Powers of federal govt (Senate) and of regional govts. (Debating)

[Associate Justice PiT]

Perhaps the most important thing we can do here is to make it much harder for the Senate to pass amendments since people have to vote on amending subsection B, Clause A (c) every two days or something. Maybe amendments should require an 8/10 vote and be subject to a Presidential veto?

     As someone who spent a long time in regional government and got a bit of an outsider's perspective, I must say that the frequency with which the Senate proposed bizarre amendments was enervating. In the long run, I suspect it contributed heavily to voter fatigue.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     60% support nationwide is rather low, but I would accept it as a compromise if it is balanced with more stringent requirements on the Senate proposing an amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     60% support nationwide is rather low, but I would accept it as a compromise if it is balanced with more stringent requirements on the Senate proposing an amendment.

67%, perhaps? That would correspond to the current requirement of 2/3 of the Regions.

     I think 67% is alright. When the vote came up on that requirement, someone (think it was Marokai?) made the argument that it was about as tough as the standing ratification requirement.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     History has indicated that the threshold for amending the Constitution needs to be high to mitigate the high levels of extremism in Atlasia. Being vague is perfectly fine.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     History has indicated that the threshold for amending the Constitution needs to be high to mitigate the high levels of extremism in Atlasia. Being vague is perfectly fine.

Well the fact that no reform measures, whether consolidation, districts, bicameralism, giving control over amendments to the SOFE and so on and so on and so on, despite them all having more than majority support and in most cases supermajority support among active players, passed suggests that it already is a really high threshold and in fact, too high.

Again though, this would be far more bearable if it weren't for the fact that to change anything in the game of any importance requires changing the constitution.

     I was being a little facetious there, but my view of the Constitution has long been that it should exist as a sort of "last line of defense against tyranny". In that case high barriers to change make sense, and have worked alright with the United States IRL.

     The difference is that, as you point out, the United States has a very nonspecific Constitution whereas Atlasia's goes into painful detail on many different subjects. I think moving towards the former model and reserving many of the things that were detailed in the Second and Third Constitutions for statute would be a wise move that would find broad ideological support.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I think the included Clause 5 should be a little less descriptive. Along the framework not a blueprint point (as Senator Truman eloquently put it), the detail of what the formula is based on and when it is applied should be left entirely up to the statute.

     I may prefer to let it pass and then propose an amendment to make that change, since I agree with the basic content of the amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Since it is up for a vote now, I'll go ahead and vote nay so we can get a more spare version.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I propose:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Making the amendment less specific, so we can change things without needing to amend the Constitution.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No offense taken, Senator Truman; I appreciate the efforts to make the Constitution more compact and readable.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Senator Truman's point about environmental issues reminds me of what Neel Kashkari said about environmental issues when I heard him speak. He said that California tackling environmental issues alone made no sense because we would just lose jobs to other states.

     I will admit that some issues should be dealt with at the national level. I think that we should focus on enumerating those, and leave the rest up to the regions.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nay

[Associate Justice PiT]

You're proposing the lack of a country itself except for "muh military". Don't act all cute about it after the fact - this would render the bicameral federal government and reforms for such aims absolutely pointless, and there'd be no reason to have a system that was comprised of five regional entities unless they were sovereign countries with no connection whatsoever (which renders your amendment moot in the first place).

Ever heard of what is known as a "night watch state"?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

That is what I advocate if at all possible.

Yeah, I mean that's what I said: not really a country - just an authoritarian confederation.

     I don't mind a confederation, but I believe that defining the powers of the regions is the wrong way to go about it. The regions' powers should merely be all things that the federal government does not cover.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Now, 72 hours for delegates to propose a list of powers that should belong to the federal government.

When the 72 hours period expires, I'll open a principle vote and all powers mentioned by a majority of voting delegates will be inserted in the new text of the Constitution. All other powers will be denied to the regional governments, as we'll insert all powers approved by ConCon and then we'll say "All remaining powers are denied to the regional governments."

     Don't you mean denied to the federal government?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     My concern with Truman's proposal is the redundancy involved. Setting a minimum wage is covered by the commerce clause IIRC; not including it as an explicit power of the federal government isn't going to stop us from having one.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     My concern with Truman's proposal is the redundancy involved. Setting a minimum wage is covered by the commerce clause IIRC; not including it as an explicit power of the federal government isn't going to stop us from having one.

How is a minimum wage covered under the commerce clause? Is there US court precedent that interpreted it that way?

     United States v. Darby (1941) provides for a federal minimum wage, albeit in somewhat restricted circumstances.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Does anybody (who is not opposed to the concept as a matter of principle) think that we need to add something to this that clarifies the ability for the government to regulate regional legislative seat allocation based on its population? Currently, it's in the document, but...

Probaby so I would imagine.

    Isn't the point to be vague now and clarify in statute? That's what I've been gathering here.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.