Amendment Procedures

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
The current requirement to amend the Constitution is a 3/4 majority for a ten day vote.

I would like change it to a 2/3'rd's majority and to shorten the minimum vote days to 7, as it was during the old Constitution.

The ten day minimum is simply too long, given the fact that for the last three Constitutional Amendments at least 85% of those voting, voted within the first three days. Add that with the newly installed quorum, a bare minimum of fifteen voters or 30% for any vote to pass; the fear of having an amendment snuck past us is unfounded.

Instead we have an amendment procedure that is unnecessarily long with too high a threshold, serving only to befuddle and complicate matters should we face a dire emergency. As such, I propose the following changes.

Constitution Art 1:
Section 2: Amendment Procedure
1. The Constitution and Declaration of Rights and Obligations may only be changed via constitutional amendment in the form of 75% Assembly approval in a vote lasting ten full days. seven days.
2. Proposals for constitutional amendment are immune to veto.
3. All amendments require a quorum of either 15 members or 30% of the RA, whichever is higher.
Click to expand...
 
I really don't like 66%. If you go there, make it 2/3 or two thirds.

I don't think that amendments should be necessary in an emergency.

I do think a decrease in voting time for standardization may be of use though.
 
Eluvatar:
I really don't like 66%. If you go there, make it 2/3 or two thirds.

I don't think that amendments should be necessary in an emergency.

I do think a decrease in voting time for standardization may be of use though.
Click to expand...
Just following the number based percentage put in place before, will fix.
 
I think three quarters makes the costitutioal amendment process notably more dificult as it should b, compared with changes or additionto the Legal Code.

Since the RA can enact laws for the Legal Code that cannot be vetoed with a 60% approval, a two-thirds majority requirement isn't enough of a difference to enourage legislation for inclusion to the Legal Code over amending the constitution all of the time.

There are reasons why some constitutional amendmet haven't been passing but the thre-quarters threshhold isn't one of them. It's the lack of effort to create a wider consensus before amending the constitution. Having just a preliminary discussion period and not also have a formal discussion period (as has been the case until the current Speaker abolished it) is a factor IMHO that contributes to the failure of most recent proposals to pass.

I do agree that 10 days is too long, and I would support that change.
 
I think 3/4ths is a bit excessive, really. The 10 days thing obviously needs to go. I'd support both changes.
 
People are already gearing up to have another vote on the security council amendment. I find it no coincidence that plans to change the change the voting requirements for amendments are being drawn up.

However, while I do not support the change from 3/4 to 2/3, I do support shortening the process to seven days, as most everyone usually votes by then.
 
I think it's worth nothing that past Amendments that failed would not have passed under this new system. The SC failed to get a majority, Judicial Reform just scratched 60%. It's nice and all that most of the Amendments that passed were done unanimously but lets face it, the Constitution, any Constitution is a living document. And having the expressed desire of 70% or 30 RA members not being enough is excessive, I also think the expressed desire of 2/3'rds of the RA is in no way constitutes a frivolous whim.
 
Not at all...but it is still a significant lowering of the bar.

At least in my view...having a reasonable amendment blocked by more than a quarter of us is much more favorable than having a horrible amendment passed against the will of 1 out of 3 of us, at maximum.

But I do support the reduction of the voting period.
 
Rhindon Blade:
Not at all...but it is still a significant lowering of the bar.

At least in my view...having a reasonable amendment blocked by more than a quarter of us is much more favorable than having a horrible amendment passed against the will of 1 out of 3 of us, at maximum.

But I do support the reduction of the voting period.
Click to expand...
So you're saying two-thirds of the RA want a horrible Constitution? Would it be because two-thirds of us are stupid or just plain evil?

I'm joking... sorry.
 
Ok so I have a film studies final so it took me a while to find it, (yeah yeah I'm starting to archive) but the previous Constitution allowed for change with a 2/3 majority. However you may have felt about that document, this new and improved Constitution did not even pass by a 3/4 majority. It did however pass by a so-called "lower bar."

The Constitution must be a living document, it must work for us while reflecting our values. But to needlessly hold it to some barely working abitrary number just because... well 3/4 is larger than 2/3 is only going to stall important necessary changes that may come.
 
Perhaps you could lower the percentage but allow for a Constitutionality Challenge before the full Court if it falls between 2/3 and 3/4?

3/4 is an automatic pass and 2/3 requires Court approval?
 
The prior constitution required both Cabinet approval (as an individually elected Cabinet) in addition to 2/3rds approval. That made the process more difficult to force a broader consensus.

I would not support injecting the Court into this process if for no other reason that such a procedure isn't really a judicial function.

We don't really have a second bady available that could be a part of the amendment process. That's one very good reason the higher approval margin should ne retained. It helps force a broader consensus before an amendment is adopted.

Since there's already a significant spilt on the size of the majority needed, and no opposition to reducing the voting period, I would suggest that the two changes be divided into separate proposals.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Perhaps you could lower the percentage but allow for a Constitutionality Challenge before the full Court if it falls between 2/3 and 3/4?

3/4 is an automatic pass and 2/3 requires Court approval?
Click to expand...
Now that's a thought!

Lemme see how the language would work and how people react.
 
Mr. Sniffles:
(3/4) is going to stall important necessary changes that may come.
Click to expand...

Define 'necessary changes', and the evil maniacs will differ. This is where it gets tough. Its relative...and is where misplaced liberal principles can stab its supporter in the back.

Sorry, I tend to be rather conservative in outlook. Maybe Ann and I should found a club...Anyone interested? We'll have free brownies. ;)
 
Rhindon Blade:
Mr. Sniffles:
(3/4) is going to stall important necessary changes that may come.
Click to expand...

Define 'necessary changes', and the evil maniacs will differ. This is where it gets tough. Its relative...and is where misplaced liberalism can stab its supporter in the back.

Sorry, I tend to be rather conservative in outlook. Maybe Ann and I should found a club...Anyone interested? We'll have free brownies. ;)
Click to expand...
Alterations in game mechanics, another rogue delegate, foreign invasion through infiltration, sucession crisis, governmental inactivity, electoral loopholes, and this all just off the top of my head. We've had at least four different Constitutions presenting four radically different styles of government in less than four years. No Constitution, let alone ours is issued from the divine and should never be questioned. Conservative and Liberal have nothing to do with it.

Constitutions are living documents, they are documents bound to serve us, to represent our values and our ideals. Not the other way around.
 
I've watched much of it from afar. Yes, TNP is quite an interesting place haha.

I do have to disagree with you on that last point (in that a Constitution must be that adapting to our ever-changing ideals). Indeed, we shouldn't string out miles of red tape around the Constitution, but I don't believe it should be that readily accessible. In this case, we are talking about liberal and conservative principles - because we're getting asked 'how flexible do we want the Constitution to be'?

You say 60%. I say 75%. Its a matter of opinion, and (among other things) really depends upon how liberal one's outlook of society is.
 
Rhindon Blade:
I've watched much of it from afar. Yes, TNP is quite an interesting place haha.

I do have to disagree with you on that last point (in that a Constitution must be that adapting to our ever-changing ideals). Indeed, we shouldn't string out miles of red tape around the Constitution, but I don't believe it should be that readily accessible. In this case, we are talking about liberal and conservative principles - because we're getting asked 'how flexible do we want the Constitution to be'?

You say 60%. I say 75%. Its a matter of opinion, and (among other things) really depends upon how liberal one's outlook of society is.
Click to expand...
Actually I say 66%.
 
One of the complaints made about the last Constitution was that too much detail was put into it. (Whether I agreed or disagreed with that isn't the question; that was the claim that was made.)

If we lower the approval threshhold to 67 (or 66 2/3) per cent, iut'll be too close to the 60 percent, and the attraction of adding a change into the Constitution rather than the Legal Code will be too strong for many people to resist. 60 per cent gets a proposed law past the scope of a veto, and Constitutional amendments can't be vetoed.

One consequence of the change as currently proposed is to make things too easy to add to the Constitution as opposed to the Legal Code. In other worfds, in its current form this proposed change is counterproductive. It will cause everything to end up being offered as a Constitutional amendment and before long we'll have a Constitution even longer than the last one.
 
Presumably because it wouldn't pass. I'd vote for it, but not everyone can be me. I've come to terms with this over the last few years, though it hasn't been easy.
 
It was an idea, I tried to float it, it sank. The spirit of the amendment is still alive and well. In case we find ourselves in an endless round of Constitutional Crises, you can sing "I told you so" as some of us love to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top