Third Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia

[Democratic Hawk]

At President True Democrat's request, I have deemed this Forum affairs legislation and moves it straight into the "fifth debate" slot

Third Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia

Preamble

We the People of the Republic of Atlasia, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, support equality for all forum members and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Republic of Atlasia.

Link:

Third Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia



Sponsor: Sen. Dave 'Hawk'

[True Democrat]

As the prime author of this constitution, I believe it is a comprehensive plan on reforming Atlasia, and I urge the Senate to pass it.

[Emsworth]

I don't mean to quibble, but I just noticed: Articles IV and VI seem to refer to the "Senate," when they should probably be referring either to the Natl. Assembly or to Congress. It seems like these were copied out of the present constitution, but without being adapted or modified.

[Democratic Hawk]

In my capacity as PPT, I have deemed this Forum affairs legislation and moved into the "fifth slot" accordingly

Any senator may challenge my decision pursuant to Article 3, Section 1, Clause 3, of the OSPR within the next 72 hours

Should 1/3 of the Senate (i.e. 3) concur then my decision is overruled

'Hawk'

[True Democrat]

I don't mean to quibble, but I just noticed: Articles IV and VI seem to refer to the "Senate," when they should probably be referring either to the Natl. Assembly or to Congress. It seems like these were copied out of the present constitution, but without being adapted or modified.

You are completely correct.  It should just say "Legislature" instead of Senate.  I believe that this is not a big change, so I don't believe it would take a forma amendment.

[True Democrat]

I don't mean to quibble, but I just noticed: Articles IV and VI seem to refer to the "Senate," when they should probably be referring either to the Natl. Assembly or to Congress. It seems like these were copied out of the present constitution, but without being adapted or modified.

You are completely correct.  It should just say "Legislature" instead of Senate.  I believe that this is not a big change, so I don't believe it would take a forma amendment.

I've fixed them on the copy on my wiki page, if you want to update it.

[True Democrat]

May I suggest that the Senate take a straw poll on this issue now?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Another pair of pro-forma changes  "Sainte-Lague" should be "Sainte-Laguë" and "Gaurenteed Rights" should be "Guaranteed Rights".  Substantive amendments coming soon.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Found another pro-forma change that needs to be made.  Some Sections have the section number expressed in numerals, others have them written out as words.  Either way is fine with me, but it should be consistent.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One last pair of pro-forma changes to modify unintended carryovers of mentions of the Regions and the Senate.

Article VI cleanup
1. Article VI Section 1 Clause 2 is struck and replaced by: "2. In order to hold office, an official of the Republic of Atlasia must retain an avatar denoting their State of fantasy residence or a note in their signature denoting the same for the entire duration of their holding office.

2. Article VI Section 1 Clause 3 is struck and replaced by: "3. Campaigning may not occur in the place where voting occurs. Any person who campaigns in such a place will have their vote counted as void and shall be subject to further punishment as may be determined by Law."

[True Democrat]

I have made all the changes Ernest suggested.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And now for six different amendments -  The first two are semi-forma in that they don't make a substantive change in the document as a whole, but they do reposition some of the material, and in the second one, adding some clarifying language, so I'm being a bit more formal in proposing them.

Demi-Amendment 1

1. Article I Section 1 Clause 1 is struck and replaced by "1. Members of the National Assembly shall be elected in a single nationwide vote in such numbers and using such method as is established by Law.  Any change in numbers or method shall take effect as of the next general election of the National Assembly."

2. The introductory provisions of Article VII Section 2 Clause 2 is struck and replaced by "The National Assembly shall consist of fifteen members, elected using the Sainte-Laguë system, with the following characteristics:

This amendment moves the initial number of Members to Article VII and makes clear that the number of members can't be changed mid-session.

Demi-Amendment 2

The existing clauses of Article IV Section shall be reordered as follows and then renumbered sequentially:
15, 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

This pushes the reserve clause of the Bill of Rights to the start of the list so that if additional clauses are later added, it doesn't get buried in the middle of the list and moves the clause corresponding to Amendment III of the Second Constitution to where I think it belongs stylistically in the current list.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now for three minor but substantive amendments

Amendment 1

Article I Section 2 Clause 6 is struck and Clauses 7 thru 9 of Article I Section 2 renumbered as Clauses 6 thru 8.

While I agree that in the real world, each session of the National Assembly would be expected to pass a budget, we've failed to manage to pass one budget in the currently mandated year, and to expect us just because of this structural reform to pass three a year seems a bit much.  Also, some of the details of budget procedure it calls for seem to me to be better left to legislation to flesh out.

Amendment 2

The words "seven days" in Article I Section 3 Clause 3 is struck and replaced by "fourteen days".

Seven days won't leave the Senate any time to do anything but yes or no.  I'd rather not turn the Senate into a complete rubber-stamp of the Assembly.

(Withdrawn in favor of either Jas' amendment or another one dealing with Article I Section 3 Clause 3.)

Amendment 3

Article VI Section 1 Clause 1 is struck and replaced by: "1. No person may simultaneously be a Member of the National Assembly, a Senator, or a Justice of the Supreme Court."

I had thought that this was moving us to a parliamentary system where the Cabinet is often made up of members of the legislature.  This might not be the exact rewording of Article VI Section 1 Clause 1 we want, but a total ban on double office holding just can't stay in place if we want the Cabinet to be selected from the Nation Assembly or Senate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And now for the major amendment, which may be subject to additional change before it come to a vote.  This is based on Article I Section 5 of the Second Constitution with some changes based on the fact that we no longer have Regions, and others to add additional enumerated powers that some people have indicated they wish the new government to have.  Since I consider the concept of enumerated powers to be more important than which powers are enumerated, I intend for this amendment to serve as a laundry list and then if adopted propose further amendments to pare the powers back to where they are now for the Federal Government, so if you have additional powers you wish to see added, mention them and they'll probably get added along with a further amendment to pare them away.

Enumerated Powers Amendment

1. Article I Section 3 Clause 4  is struck and replaced by: "All powers of the Republic of Atlasia not exclusively delegated to the Supreme Court or Senate of Atlasia shall be given to the National Assembly."

2. The following is added as Section Three: Enumerated Powers to Article IV:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3. The following is added as Clause 3 to Article V:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Democrat]

I would like to give my opinion on the amendments suggested:

Demi-Amendment 1

1. Article I Section 1 Clause 1 is struck and replaced by "1. Members of the National Assembly shall be elected in a single nationwide vote in such numbers and using such method as is established by Law.  Any change in numbers or method shall take effect as of the next general election of the National Assembly."

2. The introductory provisions of Article VII Section 2 Clause 2 is struck and replaced by "The National Assembly shall consist of fifteen members, elected using the Sainte-Laguë system, with the following characteristics:

I think this is a fair compromise.  I have no problem with allowing the National Assembly to establish its own number of members.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you are referring to Section Two or Aticle IV, there are 16 clauses, so I don't understand why you only have fifteen.

Amendment 1

Article I Section 2 Clause 6 is struck and Clauses 7 thru 9 of Article I Section 2 renumbered as Clauses 6 thru 8.

Instead of getting rid of the budget provision altogether, I would propose something like this for a change:

The Prime Minister must present a budget to the National Assembly as frequently as set by Law with the following parts. . .

The wording on that might not be perfect, but I think that gives the government a chance to decide how often is should set its own budget, but still requires a budget.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because I copied this directly from the current constitution, I didn't take into account that unlike th President, the Senate would really have to debate each bill.  Instead of fourteen days, I would suggested putting it as:

If a Bill is not returned to the National Assembly by the Senate within a time as set by Law after it shall have been presented to the Senate, it shall become Law regardless.

EDIT: Or we could say instead of set by Law, set by the National Assembly.  Just another idea.

Also, in the last article, we could mandate 14 days.  This would allow the time period to be 14 days when the new government starts, but would also allow government to set it by law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was a mistake on my part, and I completely agree with this amendment.

Enumerated Powers Amendment

1. Article I Section 3 Clause 4  is struck and replaced by: "All powers of the Republic of Atlasia not exclusively delegated to the Supreme Court or Senate of Atlasia shall be given to the National Assembly."

2. The following is added as Section Three: Enumerated Powers to Article IV:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I agree with Section One with this amendment, as it makes clear that the National Assembly shall not intrude on the Supreme Court's sphere of influence, I must disagree with Section Two, for the reasons ColinW has in the other thread.  Because there are no regions, we do not need this list of powers.  We only need to restrict powers, not tell the National Assembly which powers it has.  Ernest, I would encourage you to split this into two amendments, as the first section is universally agreed upon, IMHO.

[Јas]

I wish to put forward the following amendment:

That Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3 be amended by the removal of the line:
If a Bill is not returned to the National Assembly by the Senate within seven days after it shall have been presented to the Senate, it shall become Law regardless.

I don't believe the Senate's consideration of a bill should be limited in this way. The Senate should be allowed take as long as it needs to consider legislation, and certainly I feel that the failure to reach a decision should not result in a de facto approval of a bill (if anything it should be a rejection).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I would like to give my opinion on the amendments suggested:

Demi-Amendment 2

The existing clauses of Article IV Section shall be reordered as follows and then renumbered sequentially:
15, 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

If you are referring to Section Two of Article IV, there are 16 clauses, so I don't understand why you only have fifteen.

I have 16.  The current 16th is placed after the current 4th clause and the 15th is moved to the beginning.

Amendment 1

Article I Section 2 Clause 6 is struck and Clauses 7 thru 9 of Article I Section 2 renumbered as Clauses 6 thru 8.

Instead of getting rid of the budget provision altogether, I would propose something like this for a change:

The Prime Minister must present a budget to the National Assembly as frequently as set by Law with the following parts. . .

The wording on that might not be perfect, but I think that gives the government a chance to decide how often is should set its own budget, but still requires a budget.

I'm agreeable to including some language on the budget in the Constitution, but the current language is not acceptable to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because I copied this directly from the current constitution, I didn't take into account that unlike th President, the Senate would really have to debate each bill.  Instead of fourteen days, I would suggested putting it as:

If a Bill is not returned to the National Assembly by the Senate within a time as set by Law after it shall have been presented to the Senate, it shall become Law regardless.

EDIT: Or we could say instead of set by Law, set by the National Assembly.  Just another idea.

Also, in the last article, we could mandate 14 days.  This would allow the time period to be 14 days when the new government starts, but would also allow government to set it by law.

Consider Amendment 2 withdrawn in favor of either Jas' or another proposal.

Enumerated Powers Amendment

1. Article I Section 3 Clause 4  is struck and replaced by: "All powers of the Republic of Atlasia not exclusively delegated to the Supreme Court or Senate of Atlasia shall be given to the National Assembly."

2. The following is added as Section Three: Enumerated Powers to Article IV:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I agree with Section One with this amendment, as it makes clear that the National Assembly shall not intrude on the Supreme Court's sphere of influence, I must disagree with Section Two, for the reasons ColinW has in the other thread.  Because there are no regions, we do not need this list of powers.  We only need to restrict powers, not tell the National Assembly which powers it has.  Ernest, I would encourage you to split this into two amendments, as the first section is universally agreed upon, IMHO.

Without Section Two of this Amendment, then Section One would leave us in the position be being hit by a second Fritz v. Ernest which I think no one would want.  The only change Section One does is add "of the Republic of Atlasia".

As for Section Two, I'm amenable at this stage to adding additional enumerated powers to deal with what some people feel is needed because of the elimination of regions, but I am not willing to eliminate the concept of enumerated powers.  If the proposed Third Constitution is not amended so that the government has only those powers granted instead of all except those denied then I will be opposing it.

[Colin]

Without Section Two of this Amendment, then Section One would leave us in the position be being hit by a second Fritz v. Ernest which I think no one would want.  The only change Section One does is add "of the Republic of Atlasia".

How could there be another Fritz v. Ernest? There are no regions, there are no lower governmental entities, there are no regional governors to challenge the laws. I don't think you are actually coming to terms with this. There are no regions, no states, no lower governmental authorities within this plan. There is no federalism aspect to it. There is only the Senate, the National Assembly, the Cabinet and the Supreme Court.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I keep asking you what is the purpose of enumerated powers if there are no lower government entities. It is not as if it protects the people since the people are already protected through the power denied to the government and the Guarenteed Rights. What is the use of enumerating the powers of the government beyond certain restrictions if there is no regional or state entity for the government to keep away from? Why do you say that the Federal Government must always have enumerated powers but the regional governments don't have to?

I know in the Northeastern constitution we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which expresses the rights that the people have and which the regional government cannot overstep. However there is no enumerated powers clause because there is no need to keep only to those enumerated powers since there is no lower governmental entity below the Governor and his staff. What we are basically doing, in essence, is make the whole of Atlasia a single region and fusing the regional and federal governments into one. If this was a region, for example, and we were debating a regional constitution would you want a section on enumerated powers there?

As True Democrat has said before if you are for federalism and keeping the regions just say so it's a position I can understand. However this pseudo-federalism where we keep in place enumerated powers for no reason is just prepostrous. Why are we keeping these powers away from the government, that do not conflict with the rights of the citizens nor are powers denied to the National Assembly, if we have no place else to give them?

For the other Senators I must say that this boils down, in the end, to saying that Marriage and the definition of it only requires the approval of the Senate and National Assembly by a majority vote. But if you want to even discuss legislation pertaining to Abortion or Prostitution then you have to introduce an amendment saying that the government can even discuss these issues, then it has to have a 2/3rds majority in both houses, and then has to be approved by 75% of all Atlasians after a lengthy process. So one issue, the ones currently within the sphere of government, require only perfuctory acceptance in accordance with normal procedure. However if you wish to discuss something that isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution then you have to amend the whole thing and go through that long process just to keep alive these "enumerated powers" which have outlived their usefulness do to the obvious fact that we no longer have regions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Without Section Two of this Amendment, then Section One would leave us in the position be being hit by a second Fritz v. Ernest which I think no one would want.  The only change Section One does is add "of the Republic of Atlasia".

How could there be another Fritz v. Ernest? There are no regions, there are no lower governmental entities, there are no regional governors to challenge the laws. I don't think you are actually coming to terms with this. There are no regions, no states, no lower governmental authorities within this plan. There is no federalism aspect to it. There is only the Senate, the National Assembly, the Cabinet and the Supreme Court.

The people could bring a suit arguing that the government has no power if we were to limit the National Assembly to the powers of the Republic of Atlasia without specifying those powers, Colin, that's why Section One of my Enumerated Powers Amendment to the proposed constitution would by itself be a problem with a Section Two to list those powers.  The same reasoning used in Fritz v. Ernest would be apply in such a case or in any case in which the Republic tries to assert its non-existent powers.  Without this amendment the existing Article I Section 3 Clause 4 of the proposed constitution acts as that grant, tho it is overbroad in my opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't say that Colin, you say that I say that.  The concept of enumerated powers is independent of any concept of federalism, Colin.  To provide a real world example, the Constitution of the State of Texas (and of the Republic of Texas that preceded it) also limits its government to enumerated powers.

In the case of the existing Regional governments, I am willing to tolerate their lack of enumerated powers because they are direct democracies and not republics.

I'll grant that because of the elimination of the Regions we may wish to add to the existing list of enumerated powers.  I'm even including as a starting point the addition of powers such as the regulation of Abortion that have been the province of the Regions heretofore and that you or others have expressed a desire to have the consolidated government deal with.

I do not accept the proposition that merely denying a republic certain powers and guaranteeing certain rights is sufficient protection against the abuse of power as it permits those running the republic to abuse those powers not envisaged at the time the constitution was written and puts the people at the disadvantage in such cases.

To repeat, the concept of enumerated powers is a requirement for my support of this proposal, while the specific powers enumerated is something I'm willing to leave to the considered judgment of the Senate.

[Colin]

Well, then, how about a compromise. There can be a set of enumerated rights as per your amendment however the legislature may add additional enumerated rights through a majority vote of the National Assembly and the Senate in order to make legislation less of a two-tier system of some require amendments some just regular legislation. Much like certain other sections of the Constitution you could place a clause at the end stating that an enumerated power can be added or taken away with a simple majority in both the National Assembly and Senate.

I think that would be a compromise that I could live with and I would like to hear your opinion concerning that idea. I think that would create a specific list of powers like you want while also making it easier to augment as per one of my major dislikes.

[True Democrat]

I think the idea ColinW has proposed is a great compromise.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What compromise?  Instead of requiring a majority of the National Assembly and a majority of the Senate to pass any non-budget law, you want it to be a majority of the National Assembly and a majority of the Senate to add an enumerated power?  Forgive me, but all I see in the proposal is an attempt to pay lip service to the concept of enumerated powers, since under this proposal you agree to enumerate the powers, but not to give the people a direct voice in what gets enumerated.  I am willing to consider making the process of changing the set of enumerated powers easier than other amendments to the constitution, but not to abrogate the right of the people to have an unfiltered voice in making delegations of the people's power to the Republic of Atlasia. How about adding the following section 3 to my amendment.

3. The following is added as Clause 3 to Article V:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Colin]

What compromise?  Instead of requiring a majority of the National Assembly and a majority of the Senate to pass any non-budget law, you want it to be a majority of the National Assembly and a majority of the Senate to add an enumerated power?  Forgive me, but all I see in the proposal is an attempt to pay lip service to the concept of enumerated powers, since under this proposal you agree to enumerate the powers, but not to give the people a direct voice in what gets enumerated.  I am willing to consider making the process of changing the set of enumerated powers easier than other amendments to the constitution, but not to abrogate the right of the people to have an unfiltered voice in making delegations of the people's power to the Republic of Atlasia. How about adding the following section 3 to my amendment.

3. The following is added as Clause 3 to Article V:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was just putting that forward as a suggestion. However your change is perfectly reasonable, especially since I was considering adding some sort of national referenda to my idea above. I have no problem with what you proposed as some sort of national referenda seems in order when concerning adding additional powers and the 2/3rds majorities in the legislature are taken away.

[True Democrat]

I think a two thirds majority in both houses with no national referendum is the best way to add a duty to the enumerated powers.  Also Ernest, I would just like to make sure you added the minimum wage to your list of enumerated powers.

[Brandon H]

I think a two thirds majority in both houses with no national referendum is the best way to add a duty to the enumerated powers.  Also Ernest, I would just like to make sure you added the minimum wage to your list of enumerated powers.

So since it failed a vote through the constitutionally required procedure, you just want to throw it in the new constitution anyway?