Talk Elections

Sponsor: JBrase

Support.

I support as well.

I will consider supporting this, but I would prefer we change the name. I would like to offer the following amendment:

The title shall be changed to "Anti-Conscription Amendment".

Come to think of it, that would be a good change. 

I won't oppose you if you wanna change the name.

So you accept my amendment as friendly, then? :)

I support this.

We allow slavery under the current constitution?!?

Unfortunately we do.

And yes, Bgwah, I accept it as friendly.

The amendment has been accepted as friendly. Senators have 24 hours to ojbect.

The amendment has passed.

I think this is the moral thing to do.  But I am still concerned about what we do if our volunteer military is not large enough to defend ourselves in case of an attack on our soil.  I'd like to see an exception for regions to conscript soldiers in such a case so long as they allow exemptions for conscientious objectors
and deferments for schooling or being a single parent/widow/widower with children.

So I offer the following amendment:

The Anti-Conscription Amendment
Article VI, Section VIII of The Atlasian Constitution is amended to read:
The Republic of Atlasia shall not conscript or enforce conscription of any citizen.  The right to conscript citizens at least eighteen years of age shall be reserved to the various regions in times of direct attack on Atlasian soil by legitimate foreign governments so long as they allow exemptions for conscientious objectors, the infirm or otherwise disabled, those already enrolled in a higher education institution at the time conscription begins, or heads of single parent households.


Note:  I realize it's not very "constitutiony"... but who says our constitution has to be super concise and written only in 1780s legalese?

^ We just changed the name!! :P

Eh, I would like to see how the rest of you all feel about the current text first. If it can be passed as is I would prefer that, but if not I would be fine with your amendment.

Well, I like Snowguy's amendment. I don't know about the rest of the Senate.

I prefer the amendment. Such situations would be rare and well, I would consider such circumstances to be well worth the sacrifice of freedom.

Sorry Snowguy, but I can't. :(

Hmm, well I don't see it as hostile, but I would like a vote on it anyway Mr. PPT

Voting is open on the above amendment. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

Nay

Reserving conscription to regions? Is there any substance behind this other than moderate heroism? I'm being honest I may just be completely missing the point but having regional governments conscript for a national defense strikes me as absurd.

Nay

aye

Hmmmm, I am worried this could open the door for some regions to use this dangerously. I do think we need a provision in case of an invasion or a situation where the volunteer army is not large enough. Can we specify conscription only be used for military purposes and not something like slavery/labor?

If the country was invaded, does anyone here seriously doubt that there would a wave of volunteers? I would like to think my colleagues here have more faith in the people than that.

The only situation I can see where we are short of volunteers is if we are fighting a war of aggression that the people do not support.  

This is a law. We cannot just assume the citizenry will be reasonable and do what we would expect any reasonable man to do. If we did that, we would not even need any laws.

Assuming the regions will be reasonable is better?

I am saying, perhaps this amendment needs more specification. Perhaps allow conscription that is military based but does not allow servitude or slavery of any kind. Conscription can be interpreted in different ways.

Aye

Aye


I think it moves the Amendment closer to where it needs to be, but it needs some slight improvements I think, after this.

Aye, but we need to specify further.

Not quite an amendment.


How is this as far as limiting it to military purposes?

What is the relevance of "legitimate foreign governments" and the higher education exception?

Aye

The amendment has passed.

No conscription for a terrorist attack, basically.  Only in the case where, say, Mexico invades us.. or Iran or whoever... but Al Qaeda?  No.

Higher education:  It only applies to those already enrolled so they can finish their studies.  When they graduate, they'd be eligible to be drafted.  Even if they are planning to go to grad school or something.  It's just so they don't get pulled out of school in the middle of it.

I understand your intention, but the wording seems a little vague.  It says to allow for exceptions for those already in higher education it does not say that they can then be conscripted when they graduate or drop out.  It actually would appear to allow for students to keep going to college (law school, etc.) to avoid the draft.

We would then have the situation the US had in Vietnam.  The war would be fought by the poor and the underprivilged, while the rich just go to school.  Also, I went to high school with a few kids that turned 18 their senior year.  So they could be pulled out, but a college freshman can not?  And why would a 20 year old college junior be more protected that a 20 year old in an apprenticeship or one that is married, has a child, and is in a job.

I still don't see why that distinction though. It seems like the distinction would be whether we are talking about repeling an invasion (whether from a recognized government or not), or whether  sending forces to fight in another country.

Please introduce any final amendments soon... I may suddenly start the final vote if this thread stays amendmentless much longer!

Well we can atleast deal with 1 concern, so I offer the following amendment:

I support that amendment.  Hopefully the sponsor does as well!

I'd also like to offer the following amendment once NCY's has passed/been accepted.


I believe the language regarding those already enrolled in a degree program at a higher education institution would preclude graduating with a 4 year degree and enrolling in graduate school, thus avoiding conscription. 

Do you accept the amendments as friendly, JBrase?

I accept them as friendly

The amendments have been accepted as friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object.

The amendments have passed.

As is, how many of you guys support the bill?

I am leaning towards supporting it now.

I think every concern raised so far, has been addressed, so yes, I would support it.

This point has still not been addressed.
I'm not too keen either on giving those in higher ed greater rights than others in the Constitution.

Ugh, I'm introducing this as an amendment text.

You guys are making a mess out of this. >:(

So an amendment to undo the previous amendment? Uh, well, okay.

Sponsor? Friendly, hostile?

Yes, I'd rather us not amend bills as to make them worse and worse over time. This seems to be happening more frequently lately.

I really really want to amend it back to the way it was too, but people here seem to not have enough faith in the people to volunteer in time of need for it to pass that way. So I will take this improvement that can pass over the ideal version which would fail.

Hostile :(

This was addressed in my amendment.  Anybody enrolled in secondary education cannot be drafted under the current text.
Personally, I'd rather see the bill amended only to deal with the federal government.  Let the regions conscript as they wish.

Why should regions decide conscription? No offense at all but that is a position grounded in an unrealistic approach to defense. All we have done is made this amendment more complicated, less equal, and ridiculously unworthy of addition to our great Constitution. This amendment will suck the life out of anti-conscription movements while offering nothing but tokens in return.

We are now voting on the following amendment:


Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

As much as I hate the draft, I would rather have it in a limited/regulated form in case of a crisis where it is essentiall to save the country.


Nay

This. I admire the spirit of the bill, but I can't bring myself to support it.

Nay

Aye

Aye

nay

Abstain

nay

Nay

With 2 ayes, 5 nays, and 2 absentions (1 non-voting), the amendment has failed. Debate resumes.

I am bringing this to a final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

Aye.

Never mind, Nay.

Aye

Aye

Aye

aye

Aye

This has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

Aye I guess...

Again, if I'm allowed to:

Aye.

With 8 ayes, 1 nay, and 1 non-voting abstention, this has passed and is now sent to the regions.