Constitutional Revampification Amendment (Withdrawn)

[MasterJedi]

Constitutional Revampification Amendment

Article I, Section 1 shall hereby read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The following shall be included in Article I as Section 2: The House, with subsequent sections renumbered accordingly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 5 shall hereby be renumbered Section 4 and read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 4 shall hereby be renumbered Section 5 and read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All instances of the words "Senate" or "Senator(s)" in Article I, Sections 5 and 6 shall hereby read "Congress" or "Congressmen," respectively.

Article I, Section 8 is hereby removed.

Article IV shall hereby read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Spon: Sen. PurpleState

[afleitch]

This one will require discussion, so much so that if it hasn't been already it should be introduced simultaneously to the ConCon above all other business. Interest has waned in the ConCon (which I will admit to on a personal basis) but we need their input so that any changes are not too Senate driven.

[Purple State]

This one will require discussion, so much so that if it hasn't been already it should be introduced simultaneously to the ConCon above all other business. Interest has waned in the ConCon (which I will admit to on a personal basis) but we need their input so that any changes are not too Senate driven.

The input from the Convention has, essentially, already approved of all of these measures as motions. In addition, few people participate in the Convention that are not senators; however, I think we should invite all Atlasians, including delegates, to comment in this thread and work with us. I have already let people know in The Sentinel thread about this and I urge everyone to post in here and participate.

[Vepres]

This one will require discussion, so much so that if it hasn't been already it should be introduced simultaneously to the ConCon above all other business. Interest has waned in the ConCon (which I will admit to on a personal basis) but we need their input so that any changes are not too Senate driven.

The input from the Convention has, essentially, already approved of all of these measures as motions. In addition, few people participate in the Convention that are not senators; however, I think we should invite all Atlasians, including delegates, to comment in this thread and work with us. I have already let people know in The Sentinel thread about this and I urge everyone to post in here and participate.

Excellent.

Senator, feel free to write an opinion article explaining why you believe we need these changes in the Sentinel. Just send it to me in PM if your interested, and I'll put it in the Sentinel (want to make sure it's formatted correctly).

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well, aside from my personal problems with some of these things and questions of their necessity, I don't think the Senate is the place for these kind of broad sweeping changes. Massive changes to constitutions are why ConCons are called.

[Vepres]

Well, aside from my personal problems with some of these things and questions of their necessity, I don't think the Senate is the place for these kind of broad sweeping changes. Massive changes to constitutions are why ConCons are called.

There is no reason the senate cannot do this, so long as the it passes public referendum. The reason ConCons are held is to bypass the slowness, divides, and inefficiencies in the senate, and get a new constitution quickly. Ironically, the ConCon is worse in this case.

[Purple State]

Well, aside from my personal problems with some of these things and questions of their necessity, I don't think the Senate is the place for these kind of broad sweeping changes. Massive changes to constitutions are why ConCons are called.

There is no reason the senate cannot do this, so long as the it passes public referendum. The reason ConCons are held is to bypass the slowness, divides, and inefficiencies in the senate, and get a new constitution quickly. Ironically, the ConCon is worse in this case.

Not to mention, a ConCon is there for far more sweeping change. This maintains most of the current system, in truth, as it is specifically aimed at regional reform through the national constitution.

Also, it includes provisions largely supported by the Convention delegates.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well, aside from my personal problems with some of these things and questions of their necessity, I don't think the Senate is the place for these kind of broad sweeping changes. Massive changes to constitutions are why ConCons are called.

There is no reason the senate cannot do this, so long as the it passes public referendum. The reason ConCons are held is to bypass the slowness, divides, and inefficiencies in the senate, and get a new constitution quickly. Ironically, the ConCon is worse in this case.

Not to mention, a ConCon is there for far more sweeping change. This maintains most of the current system, in truth, as it is specifically aimed at regional reform through the national constitution.

Also, it includes provisions largely supported by the Convention delegates.

It doesn't maintain the current system at all. You butcher the Senate and turn, unnecessarily, our system into a bicameral legislature, and make the regional executive branches flimsy.

[Purple State]

Well, aside from my personal problems with some of these things and questions of their necessity, I don't think the Senate is the place for these kind of broad sweeping changes. Massive changes to constitutions are why ConCons are called.

There is no reason the senate cannot do this, so long as the it passes public referendum. The reason ConCons are held is to bypass the slowness, divides, and inefficiencies in the senate, and get a new constitution quickly. Ironically, the ConCon is worse in this case.

Not to mention, a ConCon is there for far more sweeping change. This maintains most of the current system, in truth, as it is specifically aimed at regional reform through the national constitution.

Also, it includes provisions largely supported by the Convention delegates.

It doesn't maintain the current system at all. You butcher the Senate and turn, unnecessarily, our system into a bicameral legislature, and make the regional executive branches flimsy.

The regional executives could be strengthened by regional constitutions. And these reforms are hardly unnecessary. This prompts regional constitutional reform, involves more people in the national government and better connects the voices of the regions and the federal government.

[Vepres]

I like the idea, though changes are needed.

[MaxQue]

Well, aside from my personal problems with some of these things and questions of their necessity, I don't think the Senate is the place for these kind of broad sweeping changes. Massive changes to constitutions are why ConCons are called.

There is no reason the senate cannot do this, so long as the it passes public referendum. The reason ConCons are held is to bypass the slowness, divides, and inefficiencies in the senate, and get a new constitution quickly. Ironically, the ConCon is worse in this case.

Not to mention, a ConCon is there for far more sweeping change. This maintains most of the current system, in truth, as it is specifically aimed at regional reform through the national constitution.

Also, it includes provisions largely supported by the Convention delegates.

It doesn't maintain the current system at all. You butcher the Senate and turn, unnecessarily, our system into a bicameral legislature, and make the regional executive branches flimsy.

The regional executives could be strengthened by regional constitutions. And these reforms are hardly unnecessary. This prompts regional constitutional reform, involves more people in the national government and better connects the voices of the regions and the federal government.

Differences between the regions is which is making than regions are interesting. With your plan, regions are becoming five electoral constituencies who are similar.

[Vepres]

Well, aside from my personal problems with some of these things and questions of their necessity, I don't think the Senate is the place for these kind of broad sweeping changes. Massive changes to constitutions are why ConCons are called.

There is no reason the senate cannot do this, so long as the it passes public referendum. The reason ConCons are held is to bypass the slowness, divides, and inefficiencies in the senate, and get a new constitution quickly. Ironically, the ConCon is worse in this case.

Not to mention, a ConCon is there for far more sweeping change. This maintains most of the current system, in truth, as it is specifically aimed at regional reform through the national constitution.

Also, it includes provisions largely supported by the Convention delegates.

It doesn't maintain the current system at all. You butcher the Senate and turn, unnecessarily, our system into a bicameral legislature, and make the regional executive branches flimsy.

The regional executives could be strengthened by regional constitutions. And these reforms are hardly unnecessary. This prompts regional constitutional reform, involves more people in the national government and better connects the voices of the regions and the federal government.

Differences between the regions is which is making than regions are interesting. With your plan, regions are becoming five electoral constituencies who are similar.

But their statutes would be different. They way they chose their representatives in the house would be different as well.

Which reminds me, does the GM report on the status of the various regions based on their laws, and does he report the progress of legislation that would take time to implement? If that is too time consuming, maybe he could appoint people to cover the state of an individual region. Not really on topic, but whatever.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well, aside from my personal problems with some of these things and questions of their necessity, I don't think the Senate is the place for these kind of broad sweeping changes. Massive changes to constitutions are why ConCons are called.

There is no reason the senate cannot do this, so long as the it passes public referendum. The reason ConCons are held is to bypass the slowness, divides, and inefficiencies in the senate, and get a new constitution quickly. Ironically, the ConCon is worse in this case.

Not to mention, a ConCon is there for far more sweeping change. This maintains most of the current system, in truth, as it is specifically aimed at regional reform through the national constitution.

Also, it includes provisions largely supported by the Convention delegates.

It doesn't maintain the current system at all. You butcher the Senate and turn, unnecessarily, our system into a bicameral legislature, and make the regional executive branches flimsy.

The regional executives could be strengthened by regional constitutions. And these reforms are hardly unnecessary. This prompts regional constitutional reform, involves more people in the national government and better connects the voices of the regions and the federal government.

Reforms are needed, but not these "just because" changes and unnecessary complications. What rationale is there for changing our system into a bicameral legislature? (And how, again, is that keeping within the current framework at all)

[Purple State]

But their statutes would be different. They way they chose their representatives in the house would be different as well.

Which reminds me, does the GM report on the status of the various regions based on their laws, and does he report the progress of legislation that would take time to implement? If that is too time consuming, maybe he could appoint people to cover the state of an individual region. Not really on topic, but whatever.

Exactly. Let me just address MaxQue's and Marokai's concerns. This idea actually gives the regions even more power, while keeping the framework of "half national, half regional." While right now the regional Senate elections are determined and administered by the federal government, this would allow the regions to hold their own, self-administered elections/appointments/etc. All that would be determined for them is that they have to choose once a month who will serve in the House. But the form of their legislature, the way representatives are chosen from the legislature, etc. is totally up to the regions.

In addition, each house, the national Senate and regional House, is a counterweight to the other, just as the 5 regional seats are meant to counterweight the 5 at-large seats now. What my proposal attempts to do is take that same layout, but use it to boost regional activity at the same time. The bicameral aspect is meant to add seats (because we can't have a 5 person lower house), but give those seats equal power still to the at-large seats. All the while, we spark regional constitutional reform and activity.

Regarding the GM, it's really up to him. Although I hope that, with all the new responsibilities likely to befall the next GM, if he feels overwhelmed he should come to the Senate and we could possibly work out a "deputy GM" situation.

[Marokai Backbeat]

My concerns have less to do with the regions (though it does irk me a little bit) and more to do with this unnecessary proposal to create a bicameral legislature. I oppose any effort to create a second house of government like that (unless it's the old proposal of the Council of Governors) and that's non-negotiable for me.

[Purple State]

My concerns have less to do with the regions (though it does irk me a little bit) and more to do with this unnecessary proposal to create a bicameral legislature. I oppose any effort to create a second house of government like that (unless it's the old proposal of the Council of Governors) and that's non-negotiable for me.

Well, if there is no way to alter this to your liking then that is unfortunate. I do believe, however, that adding a second house is not only appropriate, but necessary to spur the sort of regional reform that can help this game. Now that there is a large influx of new members, it is time we fine-tune the structure of the game to better accommodate them and the underlying current of activity yearning to be released.

[MasterJedi]

I read it over, there's a lot I don't like so there's no way I'm going to support this.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I read it over, there's a lot I don't like so there's no way I'm going to support this.

Even if there was alot I liked here, amending the constitution in such a broad way like this is bad practice.

[Bacon King]

I can't see myself supporting this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am very uncomfortable with this proposal. How do you organize effectively a 15 member house. How effective would such a large body be? What happens if no enough people is interested in that branch and instead you have 8 or 10 member? A more organizable solution would be to take the Regional Senate seats and have then be elected by Regional Assemblies. That would foist upon the regions the necessary reforms. Though such a proposal would not appeal to me either. I am opposed to the elimination of Regional Senate seats just as much as I am opposed to the allow any changes be made to the regional boundaries, more or less changes without the consent of the regions involved.

[Purple State]

Alright, I get it. We profess to want change, but when it comes time to enact real reform no one has the stomach for it. I will withdraw this legislation from the floor.

Motion to table.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is a big difference between good change and bad change. What purpous would creating ten new offices, when there is already trouble getting competive elections as it is, serve to be exact?

If it is only to get the reagion's to reform, then there is probably better ways to do so.

 

[Purple State]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is a big difference between good change and bad change. What purpous would creating ten new offices, when there is already trouble getting competive elections as it is, serve to be exact?

If it is only to get the reagion's to reform, then there is probably better ways to do so.

 

I was open to lowering the number of the House to 10 offices. 5 new offices would not have been a problem because they would have been filled by regional officeholders.

It is not as easy as you think to reform the regions.

[Хahar 🤔]

Revampification is a stupid word.

Remember when you were saying "DO IT IN THE CONVNETION!!!!!!!111" in February? Nice to see that your opinions are not subject to change just because of reality.

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is a big difference between good change and bad change. What purpous would creating ten new offices, when there is already trouble getting competive elections as it is, serve to be exact?

If it is only to get the reagion's to reform, then there is probably better ways to do so.

 

I was open to lowering the number of the House to 10 offices. 5 new offices would not have been a problem because they would have been filled by regional officeholders.

It is not as easy as you think to reform the regions.

What regional reforms did you have in mind?

I would certainly push for regional reform in the Midwest if I liked your ideas, and I would assume MasterJedi would too.