SENATE BILL: Fair Amending Procedure Amendment (Passed-Not Finalized)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you said yourself, regions can be "colonized" with or without regional partnerships. Would regional partenrships encourage such practices ? Not really. What could happen is that people register in regions in order to take over their government, try getting the most regional Senate seats, and maybe reinforce their ability to pass Amendments. Regional partnerships wouldn't be that incentive.


I'll give up on the "Hitler scenario" because of course the "you never know" argument is unbeatable. Of course it would be nice to bring some realism in the discussion.

How would it not be "added incentive". I didn't say that the potential wasn't there now. I said partnerships (that didn't include some kind of preventative measures) would add to the existing motivations. The success of lenthying the period between which moves can occur, put a very successfull lid on this. People will always seek to move about and thus there will be changes as a result. What we don't want is an organized effort to do so. There are measures that work to reduce this risk and I never said that the partnership idea itself was a bad one, if this very dangerous unintended consequence was dealt with.

That is one heck of a strategic surrender. Just because you can't see, doesn't mean you should stick your head in the sand and think that it will never happen again. History does not progress in one direction for ever. Don't ever forget that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok. But isn't it possible to disagree on what should be the relation between the Federal gov and the Regions ? You think the arrangement between them as established by the constitution is the right one, and thus that modifying it would be a power grab. But some people can consider that the current arrangement is unfair, and that modifying it would be a step forward a best arrangement. So, once again, power grab is a change you disagree with.


I understand better what you mean, and I agree, as you say, that "the burden should be placed on the one seeking amendment". The only thing we disagree about is the extent of this burden. I think that, in order to avoid partisan/frivolous Amendments, a threshold should be set. But I also think that we must make sure that the people still has its say on the constitution, and that a minority couldn't constantly block any attempt to change the system. You care about protecting the constitution against the "tyranny of the majority", but you don't see that we also have to protect the right for the people to fix what doesn't work even if it doesn't please a large part of the electorate. The reason why I use (and will keep using) the word "fair" is simply because the issue is about bringing some balance between these two necessities. And the reason why your position is unfair is because you only see the first and neglect the second.

It would make sense that I disagree with what I think is a power grab, but it would be ridiculous and insulting for your say that I would label something a power grab just because I disagree with. I have standards for the use of a such a potent term. Standards which I have already explained.

As for "Is there room for disagreement", last I checked, you were the one who wanted to put the first amendment protections of free speech and press at risk just so the 60% autocracy can have its way, not me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All this is nice, but please answer to my main point.

I understand better what you mean, and I agree, as you say, that "the burden should be placed on the one seeking amendment". The only thing we disagree about is the extent of this burden. I think that, in order to avoid partisan/frivolous Amendments, a threshold should be set. But I also think that we must make sure that the people still has its say on the constitution, and that a minority couldn't constantly block any attempt to change the system. You care about protecting the constitution against the "tyranny of the majority", but you don't see that we also have to protect the right for the people to fix what doesn't work even if it doesn't please a large part of the electorate. The reason why I use (and will keep using) the word "fair" is simply because the issue is about bringing some balance between these two necessities. And the reason why your position is unfair is because you only see the first and neglect the second.

And still, nobody oughts to agree with you about what is or isn't a power grab.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

There seems to be a confusion between legislation and constitutional amendments. These amendments have a much longer and permanent impact than does legislation, and this fact cannot be taken lightly. Usually, good amendments pass and poor ones fail not because of the tyranny of the majority/minority, but because they are good/bad amendments. Legislation to promote equality and the like has passed easily by this country, and generally we are all reasonable, able bodied people. I have reservations about trying to make the ratification of amendments more like passing legislation than an amendment. It's also much easier to repeal a bad law than it is to repeal a bad constitutional amendment. They are supposed to come along once in a while, not every few weeks.

That said, if we are dead set on voting on this, I will offer an amendment to set at threshold if you all can wait a day for my laptop to come out of the shop. This iPad can only do so much in terms of formatting and such.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

All this is nice, but please answer to my main point.

I understand better what you mean, and I agree, as you say, that "the burden should be placed on the one seeking amendment". The only thing we disagree about is the extent of this burden. I think that, in order to avoid partisan/frivolous Amendments, a threshold should be set. But I also think that we must make sure that the people still has its say on the constitution, and that a minority couldn't constantly block any attempt to change the system. You care about protecting the constitution against the "tyranny of the majority", but you don't see that we also have to protect the right for the people to fix what doesn't work even if it doesn't please a large part of the electorate. The reason why I use (and will keep using) the word "fair" is simply because the issue is about bringing some balance between these two necessities. And the reason why your position is unfair is because you only see the first and neglect the second.

And still, nobody oughts to agree with you about what is or isn't a power grab.

On the contrary, you can't look at the second without looking at it in the context with of the first. You create the process for the purpose of allowing changes to be made when absolutely necessary, but then you put the threshold on to ensure it only gets changed when a large majority agree that it should be changed simply because you want a large consensus on the content of the Constitution for the reasons stated before, as the Constitution must have higher standing that transcends politics. I think requiring that passage need 4/5th's of the regions to agree is a very reasonable requirement, to ensure unity not only amongst the populace as a whole but amongst a majority in most of the regions.

If its not working, then it should be easy to win the support of a majority in 4 of the 5 regions. If you have atleast two regions opposing a change, then obviously there is a partisan component to the change that is provoking a pretty substantial opposition, 2/5 regions, leading one to question whether it is in the best interest of the country for such to pass with such strong opposition.   

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, the main problem is that sometimes it's the majority that wants to improve the system and a strong minority that opposes the improvement for partisan reasons. You seem to think that, each time an Amendments divides people on partisan lines, it's because the majority is trying to impose a partisan-motivated "power grabbing" Amendment. Sometimes, it can be the contrary : the minority opposes the Amendment for partisan reasons, and due to this system, a good common sense measure fails because it goes against the will of a clan. Don't we need some guarantee against that ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

So Yank, you're already fed up of our little argument ?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Ok, so listen up guys. I actually read this legislation and I'm a little confused with the wording, so I just struck both parts of it and added my own. IMO, the main goal behind this is to make voting at-large a way to pass an amendment along with the current system, correct? If so, I don't understand why we don't just keep the current law in place and amend this to add the second part. In its current form, the bill keeps the old law, adds the at-large provision and also tries to add a 3/5 provision. I'm all confused. If we are dead set on voting on this, I'd like to offer this amendment to the floor:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Otherwise, I'm for tabling this bad boy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So Yank, you're already fed up of our little argument ?

Hardly. I had important matters to deal with.

Yeah, the main problem is that sometimes it's the majority that wants to improve the system and a strong minority that opposes the improvement for partisan reasons. You seem to think that, each time an Amendments divides people on partisan lines, it's because the majority is trying to impose a partisan-motivated "power grabbing" Amendment. Sometimes, it can be the contrary : the minority opposes the Amendment for partisan reasons, and due to this system, a good common sense measure fails because it goes against the will of a clan. Don't we need some guarantee against that ?

I would rather think of it as the safe, cautious or dare I say "conservative" () bet to take when dealing with matters of such grave importance.

[Lief 🗽]

There's a (very critical) typo in your amendment, Duke. It should read, I think:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Otherwise I fully support this.

[bgwah]

I like Duke's amendment mostly, but 2/3 ayes at-large still seems a little bit high to me. Has there ever actually been a case when 2/3 voted aye and an amendment failed? Obviously some people would prefer a simple majoirty, though like I said before amendments need to be harder to pass than normal legislation... So, perhaps we should come to some sort of compromise between these two extremes. 60% (3/5ths) seems like a very reasonable number to me. We can call it the 3/5ths compromise!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

^^ That's racist.

And thanks Lief, I didn't read over it carefully enough. I think I took that word out by mistake.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

60% is far too low.

[Antonio the Sixth]

3/5ths is fine with me. I think most of us will agree that it is a majority strong enough to prevent a "dictatorship of the majority".


I hereby amend the bill to read :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The second modification is meant to prevent from interpretations considering a "majority of aye" as applying to every citizen, comprised non-voters.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I cannot support 3/5ths. That's far too low. 2/3 is the lowest I'm willing to negotiate. This is an amendment people, not a law.

[Antonio the Sixth]

2/3rds would make this Amendment totally void. What do other Senators think ?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

2/3rds would make this Amendment totally void. What do other Senators think ?

Why? I'm simply adding that provision onto the current law so if 2/3 of the Atlasian population supports something, regardless of whether all the regions do, it will pass. I simply do not believe an amendment should pass that easily, and a 60% threshold is way too easy to meet. I'm not at all for devaluing the constitution to where we can amend it willy nilly like that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

2/3rds would make this Amendment totally void. What do other Senators think ?

Why? I'm simply adding that provision onto the current law so if 2/3 of the Atlasian population supports something, regardless of whether all the regions do, it will pass. I simply do not believe an amendment should pass that easily, and a 60% threshold is way too easy to meet. I'm not at all for devaluing the constitution to where we can amend it willy nilly like that.

I understand your point, but I have to disagree. I think 60% is a protection hard enough agains frivolous/partisan Amendments. We shouldn't let a minority prevent any change that would disadvantage it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

2/3rds would make this Amendment totally void. What do other Senators think ?

Why? I'm simply adding that provision onto the current law so if 2/3 of the Atlasian population supports something, regardless of whether all the regions do, it will pass. I simply do not believe an amendment should pass that easily, and a 60% threshold is way too easy to meet. I'm not at all for devaluing the constitution to where we can amend it willy nilly like that.

I understand your point, but I have to disagree. I think 60% is a protection hard enough agains frivolous/partisan Amendments. We shouldn't let a minority prevent any change that would disadvantage it.

Or the tyranny of the majority. I think a 2/3 supermajority will suffice in passing an amendment, but one side or another would not have that hard of a time reaching 60% of the vote. Again, this is an amendment. This bill would make it harder to defeat good amendments with strategic registration. I'm not trying to so much make it easier to pass amendments. We'll have to agree to disagree on the 2/3 threshold, I supposes.

But hey, are we going to vote on either one of our proposals for a threshold? We have to have some kind of one. The current form of the bill is very vague.

[Lief 🗽]

I support the 2/3 requirement. Ideally I would like 3/5, but I have little hope that such an amendment would pass ratification in 4 out of 5 regions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But hey, are we going to vote on either one of our proposals for a threshold? We have to have some kind of one. The current form of the bill is very vague.

I've amended my amendment bill to make it simpler. Of course, we can still put your two thirds proposal on vote. I will support the Amendment whatever the requirement is.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I can almost guarantee a 60% threshold will not pass 4/5 regions. 2/3 will have a hard time as well, but I'm trying to compromise here guys...

All or nothing will certainly not accomplish much of anything.

[bgwah]

alright...how about 62%?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

alright...how about 62%?

Why are you trying to complicate things? First you wanted to make it 3/5th to honor the 3/5ths compromise, and now 62%? Just accept my amendment and move on. Big Brother Duke knows what's best.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok, since 3 Senators have already made clear that they wouldn't support the Amendment in its current form :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hereby accept Senator Duke's Amendment as friendly.

I hope now all Senators can agree with this compromise and send this to the regions for ratification.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Thank you Antonio! I urge the PPT to call this to a vote!