Notice of Revival

wizardofoz01

wizardofoz01

TNPer
This was originally selected for a Cabinet vote on or around Oct 14th. The proposal has been a dead bill for more than the 30 days required by the Constitution and I am hereby announcing my intentions to formally resubmit it for Cabinet approval.

Although there is no delineation in the Constitution on any specifics of reviving a dead bill, I am posting this for public viewing by everyone in advance of my actual resubmission (if only to remind everyone of this issue).

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Relating to the Modification of Existing Procedures Governing the Passage of Amendments.

BE it enacted by the nations and members of The North Pacific, Article VII, Section 2 of the Constitution shall be modified thusly --

1) The Constitution shall only be amended if a proposal receives both:
((A - Approval by a majority of the Cabinet Ministers. Cabinet Ministers shall have 15 days after the proposed amendment is selected by the Speaker for consideration to endorse approval of the proposal. This is to be followed by:))
((B)) A - Appoval by the Regional Assembly. A proposal for a constitutional amendment is adopted and ratified as part of this Constitution if, at a referendum of the Regional Assembly in which a quorum of registered voters who are members of the Regional Assembly participate, the proposal garners approval by no less than two-thirds of the votes cast during the voting period. This is to be followed by:
B - Approval by a majority of the Cabinet Ministers. Cabinet Ministers shall have 15 days after the proposed amendment is passed by the Regional Assembly for consideration to endorse approval of the proposal.
C - A proposal that fails to achieve the required majority in Regional Assembly voting will be categorized as a dead bill, governed by Article IV, Section 7.
D - Failure of any proposal to achieve the required majority amongst Cabinet Ministers will result in that proposal being returned to the Regional Assembly for a second notice and comment period. This period will be no less than 72 hours but no more than seven days.
E - During this second notice and comment period, the author of the proposal will declare whether s/he wishes to resubmit the proposal to the Cabinet or whether s/he wishes to call for a vote of the Regional Assembly to override the Cabinet rejection. Once a declaration has been made, the Speaker shall move to address the matter in a timely manner.
F - Should the author wish to resubmit the proposal, Cabinet Ministers will have no more than seven days to reconsider and vote on the proposed change. The outcome of this Cabinet vote will be considered final. Proposals that are rejected at this stage are considered dead bills.
G - Should the author wish to submit the proposal to the Regional Assembly for the purposes of overriding initial Cabinet rejection of the proposal, a vote will be taken amongst registered voters who are part of the Regional Assembly. A proposal which garners the support of no less than three-fourths of such persons who participate in voting will become law. Proposals that fail to reach this threshold will be considered dead bills.
H - Regional Assembly voting periods at all stages shall be seven full days.
((2) There shall be a notice and comment period within the Regional Assembly for the proposed constitutional amendment of no less than seven full days at the Regional off-site forum. The Speaker shall issue a notice of referendum on the proposed constitutional amendment as soon as practicable following approval by a majority of the Cabinet. The notice shall include the date on which voting shall commence after the seven day notice and comment period. The voting period shall be no less than seven days; the Cabinet may authorize a longer voting period to be included in the notice of referendum at the request of the Speaker of up to 14 days when circumstances warrant.))
 
To remind everyone of what this is and my motivation for the original proposal:

This revolves around the process of amending our Constitution, which currently requires a Cabinet vote followed by an RA vote before this can be inked into law. My proposal seeks to shift the first vote to the RA, followed by Cabinet approval. To me, it makes more sense in terms of the flow of debate if the RA conducts its formal discussion on the matter, as usual, and then takes a vote (as if it were a regular piece of legislation). At that point, the Cabinet can step in with overview power and determine whether they wish to vote against it.

If they do reject the bill, it will automatically be returned to the RA for a second comment period. During this time, the author of the proposal must state whether s/he wishes to call for an override of the Cabinet vote (requires greater than 3/4 of those voting), or whether s/he wishes to simply resubmit the proposal.

This gives (in my view) added flexibility. Upon Cabinet rejection, the author and supporters may wish to modify the bill so it will receive more Cabinet votes. However, if they feel that t hey have the RA votes to override, then they may call for that instead. This is designed so that compromise is still a key part of passing any piece of amendment legislation. If someone knows he probably will not have enough votes to override, he may be much more open to considering a compromise to secure Cabinet passage the second time around.

The 3/4 super-majority is designed in part to place stringent standards on overrides, diminishing the chances that an override will take place during periods of general inactivity. This will make it more difficult for any temporary majority to have enough votes to pass legislation that the wider group of RA members may not approve of.
 
Looks like a good idea. I like that it does not have the cabinet as some looming, absolute power.
 
I do not believe that the constitution gives any advantage in procedure to a revived dead bill over a totally new bill. It has to follow the exact same procedure for consideration.

The only distinction is that under the Constitution,

Constitution Article IV:
Section 7. Dead Bills.

A dead bill may be revived after one month, unless the Prime Minister and the Cabinet block its revival by majority vote.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I did intend for there to be a comment period akin to a formal discussion.

So, just so there's no confusion, if there are any comments on this, please put them here.
 
Something in which the wording needs to be clafied as to intent:

A proposal which garners the support of no less than three-fourths of such persons who participate in voting will become law.
Click to expand...

Does this indicate 3/4ths of the RA or 3/4ths of those who actually cast a vote?
 
The wording does needs to be clearer. As written, one could argue that 3/4ths of the RA members who chose to participate could adopt the proposal, even if that meant 3 votes out of 4 votes cast, in total.
So in addition to whether it is 3/4ths of all RA members or whether it is 3/4 of those RA mrmbrtd who participate, this wording would need to clarify whether quprum applies or is dispensed with.
 
It sounds good to me. A democracy is a participation sport and this might go a ways in encouraging people to participate instead of sitting on the sidelines. I think, given that there are periods of apathy or lack of participation, we may need to make it a bit more clear that in order to participate one must, well, participate in a vote. Not being able to obtain a quorum will eventually cause a problem down the line. I realize that quorum rules are designed to assure that radical change for transient causes doesn't occur, but in times of extreme stability it can prevent anything from happening. When nothing happens, apathy occurs and apathy kills democracy. If stuff starts happening in the legislative realm, it will draw the attention of the general citizenry (for better or worse) and cause them to get involved.
 
I agree that the procedures for ammending the constitution could be improved by this proposal. How is it that this ended up as a dead bill in the first place? Was there a vote? Was there a lack of quorum during the voting period?
 
From memory, the previous cabinet did not process the proposal quickly enough and the time limit on the cabinet vote expired meaning the proposal was declared a dead bill!!
 
The way I see it, is that we could cut down in the fluff that pervades our constitution by simply lettign either body start it, and return it to the other for a vote.
 
freedom and pride:
The way I see it, is that we could cut down in the fluff that pervades our constitution by simply lettign either body start it, and return it to the other for a vote.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. This issue came up in the process of working on one amendment in the last term. The frustration caused by the RA having to wait until the cabinet acted first was totally inefficient.
 
Reworded and final edition:

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Relating to the Modification of Existing Procedures Governing the Passage of Amendments.

BE it enacted by the nations and members of The North Pacific, Article VII, Section 2 of the Constitution shall be modified thusly --

1) The Constitution shall only be amended if a proposal receives both:
((A - Approval by a majority of the Cabinet Ministers. Cabinet Ministers shall have 15 days after the proposed amendment is selected by the Speaker for consideration to endorse approval of the proposal. This is to be followed by:))
((B)) A - Appoval by the Regional Assembly. A proposal for a constitutional amendment is adopted and ratified as part of this Constitution if, at a referendum of the Regional Assembly in which a quorum of registered voters who are members of the Regional Assembly participate, the proposal garners approval by no less than two-thirds of the votes cast during the voting period. This is to be followed by:
B - Approval by a majority of the Cabinet Ministers. Cabinet Ministers shall have 15 days after the proposed amendment is passed by the Regional Assembly for consideration to endorse approval of the proposal.
C - A proposal that fails to achieve the required majority in Regional Assembly voting will be categorized as a dead bill, governed by Article IV, Section 7.
D - Failure of any proposal to achieve the required majority amongst Cabinet Ministers will result in that proposal being returned to the Regional Assembly for a second notice and comment period. This period will be no less than 72 hours but no more than seven days.
E - During this second notice and comment period, the author of the proposal will declare whether s/he wishes to resubmit the proposal to the Cabinet or whether s/he wishes to call for a vote of the Regional Assembly to override the Cabinet rejection. Once a declaration has been made, the Speaker shall move to address the matter in a timely manner.
F - Should the author wish to resubmit the proposal, Cabinet Ministers will have no more than seven days to reconsider and vote on the proposed change. The outcome of this Cabinet vote will be considered final. Proposals that are rejected at this stage are considered dead bills.
G - Should the author wish to submit the proposal to the Regional Assembly for the purposes of overriding initial Cabinet rejection of the proposal, a vote will be taken amongst registered voters who are part of the Regional Assembly. Such a proposal becomes law if a quorum of the Regional Assembly participates in the voting and the proposal garners the support of no less than three-fourths of votes cast during the voting period. Proposals that fail to reach this threshold will be considered dead bills.
H - Regional Assembly voting periods at all stages shall be seven full days.
((2) There shall be a notice and comment period within the Regional Assembly for the proposed constitutional amendment of no less than seven full days at the Regional off-site forum. The Speaker shall issue a notice of referendum on the proposed constitutional amendment as soon as practicable following approval by a majority of the Cabinet. The notice shall include the date on which voting shall commence after the seven day notice and comment period. The voting period shall be no less than seven days; the Cabinet may authorize a longer voting period to be included in the notice of referendum at the request of the Speaker of up to 14 days when circumstances warrant.))
Click to expand...
 
Just a small announcement: since there isn't QUITE 15 days left before the next election cycle, I don't want it to seem that I'm trying to ram this through in the final days of the current administration.

I will not pass this on to the Cabinet for a vote until after elections. Thank you.
 
I like it. But there's one small problem: The Quorum.

If we make the mistake of abolishing/merging the RA and RV stati... well, it's gonna be a bit tough to make quorum. And therefore it's gonna be almost impossible to amend the constitution.

This isn't me just soap-boxing. It's a legitimate concern that we might want to address before putting this into the Constitution...
 
Quorum is a false issue, in my opinion.

The requirements for quorum are currently identical for the RV and the RA. (20 or 6 per cent, whichever is higher.) So if the total of the number of RA members increases, then it will take a smaller percentage to attain quorum.
 
Give the proximity of the next elections, this issue may best well be decided after the elections.

R
 
Nothing to see - move on. Move on.

(I responded to Polts's post, but then realized I had automatically corrected Grosse's typo in my brain. Disregard.)
 
The reason is, and I'm not shy about saying it, is that the previous Cabinet (not the one this term but the previous term) were quite lackadaisical about voting on this proposal the first time.

They never actually told me whether it was officially rejected or not, and as such, I went by the last day of their terms of office as the day the proposal became dead. This means I could have resurrected the proposal in mid-December or thereabouts, but I waited until January just to be sure.

Then, after legitimate debate here, I corrected my wording, but due to the proximity of elections, I definitely don't want it to seem like I'm trying to railroad something through the current Cabinet, especially since it's my own proposal. Hence my decision.
 
wizardofoz01:
The reason is, and I'm not shy about saying it, is that the previous Cabinet (not the one this term but the previous term) were quite lackadaisical about voting on this proposal the first time.

They never actually told me whether it was officially rejected or not, and as such, I went by the last day of their terms of office as the day the proposal became dead. This means I could have resurrected the proposal in mid-December or thereabouts, but I waited until January just to be sure.

Then, after legitimate debate here, I corrected my wording, but due to the proximity of elections, I definitely don't want it to seem like I'm trying to railroad something through the current Cabinet, especially since it's my own proposal. Hence my decision.
Click to expand...
A lot of the delay was the fact that the government was cluttered up with a lot of malicious legal actions.

R
 
One problem is that in the absence of Cabinet meetings with published transcripts, there is no public record of when and which Cabinetnet Ministers act upon proposals for comstitutional amendments.

Wizard, in view of the fact that the last two Cabinets seem to avoid public disclosure of their actions or lack of actions concerning proposals for Constitutional amendments, I think an additional sentence or two should be added to your proposal.

B - Approval by a majority of the Cabinet Ministers. Cabinet Ministers shall have 15 days after the proposed amendment is passed by the Regional Assembly for consideration to endorse approval of the proposal. All actions by Cabinet Ministers with respect to proposals for Constitutional amendments shall be promptly posted with the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...

and



F - Should the author wish to resubmit the proposal, Cabinet Ministers will have no more than seven days to reconsider and vote on the proposed change. All actions by Cabinet Ministers with respect to reconsideration of proposals for Constitutional amendments shall be promptly posted with the Regional Assembly.The outcome of this Cabinet vote will be considered final. Proposals that are rejected at this stage are considered dead bills.
Click to expand...
 
Grosseschnauzer:
One problem is that in the absence of Cabinet meetings with published transcripts, there is no public record of when and which Cabinetnet Ministers act upon proposals for comstitutional amendments.
Click to expand...
Which is one of the reasons why I'm, running again for PM. The lack of cabinet meetings and the lack of an informed cabinet is a major stumbling block to progress.

R
 
Hmm? Hasn't his been discussed before? You two (Gross and Roman) were in the NPC Cabinet with me, you know just how effective those cabinet meetings really were. I wasn't in the last cabinet, but from what I've gathered, they had the same problems as before. The private cabinet meeting room on the forums is much more effective. If you want the Cabinet to have to publically disclose their discussions, then make that happen. You don't need to regress to IRC Cabinet meetings for that. Sure, the Cabinet can screen and filter out what actually becomes public, but we did that in IRC anyway. Extensively. Then there was that time last Cabinet while I was still away when Sydia forgot to edit out the <edit>comments</edit>. If anything, having the discussions on the forum ensures that at least the admins (and global mods?) can see and verify that the public disclosures from there are accurate.
 
Roman is the one who brought up Cabinet meetings, not I.

I have no problem with the Cabinet meeting subforum, my suggestion was to make certain that at least where constitutional amendments are concern, Cabinet actions are made public.

How and to what extent other Cabinet actions are disclosed are a different issue that I did not raise, and I suspect, is an issue outside the scope of Wizard's amendment proposal.
 
That part is indeed somewhat outside the scope.

I wouldn't have any objections to adding the language that the CJ suggested. I might change a word here or there but overall I think this is a good addition.

What we're really looking for here is for the Cabinet to just tell the Speaker what the outcome of their vote was. Any other things such as Cabinet transcripts is another thorny issue entirely.
 
I would more than welcome allowing members of public know how a cabinet vote goes but for cabinet discussion, I don't think we should allow blanket transparency. I feel that if the RA feels an investigation should occur (and votes to do so) certain transcripts should be made public. However I think we should have a separate bill for this.
 
Most recent change. (Changes in bold -- made to reflect the last comments made by Grosse).



A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Relating to the Modification of Existing Procedures Governing the Passage of Amendments.

BE it enacted by the nations and members of The North Pacific, Article VII, Section 2 of the Constitution shall be modified thusly --

A - The Constitution shall only be amended if a proposal receives both:
((A - Approval by a majority of the Cabinet Ministers. Cabinet Ministers shall have 15 days after the proposed amendment is selected by the Speaker for consideration to endorse approval of the proposal. This is to be followed by:))
((B)) 1 - Appoval by the Regional Assembly. A proposal for a constitutional amendment is adopted and ratified as part of this Constitution if, at a referendum of the Regional Assembly in which a quorum of registered voters who are members of the Regional Assembly participate, the proposal garners approval by no less than two-thirds of the votes cast during the voting period. This is to be followed by:
2 - Approval by a majority of the Cabinet Ministers. Cabinet Ministers shall have 15 days after the proposed amendment is passed by the Regional Assembly for consideration to endorse approval of the proposal. All actions by Cabinet Ministers in this regard shall be promptly posted with the Regional Assembly.
B - A proposal that fails to achieve the required majority in Regional Assembly voting will be categorized as a dead bill, governed by Article IV, Section 7.
C - Failure of any proposal to achieve the required majority amongst Cabinet Ministers will result in that proposal being returned to the Regional Assembly for a second notice and comment period. This period will be no less than 72 hours but no more than seven days.
D - During this second notice and comment period, the author of the proposal will declare whether s/he wishes to resubmit the proposal to the Cabinet or whether s/he wishes to call for a vote of the Regional Assembly to override the Cabinet rejection. Once a declaration has been made, the Speaker shall move to address the matter in a timely manner.
E - Should the author wish to resubmit the proposal, Cabinet Ministers will have no more than seven days to reconsider and vote on the proposed change. All actions by Cabinet Ministers in this regard shall be promptly posted with the Regional Assembly. The outcome of this Cabinet vote will be considered final. Proposals that are rejected at this stage are considered dead bills.
F - Should the author wish to submit the proposal to the Regional Assembly for the purposes of overriding initial Cabinet rejection of the proposal, a vote will be taken amongst registered voters who are part of the Regional Assembly. Such a proposal becomes law if a quorum of the Regional Assembly participates in the voting and the proposal garners the support of no less than three-fourths of votes cast during the voting period. Proposals that fail to reach this threshold will be considered dead bills.
G - Regional Assembly voting periods at all stages shall be seven full days.
((2) There shall be a notice and comment period within the Regional Assembly for the proposed constitutional amendment of no less than seven full days at the Regional off-site forum. The Speaker shall issue a notice of referendum on the proposed constitutional amendment as soon as practicable following approval by a majority of the Cabinet. The notice shall include the date on which voting shall commence after the seven day notice and comment period. The voting period shall be no less than seven days; the Cabinet may authorize a longer voting period to be included in the notice of referendum at the request of the Speaker of up to 14 days when circumstances warrant.))
Click to expand...
 
There is a numberinbg problem in the proposal that needs to be fixed.
The proposed subsection 1) contains an A and a B. However, C, D, E, F, G, and H are not part of the options being outlined in subsection 1), but rather are free-standing statements which would more properly be labelled subsections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

In actually, in order to make it consistent with the numbering conventions used in the remainder of the Constitution, 1) should be A), A abd B should be 1 and 2, and C to H should be B) through G).

Either way, it should be fixed since the current lettering would make a reader think there are 7 different steps to adoption of an amendment (when there are really only two steps.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top