Reform Atlasia Plan

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If this were a real country, I'd doubt we'd be squishing levels together.  Even if we were, a reasonable starting point would be to add the enumerated powers of the Regional governments. However, because of the relative unimportance of the Regional governments, we generally allowed them to proceed without specifically enumerated powers.  That was tolerable but not ideal, in part because the Regional governments generally had weak executives and direct democracy was used to set policy.  The proposal has neither of those checks, nor should it, as it would negate the importance of the election aspect of the game.

[True Democrat]

Ernest, I'm not sure I understand your position.

Are you for or against getting rid of regions?  Either we get rid of regions, or we don't, we can't have this inbetween method you want.  There is simply not enough activity for regions.  If activity and participation picks up in the future, I'd be more than happy to amend the constitution to put in regions, but for now we can't.

[Brandon H]

While the regional governments have had very little activity, what would keeping their governments around hurt?

If wedge issues such as abortion make their way to the federal government, as soon as social conservatives get a majority, legislation will be pushed to restrict it more and as soon as social liberals get a majority, legislation will be pushed to expand it. In addition, issues like that could end up overshadowing things such as our decreasing population and some people will vote on that basis when it comes to choosing candidates.

[Colin]

While the regional governments have had very little activity, what would keeping their governments around hurt?

It would most likely make a bi-cameral legislature impractical as there would be too many offices to fill. I doubt you would be able to find enough candidates both of regional governments or for federal office.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well in some ways that would be good. Maybe talking about actual issues from the real-world might put some energy into this thing. That's all I have to say.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If wedge issues such as abortion make their way to the federal government, as soon as social conservatives get a majority, legislation will be pushed to restrict it more and as soon as social liberals get a majority, legislation will be pushed to expand it. In addition, issues like that could end up overshadowing things such as our decreasing population and some people will vote on that basis when it comes to choosing candidates.

Well in some ways that would be good. Maybe talking about actual issues from the real-world might put some energy into this thing. That's all I have to say.

But whether the issue is being dealt with by an amendment or by ordinary legislation, it's still being dealt with is my point.  That's why I don't see the need to include changes in the delineated powers as part of this structural reform.  That said, I'll repeat what I said before, addition to the delineated would not be a deal breaker for me on this issue, tho total abolition of the concept of delineated powers would be.

[True Democrat]

So you want to put a gag rule on certain issues?  That worked in the 1840s. . .

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So you want to put a gag rule on certain issues?  That worked in the 1840s. . .

What gag rule?   How does the fact that a particular issue need a constitutional amendment instead of legislation act a gag rule?  By that logic, in the real world, opponents of flag burning are gagged because they need a constitutional amendment instead of just a law to get their way, to use a particular concrete example.  Now it is true that whether an amendment is needed would affect the possibility of a particular measure passing, but that is a separate question from whether it would be discussed.

[True Democrat]

So you want to put a gag rule on certain issues?  That worked in the 1840s. . .

What gag rule?   How does the fact that a particular issue need a constitutional amendment instead of legislation act a gag rule?  By that logic, in the real world, opponents of flag burning are gagged because they need a constitutional amendment instead of just a law to get their way, to use a particular concrete example.  Now it is true that whether an amendment is needed would affect the possibility of a particular measure passing, but that is a separate question from whether it would be discussed.

If there are no regional legislatures, why shouldn't the national government have the right to talk about the issue?  Not talking about the issue will only cause chaos.  You either have Federalism or not, you can't have it both ways.

[Brandon H]

So you want to put a gag rule on certain issues?  That worked in the 1840s. . .

What gag rule?   How does the fact that a particular issue need a constitutional amendment instead of legislation act a gag rule?  By that logic, in the real world, opponents of flag burning are gagged because they need a constitutional amendment instead of just a law to get their way, to use a particular concrete example.  Now it is true that whether an amendment is needed would affect the possibility of a particular measure passing, but that is a separate question from whether it would be discussed.

If there are no regional legislatures, why shouldn't the national government have the right to talk about the issue?  Not talking about the issue will only cause chaos.  You either have Federalism or not, you can't have it both ways.

Then I say let's have Federalism. Perhaps in the future an active governor will get elected somewhere.

[True Democrat]

So you want to put a gag rule on certain issues?  That worked in the 1840s. . .

What gag rule?   How does the fact that a particular issue need a constitutional amendment instead of legislation act a gag rule?  By that logic, in the real world, opponents of flag burning are gagged because they need a constitutional amendment instead of just a law to get their way, to use a particular concrete example.  Now it is true that whether an amendment is needed would affect the possibility of a particular measure passing, but that is a separate question from whether it would be discussed.

If there are no regional legislatures, why shouldn't the national government have the right to talk about the issue?  Not talking about the issue will only cause chaos.  You either have Federalism or not, you can't have it both ways.

Then I say let's have Federalism. Perhaps in the future an active governor will get elected somewhere.

Clearly Federalism isn't working with this level of participation in Atlasia.  We can't wait for one good Governor for one region to revive Federalism.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So you want to put a gag rule on certain issues?  That worked in the 1840s. . .

What gag rule?   How does the fact that a particular issue need a constitutional amendment instead of legislation act a gag rule?  By that logic, in the real world, opponents of flag burning are gagged because they need a constitutional amendment instead of just a law to get their way, to use a particular concrete example.  Now it is true that whether an amendment is needed would affect the possibility of a particular measure passing, but that is a separate question from whether it would be discussed.

If there are no regional legislatures, why shouldn't the national government have the right to talk about the issue?  Not talking about the issue will only cause chaos.  You either have Federalism or not, you can't have it both ways.

Why should any government have a particular power?  You seem to be starting off with the assumption that if someone comes up with an idea for a government power then it must be used at some level unless it can be shown why it would be a bad idea.  I want government to have to show why it would be a good idea first.

And once again, how does what I propose keep an issue from debated?  You keep repeating that point without explaining why.

[Colin]

So you want to put a gag rule on certain issues?  That worked in the 1840s. . .

What gag rule?   How does the fact that a particular issue need a constitutional amendment instead of legislation act a gag rule?  By that logic, in the real world, opponents of flag burning are gagged because they need a constitutional amendment instead of just a law to get their way, to use a particular concrete example.  Now it is true that whether an amendment is needed would affect the possibility of a particular measure passing, but that is a separate question from whether it would be discussed.

If there are no regional legislatures, why shouldn't the national government have the right to talk about the issue?  Not talking about the issue will only cause chaos.  You either have Federalism or not, you can't have it both ways.

Why should any government have a particular power?

Because otherwise we are just a bunch of internet nerds with funny titles twiddling our thumbs instead of a bunch of internet nerds with funny titles pertending to do something.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well you seem to come from the opinion that the government should actually do nothing in which case I say we just give each other grandeous titles and go post in the other areas of this forum.

To be serious though why haven't you demanded this of the regions? I want the regions to show why it is a good idea for them to regulate abortion or marijuana use or speed limits. Otherwise I will just set them myself because I obviously am better at setting laws than a duely elected government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well you are basically segregating issues into two charagories, easy to pass and hard to pass. You are making gay marriage easy to regulate while you are making abortion harder to regulate due to the fact that it requires a 2/3rds approval from, most likely, both houses as well as support in 4 out of 5 regions, and that's just to have the federal government be allowed to discuss abortion not even legislate it.

Again I'm asking you Ernest, who or what will legislate abortion or speed limits or any such matter if not for the only government? Don't give me this crap about why should they even be regulated by the government because they already are regulated by a government, the regional government. You don't seem to have a problem with Governor Naso deciding to propose legislation but you seem to have a problem with a nationally elected governmental body controling it in a unitary system where they are the only authority.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm willing to tolerate more from a participatory democracy which is what we have in our Regions than from a republic which what we have at our Federal level.

[Democratic Hawk]

The President's 'Reform Atlasia Plan' is offical Senate business. Once the Senate feels that we can proceed with either voting on 1) a series of Amendments, as proposed by Senator Ernest, or 2) a new Constitution, as proposed by True Democrat (which I'm happy to, formally, propose), it shall

However, because of the fundamental importance of this Plan, I feel debate on it should continue until after Christmas and I've earmarked December 27 as the earliest time for a possible vote; however, should Senators feel that after the New Year would be more appropriate time to begin any voting that's fine

As a result of the passing of Article 9 of the OSPR, this plan will remain on the floor of the Senate in its existing state should it not be resolved one way or the other as of noon January 4 when the Seventeenth Senate comes into effect

'Hawk'

[Peter]

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, if people do not believe that the Congress will be able to legislate on issues presently in the remit of the Regions, then they may well decide to keep the status quo if only to keep these issues on the table.

I have been trying to find one unitary nation where they have constructed their government in the way you propose - i.e. a government of only enumerated powers as opposed to a government of general powers that is limited by specific provision - I cannot find one.

Regardless, this discussion clearly demonstrates that whilst we all recognise the need for change, it is highly unlikely that a consensus can be easily formed presently, which could make any transition dwindle numbers further. I was IMing with somebody the other day and he told me that he was cynical about change making it through - I couldn't help but agree with him. Even when we made minor and consolidating changes to bring in the Second Constitution, it nearly all fell apart at the last minute.

[Јas]

The President's 'Reform Atlasia Plan' is offical Senate business. Once the Senate feels that we can proceed with either voting on 1) a series of Amendments, as proposed by Senator Ernest, or 2) a new Constitution, as proposed by True Democrat (which I'm happy to, formally, propose), it shall

However, because of the fundamental importance of this Plan, I feel debate on it should continue until after Christmas and I've earmarked December 27 as the earliest time for a possible vote; however, should Senators feel that after the New Year would be more appropriate time to begin any voting that's fine

As a result of the passing of Article 9 of the OSPR, this plan will remain on the floor of the Senate in its existing state should it not be resolved one way or the other as of noon January 4 when the Seventeenth Senate comes into effect

'Hawk'

I have no problem with a reform plan being discussed by the Senate (and indeed, concerned persons), however I must raise some procedural questions for the PPT.

At what point did this officially enter the Senate's agenda?
Who sponsored it?
If it is official Senate business, why have the amendments made to the draft not been voted on by the full Senate?

While this discussion is of interest, I would prefer and ask that instead of the discussion continuing as is, that the document, in it's current state, be layed before the Senate as per other legislation so that the full Senate can, by declared votes, decide on any amendments necessary.

I would strongly object to the document resulting from this discussion being put to a final vote before the Senate, without having followed standard Senate procedures beforehand. Indeed, I would suggest that if the document was not channeled through the legislative process as other legislation, it could end up being challenged in court reuluting in serious problems for all concerned.

[Colin]

I say the PPT should introduce one of the plans as per a regular constitutional amendment so we can seperate the actually amending of any plan and the Senate debate from the more open debate that has been going on in this thread, just for clarity's sake.

[Colin]

Just a few recent changes to the True Democrat Constitution, Articles IV and VI have been combined into one Article like in Emsworth's proposal. Also the elections for both the Senate and the National Assembly are set by law instead of the Constitution.

Also if you didn't see this before the Senate is now able to write resolutions that, if passed by a majority of the Senate, are introduced into the National Assembly as if they were normal legislation introduced by a member of that body.

[True Democrat]

Just a few recent changes to the True Democrat Constitution, Articles IV and VI have been combined into one Article like in Emsworth's proposal. Also the elections for both the Senate and the National Assembly are set by law instead of the Constitution.

Also if you didn't see this before the Senate is now able to write resolutions that, if passed by a majority of the Senate, are introduced into the National Assembly as if they were normal legislation introduced by a member of that body.

A few other changes have been made too.

The President of the Senate is now Commander in Chief, and the National Assembly declares war with two thirds voting in favor.  Also, until a Prime Minister is elected, the Chief Justice presides over the National Assembly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can you all get a move on please?

It doesn't matter if what's agreed on is perfect or not, things can always be changed later, but something has to be implemented quickly.

[True Democrat]

Can you all get a move on please?

It doesn't matter if what's agreed on is perfect or not, things can always be changed later, but something has to be implemented quickly.

It's being introduced into the Senate momentarily.

[afleitch]

While I believe we should keep apace of the reform plan, we must remain aware that it is Christmas and we shouldn't expect as indepth a discussion and debate at this time. When it faces the Senate however we, as citizens and officials, must remain involved at every step of the way and be ready to counter any pitfall and offer re-writes of controversial languages or proposals within the bill. We need to remain flexable to allow the bill a safe passage through the Senate.

[Democratic Hawk]

The President's 'Reform Atlasia Plan' is offical Senate business. Once the Senate feels that we can proceed with either voting on 1) a series of Amendments, as proposed by Senator Ernest, or 2) a new Constitution, as proposed by True Democrat (which I'm happy to, formally, propose), it shall

However, because of the fundamental importance of this Plan, I feel debate on it should continue until after Christmas and I've earmarked December 27 as the earliest time for a possible vote; however, should Senators feel that after the New Year would be more appropriate time to begin any voting that's fine

As a result of the passing of Article 9 of the OSPR, this plan will remain on the floor of the Senate in its existing state should it not be resolved one way or the other as of noon January 4 when the Seventeenth Senate comes into effect

'Hawk'

I have no problem with a reform plan being discussed by the Senate (and indeed, concerned persons), however I must raise some procedural questions for the PPT.

At what point did this officially enter the Senate's agenda?
Who sponsored it?
If it is official Senate business, why have the amendments made to the draft not been voted on by the full Senate?

While this discussion is of interest, I would prefer and ask that instead of the discussion continuing as is, that the document, in it's current state, be layed before the Senate as per other legislation so that the full Senate can, by declared votes, decide on any amendments necessary.

I would strongly object to the document resulting from this discussion being put to a final vote before the Senate, without having followed standard Senate procedures beforehand. Indeed, I would suggest that if the document was not channeled through the legislative process as other legislation, it could end up being challenged in court reuluting in serious problems for all concerned.
[/quote]

Senator,

Basically, I've introduced (i.e. formally sponsored) the Third Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, earlier today, on behalf of President True Democrat, which I indicated was a likely next course of action (the other being to debate Senator Ernest's Amendments one by one)

The President has asked me to give it priority, so I'll be moving it into the "fifth slot" for Forum affairs momentarily

'Hawk'

[Јas]

Thanks Dave