Constitutional Amendment

Gracius Maximus

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
Article I: Stipulations

Section 3: Miscellany

7. Candidates for these elected officialses must be members of the Regional Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin.  The 30 day requirement must be a least one grouping of a consecutive 30 days at any point during which this constitution has been in effect.
Click to expand...

I submit this to the floor of The North Pacific Regional Assembly for discussion.

I believe it is important to maintain the idea of past activity at some level with those that seek office and therefore feel that the 30 day requirement be continued, just that it not need be immediately preceding the election period.
 
While I would prefer abandoning the 30 day requirement entirely, if this is the consensus then I support it wholeheartedly.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I suspect just inserting "continuous" befpre "30 day period" would accomplish the same thing with far fewer words.
Click to expand...
Not really because that would maintain what exists currently. The interpretation of 30 days and continuous 30 days isn't the issue and could still be seen as being required to exist immediately prior to the nomination period.

The issue is whether the 30 day requirement must be immediately prior to nominations, not necessarily that it simply be 30 days. Clarifying it will not allow such an open interpretation.

With the wording as presented it is clear that a nation that has served for a block of 30 days, whether immediately before the nominations or a year ago is legally able to stand for election.
 
I noticed that there are no actual procedures or rules in place in regards to how amendments should be moved through the process so I am wondering if this goes straight from a submission to a vote.

Is there any other discussion on this issue before it goes up for voting?
 
This change makes sense to me. It pretty much keeps the intent of the original clause, while removing the drawback we have seen in this election.
 
Might I inquire as to the reason this proposal has not been moved to formal discussions like the "Due Process" proposal has, even though this one has not standing objections while the other most certainly does?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top