Amendment for a Constituent Assembly

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
The Progressive Party proposes the addition of the below article VII to the Constitution of the North Pacific:

Amendment:
Article VII: Expiration

1. This Constitution and any other laws except the Bill of Rights, this Article, and any laws establishing a Constituent Assembly will be repealed on November 23, 2011.
2. The Regional Assembly may by law determine the time and method of the election of a Constituent Assembly which may propose a new constitution.
3. Any proposal of the Constituent Assembly will come into force only if approved by a majority of those voting in a referendum lasting seven days.
4. Any person who is a member of the Regional Assembly or who has had a World Assembly nation in the North Pacific since October 1, 2011 may vote in any such referendum.
5. If November 23 passes and the Constitution expires, the Security Council as constituted at that time will continue service and the Security Council Regulation Act will remain in effect, with consultation with the Regional Assembly replaced with consultation with the Constituent Assembly. The Security Council will continue to be empowered to accept new members by simple majority vote. The Constituent Assembly will be granted the power to expel members of the Security Council by two thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...

Recognizing the myriad difficulties and weaknesses associated with the current Constitutional and Legal regime, the Progressive Party of the North Pacific calls strongly for the creation of a Constituent Assembly to oversee the repeal of the current Constitution and the enactment of another in its place, as specified by the amendment of the Constitution to include Article VII.

Our rationale is twofold:

Firstly, there are a great many difficulties and weaknesses associated with the current Constitution, and these difficulties and weaknesses are too endemic and fundamental to be fixed with a line-by-line analysis and amendment. Secondly, the planning and creation of a new Constitution requires the input and participation of a large and diverse group of citizens, and certainly must not be done by an individual or a small, like-minded group.

Under the party resolution calling for this proposal, we will hold a party vote on any suggested changes to decide whether to accept them as friendly.

EDIT: Edited at Thu Oct 13 23:15 UTC 2011 to accept alterations to proposal.
 
Opposed.

If the US Constitution can hold up for 230+ years and 27 amendments, TNP's constitution can hold up with changes here and there without creating a new constitution every time we don't like wordy things.
 
This is not the United States and this is not the United States constitution. TNP has singlehandedly created a monstrosity with so many holes and errors that it's almost impossible to navigate. This latest trial and the fiasco behind the elections just proves that TNP law is too complex and convoluted to do any good.

Change is desperately needed in order to remove TNP from the quagmire that it created.

And quite frankly, your argument is silly. You need to realize that this its not the same as RL and TNP its quite a different, and much uglier, animal.
 
Grimalkin:
This is not the United States and this is not the United States constitution. TNP has singlehandedly created a monstrosity with so many holes and errors that it's almost impossible to navigate. This latest trial and the fiasco behind the elections just proves that TNP law is too complex and convoluted to do any good.

Change is desperately needed in order to remove TNP from the quagmire that it created.

And quite frankly, your argument is silly. You need to realize that this its not the same as RL and TNP its quite a different, and much uglier, animal.
Click to expand...
Change can still be made without creating a whole new constitution. Just the quality needs to be refined.
 
Effective reform will not be had by trying to amend the current constitution line by line. The only way that the system can be reformed into a more stream lined and democratic process is to scrap the foundation and build anew.
 
What of the role and responsibilities of the Delegate during this period?

Second, such a process is unnecessary to replace the Constitution. A replacement can be done through the amendment process. The current Constitution was adopted through amendment under the previous Constitution; ,and that process repealed most of the Legal Code. As a for instance, Law 1 was retained, as well as the law adopting a regional flag.

Third, as a matter of maintaining regional security, the Security Council needs to be maintained. It is the foundation of protecting the region, and repeal in the manner proposed will not offer protection to The North Pacific.

Unless of course, this is an effort to cause a coup d'etat.

Finaly, I would call upon the so-called Progressive Party to shows us their proposed revision first, and se if the R.A. is, or is not, capable of handling revision of the document. This approach was used and did work the last time; I say the burden is on you to prove that it cannot be done this time.
 
what about, this will be radical, a constitutional convention that would potentially change the entire constitution and government and all that?
 
That is essentially what this amendment will do. The Constituent Assembly that this amendment creates will be required to come with a new constitution, government, legal code, everything when the current constitution expires (the date is set within the amendment).
 
Been there, done that (x3). I'm no fan of the current constitution (or the previous one, though I do have a soft spot for the first one) but I don't support altering it in this fashion.

A proposal from a political party, a unified voting block with following the party line built into its very structure, doesn't seem to foster the atmosphere of open debate and compromise such an endeavor deserves.

But, hey, it's a democracy and you guys have the votes, so...best of luck on your own inevitably overly complicated, loop-hole-ridden wall of text (I've seen your amendment proposals).

*Puts on sunglasses and flak jacket.*
 
Finaly, I would call upon the so-called Progressive Party to shows us their proposed revision first, and se if the R.A. is, or is not, capable of handling revision of the document. This approach was used and did work the last time; I say the burden is on you to prove that it cannot be done this time.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for the proof as Grosse pointed out
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Finaly, I would call upon the so-called Progressive Party to shows us their proposed revision first, and se if the R.A. is, or is not, capable of handling revision of the document.
Click to expand...

So, you want us to create a constitution first when the point of this is to form an Assembly whose purpose is to create the new constitution?

The whole purpose of this amendment is to allow the constitution to be created by representatives from across TNP, from people who are not like-minded and share nearly the same beliefs. If we create the new constitution, then what's the point?

Blackshear:
But, hey, it's a democracy and you guys have the votes, so...best of luck on your own inevitably overly complicated, loop-hole-ridden wall of text (I've seen your amendment proposals).
Click to expand...

Because the current constitution isn't an overly complicated, loop-hole-ridden wall of text?
 
Govindia:
If the US Constitution can hold up for 230+ years and 27 amendments, TNP's constitution can hold up with changes here and there without creating a new constitution every time we don't like wordy things.
Click to expand...
The state of the US constitution says nothing about TNP's, TNP being an entirely different polity. Nevermind that the US Constitution has explicit provisions for a constitutional convention.

Grosseschnauzer:
Third, as a matter of maintaining regional security, the Security Council needs to be maintained. It is the foundation of protecting the region, and repeal in the manner proposed will not offer protection to The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
The deadline given in the proposal of November 23 is more than long enough to elect a Constituent Assembly, prepare a draft, and put it to a referendum before the repeal kicks in. And if it's not enough, the proposal could easily be altered to extend it a bit more. But the deadline is necessary, so there's a very real incentive to get things done and none of the feet dragging which has repeatedly killed previous attempts to reform.

Grosseschnauzer:
Unless of course, this is an effort to cause a coup d'etat.
Click to expand...
We've been over this before Grosse, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean there's any plot afoot. And you accuse us of anti-democratic sentiment.

Grosseschnauzer:
Finaly, I would call upon the so-called Progressive Party to shows us their proposed revision first, and se if the R.A. is, or is not, capable of handling revision of the document. This approach was used and did work the last time; I say the burden is on you to prove that it cannot be done this time.
Click to expand...
The proof is the thoroughly broken and dysfunctional system that we've inherited from the last time and how previous attempts to reform it more timidly have inevitably bogged down and died in the system. And what you describe, having *us* alone come up with proposal and present it to *just* the RA, would defeat what we're seeking, the creation of a Constitution which represents the participation of and is endorsed by the entire region.

Blackshear:
A proposal from a political party, a unified voting block with following the party line built into its very structure, doesn't seem to foster the atmosphere of open debate and compromise such an endeavor deserves.
Click to expand...
You're essentially objecting to people with similar goals working together to achieve them, which is absolutely ridiculous. People don't have to join the party if they don't agree with its line, they're perfectly free to oppose it and its policies if they want. And the whole point of having a Constituent Assembly elected by the entire region as we've proposed is to foster debate and input from all parts of the region's population on the very important question of the constitution.

Blackshear:
But, hey, it's a democracy and you guys have the votes, so...best of luck on your own inevitably overly complicated, loop-hole-ridden wall of text (I've seen your amendment proposals).
Click to expand...
I don't know what you're thinking about, but I am absolutely certain you haven't seen any proposals from us. They certainly wouldn't be the bit by bit amendments you describe if you had. And loophole-ridden wall of text? That's the current constitution and legal code you're describing, and precisely what we're trying to fix, and precisely why it can't be done through the system as is.

The simple fact is that no matter how you try to twist and look at the facts, the TNP's current system is rotten throughout and unworkable. The recent travesty that has been the North Pacific v. JAL is only the latest in a long history of examples. Trying to work within the existing structures bit by bit will only lead to the proposals bogging down in the existing quagmire, possibly even adding to it. The only option which can bring real, lasting change is by rebuilding the system entirely, by bold, courageous action which has enough initial momentum to escape the gravity of the current mess. We're perfectly willing to considering altering the proposal to clear up important questions of security and transition. But the fundamental, underlying call for bold change must not be compromised. To do so would be to condemn this new effort for reform to join those previous ones which failed for lack of courage and brave, forward thinking.

I'd also like to say, I'm noticing a generally poisonous atmosphere in general among certain groups. All we've done is organize like minded people to achieve a common goal of reform. We have been completely open and public about what we've done and broken no laws. People have responded to this with wild, baseless accusations saying we're somehow undemocratic or plotting an elaborate coup of the region, as if people must always be at each other's throats and bickering just for the sake of conflict. So long as this is how people working together to reform things is going to be treated in the political culture here, things'll just remain a mess.
 
Grimalkin:
Grosseschnauzer:
Finaly, I would call upon the so-called Progressive Party to shows us their proposed revision first, and se if the R.A. is, or is not, capable of handling revision of the document.
Click to expand...

So, you want us to create a constitution first when the point of this is to form an Assembly whose purpose is to create the new constitution?
Click to expand...
Sounds like Antariel of TSP on the MPA.
To save some time: short answer is no.
The Party is not in charge of rewriting the Constitution. The region is. The region's Constituent Assembly, which will be assembled in the future, will write this new Constitution.

I've been very closely involved in this from when the idea first spawned, originally trying to figure out how to patch the various errors in TNP's existing Constitution and Legal Code and ultimately deciding that doing so in phases and pieces would be a hellish endeavor which would take years to carry out properly. Rewriting the whole thing and making the changes in one fell swoop is the only way that the Constitution and Legal Code can be effectively cleaned up without breaking any rules and without ages of redundant and avoidable work.

I'll also state that rewriting the Constitution has not been an idea solely created by an individual here and pressed upon others. I've spoken to many TNPers and have found that many of them believe the C/LC to be needing drastic editing. More than a few have proposed to me in such discussions the idea of a Constitutional Convention or rewritten Constitution without my even having to bring it up.
 
Ok so I would like to suggest a change of my own:

Proposed Amendment:
3. Any proposal of the Constituent Assembly will come into force only if approved by a majority of those voting in a referendum.
Click to expand...

Proposed Alteration to Proposed Amendment:
3. Any proposal of the Constituent Assembly will come into force only if approved by a majority of those voting in a referendum lasting seven days.
Click to expand...

Proposed Altered Amendment:
3. Any proposal of the Constituent Assembly will come into force only if approved by a majority of those voting in a referendum lasting seven days.
Click to expand...

Secondly, I hear a request, implicit at least, from Grosseschnauzer that the Article also preserve the Security Council should the unlikely happen and we reach November 23 (eighth anniversary of TNP having offsite forums) with no new constitution.

I suggest the following addition then, to address the concern:

Proposed Addition to Proposed Amendment:
5. If November 23 passes and the Constitution expires, the Security Council as constituted at that time will continue service and the Security Council Regulation Act will remain in effect, with consultation with the Regional Assembly replaced with consultation with the Constituent Assembly. The Security Council will continue to be empowered to accept new members by simple majority vote. The Constituent Assembly will be granted the power to expel members of the Security Council by two thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...

A bit messy but I do think we can avoid reaching the Nov. 23rd deadline with no new Constitution, so it shouldn't be a problem. I think the substance of it should cover the hole, such as it is.

Comments? Corrections? Further suggestions?
 
Gulliver:
Govindia:
If the US Constitution can hold up for 230+ years and 27 amendments, TNP's constitution can hold up with changes here and there without creating a new constitution every time we don't like wordy things.
Click to expand...
The state of the US constitution says nothing about TNP's, TNP being an entirely different polity. Nevermind that the US Constitution has explicit provisions for a constitutional convention.

Grosseschnauzer:
Third, as a matter of maintaining regional security, the Security Council needs to be maintained. It is the foundation of protecting the region, and repeal in the manner proposed will not offer protection to The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
The deadline given in the proposal of November 23 is more than long enough to elect a Constituent Assembly, prepare a draft, and put it to a referendum before the repeal kicks in. And if it's not enough, the proposal could easily be altered to extend it a bit more. But the deadline is necessary, so there's a very real incentive to get things done and none of the feet dragging which has repeatedly killed previous attempts to reform.

Grosseschnauzer:
Unless of course, this is an effort to cause a coup d'etat.
Click to expand...
We've been over this before Grosse, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean there's any plot afoot. And you accuse us of anti-democratic sentiment.

Grosseschnauzer:
Finaly, I would call upon the so-called Progressive Party to shows us their proposed revision first, and se if the R.A. is, or is not, capable of handling revision of the document. This approach was used and did work the last time; I say the burden is on you to prove that it cannot be done this time.
Click to expand...
The proof is the thoroughly broken and dysfunctional system that we've inherited from the last time and how previous attempts to reform it more timidly have inevitably bogged down and died in the system. And what you describe, having *us* alone come up with proposal and present it to *just* the RA, would defeat what we're seeking, the creation of a Constitution which represents the participation of and is endorsed by the entire region.

Blackshear:
A proposal from a political party, a unified voting block with following the party line built into its very structure, doesn't seem to foster the atmosphere of open debate and compromise such an endeavor deserves.
Click to expand...
You're essentially objecting to people with similar goals working together to achieve them, which is absolutely ridiculous. People don't have to join the party if they don't agree with its line, they're perfectly free to oppose it and its policies if they want. And the whole point of having a Constituent Assembly elected by the entire region as we've proposed is to foster debate and input from all parts of the region's population on the very important question of the constitution.

Blackshear:
But, hey, it's a democracy and you guys have the votes, so...best of luck on your own inevitably overly complicated, loop-hole-ridden wall of text (I've seen your amendment proposals).
Click to expand...
I don't know what you're thinking about, but I am absolutely certain you haven't seen any proposals from us. They certainly wouldn't be the bit by bit amendments you describe if you had. And loophole-ridden wall of text? That's the current constitution and legal code you're describing, and precisely what we're trying to fix, and precisely why it can't be done through the system as is.

The simple fact is that no matter how you try to twist and look at the facts, the TNP's current system is rotten throughout and unworkable. The recent travesty that has been the North Pacific v. JAL is only the latest in a long history of examples. Trying to work within the existing structures bit by bit will only lead to the proposals bogging down in the existing quagmire, possibly even adding to it. The only option which can bring real, lasting change is by rebuilding the system entirely, by bold, courageous action which has enough initial momentum to escape the gravity of the current mess. We're perfectly willing to considering altering the proposal to clear up important questions of security and transition. But the fundamental, underlying call for bold change must not be compromised. To do so would be to condemn this new effort for reform to join those previous ones which failed for lack of courage and brave, forward thinking.

I'd also like to say, I'm noticing a generally poisonous atmosphere in general among certain groups. All we've done is organize like minded people to achieve a common goal of reform. We have been completely open and public about what we've done and broken no laws. People have responded to this with wild, baseless accusations saying we're somehow undemocratic or plotting an elaborate coup of the region, as if people must always be at each other's throats and bickering just for the sake of conflict. So long as this is how people working together to reform things is going to be treated in the political culture here, things'll just remain a mess.
Click to expand...
That is an example of a wall of text. There are several in this thread I could cite. I can only imagine what the Constitution will look like.

But whatever, like I said, this is going to happen, you have the votes, my hat is off to you for putting this together. It's just that I've heard these same arguments and boasts in previous periods of Constitutional change and the end result has never been better than its predecessor. For the sake of the region, I hope you prove me wrong.
 
Grimalkin:
Blackshear:
But, hey, it's a democracy and you guys have the votes, so...best of luck on your own inevitably overly complicated, loop-hole-ridden wall of text (I've seen your amendment proposals).
Click to expand...

Because the current constitution isn't an overly complicated, loop-hole-ridden wall of text?
Click to expand...
Of course it is. I said I don't like the Constitution. I'm just saying, based on my experience, the next one won't be any better.
But, hey, you might surprise me. I've been wrong before.
 
Blackshear:
That is an example of a wall of text. There are several in this thread I could cite. I can only imagine what the Constitution will look like.
Click to expand...

The logic....it does not follow.
 
That is an example of a wall of text. There are several in this thread I could cite. I can only imagine what the Constitution will look like.
Click to expand...
There's an interesting linguistic phenomenon called "register', i.e. people use different styles in different situations. As has already been kindly pointed out, your assumption that my rhetorical style necessarily informs my or any Constituent Assembly's legislative style is absurd and baseless.

But whatever, like I said, this is going to happen, you have the votes, my hat is off to you for putting this together. It's just that I've heard these same arguments and boasts in previous periods of Constitutional change and the end result has never been better than its predecessor.
Click to expand...
This whole line of thought smacks dangerously of fatalism. We should not just give up and resign ourselves to bad circumstances just because previous efforts have failed.

As to Elu's proposed addition, while the language could be simplified for the sake of expediency I can also support it. While we're on the topic, perhaps the clause should also provide for what to do with the delegate.
 
I would think that the Delegate, as an in-game position, would remain Delegate by default until such time as a new constitution is ratified.

I don't think we'll actually get to November 23 with no new constitution though. The deadline is quite generous.
 
For my part, I support this because it forces us all into action with an (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) deadline, and forces us to look at the big picture, rather than simply knocking about a line or two at a time.

That said, there is no rule that dictates that the Constituent Assembly couldn't decide to preserve the basic structure, or even chunks of the existing text itself, as needed or desired. So if there are parts of the existing Code/Bill/Constitution that you are in love with, Gov, we can certainly discuss keeping them.

That's the next step, obviously, and the more challenging one - what do we want the region to look like?

Does the Party have a vision about what the finished product should look like, and are there certain things we will be pushing for? Absolutely - we formed around a core group of shared principles. As a new Party, I don't think there is any shame in admitting that we are still hashing out the details.

I should also add that our Party is made up of progressive-minded individuals, and it is possible - likely even - that when we get down to the fine details, we will disagree and debate and amongst ourselves too.

I can't stress this enough - this idea that our group represents some homogenous army of foreign invaders looking to take over TNP is both patently wrong, and counter-productive to facing the larger challenge of getting this done. We will all need to work together, and compromise, to make it happen.

I think that the Party took the right step in holding off on specific policy proposals for now - although the time to talk about them is certainly here. The most important message we were trying to send was that we intend to be inclusive and engage the whole region. This is not a hostile takeover. Or a coup. Very few coups need to be confirmed by referendum.

Those are generally referred to as elections, and there will be plenty of time to get to that, don't you worry.
 
ProP has no desire to turn TNP into a "one party state." We came together because of our like-minded ideals, mainly the desire to see TNP reformed.

Instead of just saying "it smells fishy," why don't you actually explain what you don't like or what you're afraid of so that we can try to assuage those fears.
 
Pasargad:
smells fishy to me, and i don't like 1 party states ,regions or forums
Click to expand...
We want to proportionally elect an assembly which includes people from outside the party, and then have the general voting population, the overwhelming majority of whom are not from the party, vote on its proposal. How is that anything like a one party state?

The inference you seem to be drawing is simply because we've organized as a party to achieve common goals, we must be trying to establish a one party state, which is absolutely ridiculous. Again, this political culture which views cooperation as tantamount to conspiracy absolutely has to end. It's incredibly damaging and makes reform impossible, because reform can not be achieved by any single person unilaterally.
 
That said, there is no rule that dictates that the Constituent Assembly couldn't decide to preserve the basic structure, or even chunks of the existing text itself, as needed or desired.
Click to expand...

Actually, if I wound up in the CA, I'd probably try to keep a lot of what we already have but completely reorganize it.
 
Pasargad:
smells fishy to me, and i don't like 1 party states ,regions or forums
Click to expand...
The only reason that this is a one-party state is that no-one else has started one yet. But if you have a different perspective, and you share that perspective with others, and you want to assert that position, maybe you should.

Unfortunately, I can't join your Angry Birds party. Greater Peterstan has maintained a long and consistent stance against avian-based aggression.

Truthfully, I believe having government officers part of a party makes them more accountable, not less. They are held accountable to a stated, written set of values; a detailed platform, and to each other.

In the current system, officers are not accountable to anyone after their election, and to precious few voters during elections, or not subject to a face a vote at all, in the case of the RA.
 
A mean old man:
That said, there is no rule that dictates that the Constituent Assembly couldn't decide to preserve the basic structure, or even chunks of the existing text itself, as needed or desired.
Click to expand...

Actually, if I wound up in the CA, I'd probably try to keep a lot of what we already have but completely reorganize it.
Click to expand...
Precisely. So it isn't as if we have to start from a blank canvas. Maybe what we need now is a thread for a list of issues people want addressed as part of this process. I will go start one.
 
I object to this proposal being moved to formal discussion where it fails to address the regional security concerns that the sponsors have noe agreed to address. There's also a serious flaw in it permitting participation of WA members who have been in the region since any specific date, inasmuch as there is no mechanism to verify absolutely continuous residency of a WA nation at all times.

There are other problems that have been raised that the sponsors have failed to address, but we'll note those two just for starters.
 
There is no regional security issue, and you'd see that if you'd bother to actually read the print.

The Constitution, Legal Code, etc., doesn't expire until Nov 23rd. The implication is that the Constituent Assembly should have a new Constitution ready at this point. The deadline forces the Assembly to actually work and get things done rather than languish in usual TNP fashion.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I object to this proposal being moved to formal discussion where it fails to address the regional security concerns that the sponsors have noe agreed to address. There's also a serious flaw in it permitting participation of WA members who have been in the region since any specific date, inasmuch as there is no mechanism to verify absolutely continuous residency of a WA nation at all times.

There are other problems that have been raised that the sponsors have failed to address, but we'll note those two just for starters.
Click to expand...
I have a list of eligible nations, which I will be maintaining.

It is not a particularly difficult list for me to maintain.

I will publish it later today for reference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top