical purposes there are no phantom states controlled by the GM only the federal government and the people. What would become of those issues in your opinion? Would some people just say I believe that abortion is legal and others say it isn't since wouldn't powers not enumerated to the Federal Government be vested in the people? Or would these just be issues that are thrown off the table and swept under the rug since the federal government, the only active government within Atlasia, can't debate or legislate anything about them?
[/quote]

Marriage is already a Federal issue under the Second Constitution, see Article I Section 5, Clause 5.  I already dealt with abortion above.  In any case, other than a difference in degree of difficulty in passing a proposed law there is no effective difference in whether the Congress would be able to address such an issue regardless of whether an amendment or an ordinary law was required to so do.

[Colin]

What would happen to laws such as death penalty laws or abortion?

Well, if we abolish or ignore local government as we currently plan on doing, there's no reason why we can't legislate on the death penalty.  Previous rulings concerned whether the Federal government could force the Regions to restrict the punishments applied to violations of Regional laws.  The Federal government remains free to choose whether to use the death penalty itself for its own laws.

As for abortion, maybe my memory is playing tricks with me, but wasn't that issue left to the Regions because of a political choice to do so, not a constitutional restriction? A case could be made for the authorization of Federal laws regulating abortion under Article I Section 5 Clause 4 and Article VI Clause 2.  (I'd also add Article I Section 5 Clause 9 except that Bono v. Atlasia II pretty clearly established that services are not included under items of commerce in that clause.)

Oh so instead of just defining government power through restrictions we should just have a bunch of court cases and interpret sections of the constitution in such a vague light that anything can pass as a power of the National Assembly. Is that what you're trying to say? Isn't that just a much more stressful and round about way to achieve the same result?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why give only enumerated powers if there is no place else to give the remaining power? What happens if, say, after this amendment process is over the death penalty is part of the National Assembly's enumerated powers but the ability to make laws for abortion and marriage are not. What would become of those two issues? For hypothetical purposes there are no phantom states controlled by the GM only the federal government and the people. What would become of those issues in your opinion? Would some people just say I believe that abortion is legal and others say it isn't since wouldn't powers not enumerated to the Federal Government be vested in the people? Or would these just be issues that are thrown off the table and swept under the rug since the federal government, the only active government within Atlasia, can't debate or legislate anything about them?
[/quote]

Marriage is already a Federal issue under the Second Constitution, see Article I Section 5, Clause 5.  I already dealt with abortion above.  In any case, other than a difference in degree of difficulty in passing a proposed law there is no effective difference in whether the Congress would be able to address such an issue regardless of whether an amendment or an ordinary law was required to so do.
[/quote]

So basically you are relegating some issues to the much more difficult amendment process while some can still be passed with just a majority of both houses all in the name of restraining government legislation to enumerated powers even if it is the only government and there is no agency that the Constitution is giving those power not enumerated to. So we are constantly amending the constitution because the Assembly is only given enumerated powers that are fit only for a country with regional system.

Let me put it this way. This is exactly the same as stating, in a constitution for a country under Atlasia's present system, "these are the only issues that can be debated. In order to debate other issues you must amend this constitution to allow those issues to be debated at any level of government". The enumerated powers were put in place to give a balance between the powers and issues that could be debated in the Senate and those that could be defined by the regions. Without the regions there is no need to balance the federal governments powers against another entities since there is no other entity.