FD: Amendment for a Constituent Assembly

Oliver, insofar as what I covered in my rough draft, that is an acceptable draft of the motion for discussion and to see if other points need to be added.

Thanks for making a stab at it.

We could let this go to a vote at any time, if we can get agreement that this is faster and more flexible than the Constitutional Amendment. The one general area that is only partially touched upon is getting the many nations of TNP who haven't been active to come in and join the forums and the RA for this special session. Unibot, "inactivity" means the same thing as it is used in Law 28 in reference to removal of RA members for inactivity, and the two consecutive vote element. Since a lot of votes would take place in the course of the special session, it would make that requirement almost impossible to handle in a fair way.

The other option is to treat it as a law that supercedes any part of the Legal Code during the Special Session. This might be the better course if only to avoid claims that the current provisions of Law 28 might trump the special provisions in the motion.

The only other point is that we have about 170 forum members in the Citizen mask. No one knows if, for certain, that all of them still have a TNP nation. My hope is that we would approach them (since in almost all cases there are former RA members at one point or another. and if they retain residency, then that we have them port the RA oath and be readmitted to the Assembly. That would be the fastest way to greatly increase the number of RA members for the special session,

I anticipate that the special session would be a separate subforum in the RA area, to be viewed in and posted in by RA-related masks, But the new RA members would have the same maskings and permissions current held by RA members.

Hopefully this will get others to join in getting to a final version and final vote on this motion and seek if the process can get under way sooner.
 
Oliver:
There is a place for the language Grosse is using; in the preamble. Explanations for the purpose and intent of provisions belong in the preamble. If I were to write this (keeping in mind that I'm not necessarily reflecting my own views)...
Click to expand...
The way you write it, I almost agree with it. Maybe more than almost. I pity the speaker of the RA, who never really volunteered for all this. I think a separate chair dedicated to this process might be a better idea.

Personally, I always envisioned the CA to be a larger group than the RA, not some smaller cabal of people. The RA + representatives from other constituencies. Whoever is interested, basically, if they can demonstrate they have a TNP nation. They will obviously need a Forum account. Call them Citizens. Give them the badge. Security? Present a link to your TNP nation with your vote, to confirm residency.

Who is kidding who about a flood of people trying to sneak in to .... participate in our constitutional process? Good times. I'm sure people will be scalping tickets.

I don't necessarily think we need everyone to join the RA. But if they want to, they can. Why not?

Within that group there would be sub-forums with sub-chairs responsible for various important parts - legal code committee, electoral law committee, etc. and people can float around and contribute their $0.02 to the discussion about whatever parts they are interested in. But the chairs manage the drafting and revisions, and are responsible for presenting something back to the main CA to be included in the final proposal.
 
This appears to have lost some steam. I'm the most cynical guy here and I didn't see this unraveling so quickly. I guess a couple of new sinkers are more interesting than looking out for the best interests of the good citizens of the North Pacific (or whatever the fake rationale for all of this was). ;)
 
Regarding who who chair the RA special session, the Speaker has the authority to appoint acting Speaker(s) and the rule also provides for a Speaker Pro Tempore; Law 28 even contemplates the appointment of an assistant or deputy Speaker for membership processing.

So I do not think that is a real problem. We had several moderators at the Constitutional Convention who were able to move the discussions and votes along; and I was able to handle the various stages of the debates that led to the adoption of the current Constitution by the R.A.
 
Blackshear:
This appears to have lost some steam. I'm the most cynical guy here and I didn't see this unraveling so quickly. I guess a couple of new sinkers are more interesting than looking out for the best interests of the good citizens of the North Pacific (or whatever the fake rationale for all of this was). ;)
Click to expand...
Actually, I've been watching this, but have nothing to say because I don't know how I feel about it any longer. Keep your snide comments to yourself.

EDIT: @Grosse:
Unless I'm dying or have lost both of my hands and there is no way to get to the computer, there's absolutely no way I'm putting FALCONKATS in a position where he would be required to manage other people.
 
A mean old man:
EDIT: @Grosse:
Unless I'm dying or have lost both of my hands and there is no way to get to the computer, there's absolutely no way I'm putting FALCONKATS in a position where he would be required to manage other people.
Click to expand...
My point is that you're not limited to the Speaker Pro Tempore under the rule, in fact it specifically recognizes that a Speaker may appoint an Acting Speaker; in addition Law 28 recognized that a Speaker could appoint a Deputy or Assistant Speaker. (The former would be in the event of an pre-announced absence, and the latter would be able to act while the Speaker wasn't absent.)
The ultimate point is that there are ways to manage a workload of a special session on the Constitution and Legal Code.)
 
Since it seems people aren't understanding my proposal for RMB voting (separate from the amendment), here goes.

Suppose A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H are options in a referendum/election. 3 will be selected proportionally.

Below is an example count of a possible such vote.

Example REFERENDUM 001:
Votes:
Iluvatar:
REFERENDUM 001 BALLOT

1: A
2: B, C
3: D
4: F, G, H
Click to expand...
link

Harmie:
--begin--
REFERENDUM 001 BALLOT
1: F
2: A, B, C
3: G, H
4: D
--end--
Click to expand...
link

Mor Os:
REFERENDUM 001 BALLOT
1:F 2:A 3:B
Click to expand...
link

A mean old can:
REFERENDUM 001 BALLOT
1: A
2: B
3: G, D
Click to expand...
link

A[c]2[c]B[c]0[c]C[c]0[c]D[c]0[c]E[c]0[c]F[c]2[c]G[c]0[c]H[c]0
Click to expand...
 
A mean old man:
Keep your snide comments to yourself.
Click to expand...
That's one of the funniest things I've read in a while. Hypocritical, but funny. :lol:
Click to expand...

That would be the fun part, eh? ;)

Ok mean old man you are you to say that about me
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you meant "who" am I to say that about you.

Who am I? Only someone who tries a lot harder to form coherent sentences and to do his damn job right without misinterpreting the tasks set before him and thus producing outcomes which set the entire government back even further than where it was before I became involved. Someone who doesn't stray off on his own and make emperor-like decrees when no such actions are appropriate. Someone who makes an honest effort to understand what he is dealing with before he acts as if he understands it.

I can't tolerate inefficiency, especially when it is not justified with even the lamest of excuses. I do the job and I do it right. That's who I am to say that about you. You were arbitrarily thrust into the role of "Speaker Pro Tempore," but you won't assume the duties of that role as long as I'm here to prevent that from happening.

This reminds me of why I wanted to change this damn Constitution. I sure as hell want it to be done right, though, which is why I'm wondering whether this is the best way forward. It'll be interesting to see what Eluvatar's amendment looks like if the edits are ever completed so I can finish formulating my opinion.
 
By vote of the Progressive Party, the proposal is altered:

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...

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 January 1, 2012.
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.
4. The Regional Assembly may by law determine the method of voting in a referendum on a new constitution.
5. Any member of the Regional Assembly may vote in an election for a Constituent Assembly or a referendum on a proposed constitution. The Regional Assembly may by law permit other persons to vote in such elections and referendums.
5 6. If November 23 January 1 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...

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 January 1, 2012.
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. The Regional Assembly may by law determine the method of voting in a referendum on a new constitution.
5. Any member of the Regional Assembly may vote in an election for a Constituent Assembly or a referendum on a proposed constitution. The Regional Assembly may by law permit other persons to vote in such elections and referendums.
6. If January 1 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...
 
"I think this needs to be discussed and considered by all parties (parties as in people, not political parties)."

These are my specific concerns here, and I've finally decided to share them with Elu and make them very clear and very public. I had his permission to post this, from the #tnp IRC channel, in these forums, and have removed any irrelevant posts and any posts from users other than myself and Elu.

EDIT: Dyr also gave me permission to post his comment.

[16:25] <AMOM> To be honest with you, Elu
[16:25] <AMOM> I personally feel that just doing this with the RA would be easier at this point
[16:26] <Eluvatar> I appreciate the frankness
[16:26] <Eluvatar> I don't think that would be the best way
[16:27] <AMOM> The amendment has taken too long, and I could see the organization of what comes afterwards being trouble
[16:28] <Dyr> What they said is true - a lot of the activity that was directed at this was transferred to the sinkers
[16:29] <AMOM> Though irrelevant
[16:29] <AMOM> it's not the activity I'm worried about
[16:29] <AMOM> it's the means by which it will be organized
[16:31] <AMOM> I had a different idea of how this would work out when I started thinking about it over half a year ago, and it didn't involve an ultimatum, a CA, or a political party
[16:32] <AMOM> I wanted it to be controlled, but not micromanaged
[16:32] <AMOM> and I'm worried that we're getting beyond "controlled" and into "micromanaged"
[16:33] <Eluvatar> Ahah
[16:34] <Eluvatar> but if we simply adopt a new constitution by amendment in the RA
[16:34] <Eluvatar> then that will be partisan
[16:34] <Eluvatar> either it'll be partisan or we'll get nowhere, I fear
[16:34] <Eluvatar> which is why I want a (non-partisan) CA
[17:05] <AMOM> out of curiosity, what is your definition of "partisan," Elu?
[17:15] <Eluvatar> I mean
[17:15] <Eluvatar> We'd just decide what we want and then propose that
[17:15] <Eluvatar> as opposed to having a comprehensive discussion including others
[17:16] <AMOM> Who are these "others," again?
[17:17] <Eluvatar> >_<
[17:17] <AMOM> The people who don't care? :P
[17:17] <AMOM> Elu, I'm all for getting the "unrepresented" people represented, but that means they have to get off their asses too
[17:18] <AMOM> The amendment tries to force them to be active, when it's really up to them whether or not they are going to participate
[17:18] <Eluvatar> I mean that the drafting process should include our opponents
[17:18] <Eluvatar> but not in a way that lets them derail everything
[17:18] <AMOM> Who are our opponents?
[17:18] <AMOM> Gross?
[17:18] <AMOM> Gross is in the RA.
[17:18] <Eluvatar> Also the neutrals
[17:18] <AMOM> They're in the RA.
[17:18] <Eluvatar> Yes but it's not possible to do a comprehensive discussion in the RA
[17:18] <Eluvatar> IMO
[17:19] <AMOM> You seem to be forgetting that I'm the Speaker
[17:19] <AMOM> and that I demolishedthe last conversation that degenerated into the unproductive
[17:19] <AMOM> demolished the*
[17:20] <Eluvatar> Still
[17:20] <AMOM> ...and you expect a CA to be any different?
[17:20] <AMOM> it's the same people
[17:20] <AMOM> just supposedly in a different body
[17:23] <AMOM> I just don't know about this approach, Elu. Do I have your permission to post our conversation here in the forums? I think this needs to be discussed and considered by all parties (parties as in people, not political parties).
[17:25] <Eluvatar> You may post it but only if you post everything I said today in this channel on the subject
[17:25] <AMOM> Absolutely
[17:25] <AMOM> Thanks
Click to expand...

[17:34] <AMOM> never mind, Dyr
[17:34] <AMOM> I'll just paraphrase
[17:34] <AMOM> you had only one relevant quote in that convo anywy
[17:34] <AMOM> :P
[17:38] <Dyr> yeah..sure, if you still need it
[17:39] <AMOM> so I have your permission Dyr?
[17:40] <Dyr> yeah
[17:40] <AMOM> k
Click to expand...
 
Well first of all mean old man I have been here alot more time than you have and who made you the english teacher because for someone who make them and alike how someone in the peanut gallery is trying to make waves.
 
If I could understand that sentence I would respond to whatever it was trying to say, so I'll stick to the pieces I can understand: There are reasons why this region has been getting its ass whooped for such a long time, and there are reasons why you weren't reelected as a Justice of the Court system.

Hell, I'm surprised I managed to contain myself for this long while working in TNP without snapping at certain people. While you may have been in this region longer than I, FALCONKATS, that doesn't somehow change the fact that you are unable to carry out the duties of your positions and is hardly a win-all in an argument with me. I think you'll find me to be a slightly more challenging foe than that.

I'm going to assume English isn't your first language, but you could try a little harder to make it comprehensible. I'm no English teacher; I'm just someone who likes to understand what he is reading. I also like to see people doing their jobs.

I'll take this opportunity to publicly announce that I will refrain from allowing members with chronic inactivity issues who are being repeatedly removed from the Regional Assembly into the RA until the arbitrary 14 days have passed. I'm sick of people dragging this body down and I'm sick of being forced to waste my time taking action against specific people over and over again.
 
What I oppose is the mechanism, and the stance of the PP that they will decide what the Constitution will be.

I've said before that I accept Oliver's rewrite of the original rough draft of my motion, and the only thing it needs are dates.

WHEREAS some members of the Regional Assembly have a desire to enact a revision of the Governing Documents of the North Pacific,

AND WHEREAS this revision ought to be carried out by the Regional Assembly as a whole, and not by a constituent assembly or other committee for that purpose,

AND WHEREAS the revision must be completed in a timely and efficient manner,

1. The Regional Assembly of the North Pacific hereby directs the Speaker to convene a special session of the same Assembly to review and decide on proposals for such a revision, convening within five days after this motion is approved, and completing their work before January 1, 2012.

2. For the purposes of this special session, the Speaker is barred from removing members of the Regional Assembly for the sole reason of inactivity.

3. The Speaker shall organize the debate and deliberations in such a manner so as to permit parallel proposals to be offered, considered, amended and brought to a final vote at the same time. The chair will permit informal amendments to be accepted by a proposal’s sponsor(s), or to have a vote on motions to amendments to each such proposal, to last no longer than 48 hours. Such amendments and votes shall be in order up to the time for a final vote on all such proposals.

4. Should, upon the final vote on the revision proposals, more than one proposal attain the required vote for passage, the Speaker shall appoint the sponsors of each proposal and not more than three other members to a committee to reconcile the approved proposals into a final document. The final vote on each proposal shall take place during the same period of seven days.

5. The special session shall permit revision of the Constitution, and of the Legal Code with the exceptions of laws 1, 2, and 23.
Click to expand...

My proposal will be faster and less cumbersome than the proposed Constitutional amendment and avoids having to enact future laws in the next two months just to "fill in the blanks" in the proposed Amendment as its supporters have revised it.

One other problem with a January 1st date under the proposed amendment. First, the last two weeks of December are notorious for inactivity throughout Nationstates; that is the worse time to be pushing anything through. I've never seen a year from 2004 forward where that hasn't been the case. Second, the general election cycle has to begin in late December with an appointment of an Election Commissioner. The terms of office for the Delegate, Vice Delegate and Speaker normally end with the general elections. And something would need to be said, one way or another, about the current terms of those three offices if the procedure contemplated by the Amendment is not completed.

This is where my motion avoids all of those problems. Which further demonstrates why it should be brought to an immediate vote and is superior to the proposed Amendment.

Edited to insert time frames per post below.
 
Addendum:

I'll use a "five day after approval" clause for the start date of the special session, and the same "January 1st 2012" date for the second date in my motion unless others have any better realistic time frames in mind.
 
If you're worried about December being slow, we can change the expiration date again...

I'm reluctant to support the RA deciding this as the sample of the RA who are likely to comment regularly on everything is an unrepresentative sample, even of the RA, much less the region, and a Constitution is very important.
 
Eluvatar:
If you're worried about December being slow, we can change the expiration date again...

I'm reluctant to support the RA deciding this as the sample of the RA who are likely to comment regularly on everything is an unrepresentative sample, even of the RA, much less the region, and a Constitution is very important.
Click to expand...
Can't it be changed if in December we still haven't finished it, but just go through with it now?
 
north harmoneia:
Eluvatar:
If you're worried about December being slow, we can change the expiration date again...

I'm reluctant to support the RA deciding this as the sample of the RA who are likely to comment regularly on everything is an unrepresentative sample, even of the RA, much less the region, and a Constitution is very important.
Click to expand...
Can't it be changed if in December we still haven't finished it, but just go through with it now?
Click to expand...
True!

This amendment would not remove the RA's power to amend the constitution, even to repeal this amendment. Not until the expiration kicks in, anyway.
 
Eluvatar, the problem is the time frame to get an extension approved as a Constitutional Amendment to a Constitutional Amendment.

In my mind, that's not a real resolution to the timing problem. And if repeal takes effect, you'd have a whole bunch of problems with continuity in the Constituent Assembly because the laws used to form it would themselves have been repeal and the process would be paralyized.

All circumstances that would be avoided under the alternative motion that's also on the table. And I'll match any extended deadline in the proposed amendment in the proposed motion.
 
I mean, I'd still *prefer* that an actual referendum open to the nations of the region enact any new constitution. But I suppose that can be done through other means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top