Proposed Amendment to the Constitution

Gracius Maximus

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
In order to assist in keeping the Constitution and Legal Code in compliance with one another as much as reasonably possible, we, the Court of The North Pacific submit this revision and amendment to the Regional Assembly:

Article I; Section 3; Part 1:
Upon passage of this document as an amendment to the previous Constitution, all legislation previously passed is nullified, except for TNP Laws 1, 2, 6, 14, 22, and 23 (previous to the passage of this Constitution), which shall each be entered into the Legal Code as laws. The Legal Code shall consist of Laws passed by the Regional Assembly and carried over by agreement from previous governing documents.
Click to expand...

The main issue with the current wording is that it is specific to only 6 TNP Laws, whereas the current Legal Code consists of 10 separately approved Laws. Technically, at present, any Law passed after the 23rd is not Constitutionally binding.

This will allow for the inclusion of the Laws passed after the Constitution was ratified without the need for further, or future, amendment.
 
I understand that the Security Council amendment is the more "active" topic and this is simply a matter of housekeeping but before noting that this was submitted by a panel of three, thus conceivably containing its own motion to second and vote (which can be posted separately if need be), are there any questions for this?
 
Good point as to the constitutional conflict in existence in a strict constructionist view.

On the whole, I think examining constitutional conflicts involving the code need to be corrected. If we don't we could run the risk whereby amending the constitution could end up the main means of legislating instead of legislating legal code.
 
I look forward to the possibility of eventually (almost) "freezing" the constitution, but I often run into the difficulty that people prefer keeping stuff in the Constitution.

It would be nice if we used the Legal Code more.

Anywho, I approve of this idea.
 
I don't like to bombard people with votes and I don't like to confuse people with staggered time tables, since Cons Amendments require a minimum of ten days I'll move the SC and this to a vote after the judicial reform amend ends. This way the two proposed amendments can begin and end at the same time, and everyone gets their two cents.
 
I'm still trying to figure out how the conclusion is even reached that the language to be stricken constitutionally prevents the enactment of any further Laws as a part of the Legal Code. That construction just seems absurd.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I'm still trying to figure out how the conclusion is even reached that the language to be stricken constitutionally prevents the enactment of any further Laws as a part of the Legal Code. That construction just seems absurd.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?

If you define the Legal Code as X and then pass Y you can not automatically assume that the Legal Code becomes X+Y unless it is expressed in the Constitution as such.
 
I see nothing wrong with this. When the other's ready to go up for vote, I'll go ahead and toss both up. Easier on my housekeeping as well ^^

Edit: I am going ahead and bringing this up for vote later tonight. I want to make sure I don't have a repeat of being behind several hours or not getting to it for days on end. Such is both unbecomming of the position I have accepted and quite a delay to the proper running of the regional government. As such, I am being more careful as to when items go up for vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top