Political Party Definition Amendment (Debate Open)

[Colin]

Political Party Definition Amendment

Article V, Section 1, Clause 8 (Political Party definition) of the Constitution of Atlasia is hereby repealed.


Sponsor: Colin Wixted

This is being placed into the sixth slot which is reserved for forum affairs and emergency legislation. Any Senator has 72 hours to challenge this action in a public post.

[Peter]

Whilst I am not a member of this august body, I would like to interject:

As many of you know the relevant text in Article V reads:

Any political party of five or more members is considered to be an organized political party. The benefits of being an organized political party may be determined by the Senate by appropriate legislation.

Repealing this would remove some constitutional concerns surrounding bills that have been proposed in the past and today, however, I fear that an enumerated powers/free speech challenge to a bill regulating political parties could still be mounted in the absence of this text.

Therefore, I must encourage a Senator to amend this legislation so that it includes a clause such as:
The Senate shall have power to categorise and regulate political parties and to assign benefits to parties as it sees fit.

[Colin]

Friendly Amendment

The text of this bill shall now read:

Article V, Section 1, Clause 8 is hereby amended to read:

The Senate shall have power to categorise and regulate political parties and to assign benefits to parties as it sees fit.


Senators have 24 hours to challenge the accept of this amendment as friendly.

[CultureKing]

I am against this bill.

[Colin]

I am against this bill.

Well first off why?

Secondly, as clarification, are you objecting to the amendment being introduced as friendly or to the general idea of what is proposed or the amendment that was just introduced?

[Vasall des Midas]

I'm objecting.

[Colin]

I'm objecting.

Alright. Then there is a mandatory 72 hour debate period on this amendment before voting will begin.

[Torie]

OK, what is this about? 

[Colin]

OK, what is this about? 

Basically making it so that the Senate will have the power to enact legislation to catagorize and regulate political parties. Something akin to what BrandonH proposed a while back or some of the recent political party definition bills and amendments. This would just empower the Senate to devise both a catagorization and a regulation for political parties replacing the current clause which states that political parties with 5 members constitute major parties and they can be given benefits through legislation. It makes the political party definition much easier to control and change.

The original proposed amendment would have gotten rid of any mentioning of political parties in the constitution. The amendment to the proposed amendment would basically allow the Senate to enact legislation, if it so chooses, to both catagorize and regulate political parties, what qualifies as major or disorganized political parties, what does that mean, do parties need platforms to be officially recognized, etc.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I plan to support this once I take office in 3 glorious days

[Torie]

Thanks Colin. It seems relatively harmless.

[Colin]

We will now vote on the amendment to the proposed amendment.

The text of this bill shall now read:

Article V, Section 1, Clause 8 is hereby amended to read:

The Senate shall have power to categorise and regulate political parties and to assign benefits to parties as it sees fit.

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Torie]

Aye

[Colin]

Aye

[Verily]

Aye

[CultureKing]

Abstain



----

On a side note I need someone to convince me that this won't give the parties too much power. What happens if a party gets a majority in the senate and uses this legislation to discriminate against the other rival parties?

[Χahar]

On a side note I need someone to convince me that this won't give the parties too much power. What happens if a party gets a majority in the senate and uses this legislation to discriminate against the other rival parties?

Atlasian parties aren't coherent enough to do that.

[Vasall des Midas]

Nay

[Colin]

On a side note I need someone to convince me that this won't give the parties too much power. What happens if a party gets a majority in the senate and uses this legislation to discriminate against the other rival parties?

Atlasian parties aren't coherent enough to do that.

Also it's entirely possible to do that right now too. By giving your party, which has over 5 members, benefits and support. The problem is this would never happen in Atlasia, parties are too weak, people would get pissed and leave the game, rebellions/revolts, and the like. Just like any game the players can always walk away if someone tries to cheat, that's really not possible in a normal nation.

[Vasall des Midas]

On a side note I need someone to convince me that this won't give the parties too much power. What happens if a party gets a majority in the senate and uses this legislation to discriminate against the other rival parties?

Atlasian parties aren't coherent enough to do that.

Also it's entirely possible to do that right now too. By giving your party, which has over 5 members, benefits and support.

Not really... unless your party is the only party over 5 members.

At least that's how I've always interpreted the Constitutional Provision.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The RPP plans to have only a benevolent dictatorship

Anyway, I cast my first vote in my glorious return to the senate:

AYE

[CultureKing]

On a side note I need someone to convince me that this won't give the parties too much power. What happens if a party gets a majority in the senate and uses this legislation to discriminate against the other rival parties?

Atlasian parties aren't coherent enough to do that.

Also it's entirely possible to do that right now too. By giving your party, which has over 5 members, benefits and support. The problem is this would never happen in Atlasia, parties are too weak, people would get pissed and leave the game, rebellions/revolts, and the like. Just like any game the players can always walk away if someone tries to cheat, that's really not possible in a normal nation.

I think this is simply a plot for you to grab power. As such I am going into old, paranoid man mode.

[Bacon King]

aye

[Sensei]

aye

[Vasall des Midas]

The amendment to the proposed Amendment has passed.

Aye 5 or 6 (Torie, Colin*, Verily, DWTL, Bacon King, Sensei)
Nay 1 (Lewis)
Abstain (voted) 1 (Culture King)
Abstain (didn't vote) 2 or 3 (Al, Jas, Meeker)

*we don't have rules on who has the right to change Colin's vote yet. The amendment has enough votes to pass anyhow.