Closing Legal Loopholes Amendment

Darcania:
Sil Dorsett:
With ideas still being passed around over the wording of the bill, perhaps we should take more time to ensure we do this right. I object to the scheduling of a vote on this bill. (need 2 more objections)
Click to expand...
No vote on this proposal is currently scheduled.
Click to expand...
Ok, Now I object to the scheduling of a vote.
 
Since determination of the vote seems snarled up in legal issues I will take the opportunity to add that I think it is decidedly inelegant, even downright ygly, drafting to stuff the constitutional applicability of the bill of rights in an article on amendments. I suggest a proper amendment would amend article 9 of the constitution to read that removal or amendment of article 1 of the constitution as well as the relevant clause in article 9 requires a 75% vote.
 
Barbarossistan:
Since determination of the vote seems snarled up in legal issues I will take the opportunity to add that I think it is decidedly inelegant, even downright ygly, drafting to stuff the constitutional applicability of the bill of rights in an article on amendments. I suggest a proper amendment would amend article 9 of the constitution to read that removal or amendment of article 1 of the constitution as well as the relevant clause in article 9 requires a 75% vote.
Click to expand...
That has its own problems, which were already discussed.
 
Do you refer to the reference to article 1 that some found problematic? I do not think this is a huge issue since you lock that and its number in place, can even make this specific by adding that a renumbering would require a 75% majority.
 
Personally, I think the Bill of Rights is self-executing, having been ratified by the nations of TNP when it was first adopted. Indeed, it's actually the Bill of Rights that says no governmental authority can suspend the constitution! I don't think the current language in the constitution guaranteeing our rights is actually necessary, but I can see how removing it entirely would be problematic.
 
The BoR does not make it explicit that it is indeed self-executing and in the past it was felt necessary to incorporate it in the constitution so it isnt obvious that it is.

So rather then amend the constitution would the proper way be to amend the BoR to remove all doubt that it is indeed self-executing and has prevalence over any contrary law or government action?
 
I’ll also throw my objection in the hat to make it three against the scheduling of a vote.
 
Barbarossistan:
The BoR does not make it explicit that it is indeed self-executing and in the past it was felt necessary to incorporate it in the constitution so it isnt obvious that it is.

So rather then amend the constitution would the proper way be to amend the BoR to remove all doubt that it is indeed self-executing and has prevalence over any contrary law or government action?
Click to expand...

The constitution doesn't explicitly state that it's self-executing either - it just is, because is the supreme law of our region. The Bill of Rights is too, since it began as part of the constitution.
 
If the BoR is self-executing there is no loophole, but since the constitution has come to include an article incorporating the BoR and also has rules for amending the rule that isnt obvious. I think your view is a good way to structure it, but also think it would in that case be best to explicitly make the BoR of superior status to even the constitution, provisions in the latter would be invalid if contrary to the BoR. Te BoR should then also have its own rule on amendments as it would make no sense to have that rule in the inferior document.
 
The Bill of Rights can't have its own rule on amendments because it doesn't define a legislative process or legislature.

I think we have to acknowledge that we don't follow legal positivism. The law derives its legitimacy from democracy, not the other way around. So long as we understand the purpose of the Bill of Rights and the purpose of making changes to it harder, it should be fine for the process of this to be specified in the document which specifies our governing processes.

Moving, say, the definition of the Regional Assembly into the Bill of Rights would be unwieldy and would weaken the moral authority of the Bill of Rights.
 
The BoR already assumes the existence of a constitution and declares that TNP is to be governed democratically. It could certainly come to include a clause that says it can only be changed by 75% majority vote of all TNP citizens, there would be no need to move the workings of the RA to the BoR, in practical terms the existing RA includes all TNP citizens so could vote on changing the BoR, if restrictions are placed on RA membership, the BoR would then have to be changed by referendum outside the RA
 
Well, the BOR does acknowledge the existence of a constitution, but the BOR has spanned multiple constitutions. It's been around since 2005, while our current constitution was only adopted in 2012. So I agree with Elu that we probably shouldn't put references to citizenship or a legislature in the BOR itself.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Well, the BOR does acknowledge the existence of a constitution, but the BOR has spanned multiple constitutions. It's been around since 2005, while our current constitution was only adopted in 2012. So I agree with Elu that we probably shouldn't put references to citizenship or a legislature in the BOR itself.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Motion to vote.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Eluvatar:
We're repealing the part of the constitution that currently includes the bill of rights.

By golly I don't think that that, at least by itself, would be legal to do by two thirds majority.
Click to expand...
It doesn't actually include the BOR, though - it just references it. The Bill of Rights is a separate document, which is not being amended. Since we are only amending the constitution, and not the Bill of Rights, we only need a 2/3 majority. If you can point to anything in the text that indicates otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it.
Click to expand...
Is not the BOR technically part of the Constitution? Or at least a document without which the Constitution cannot exist and vice versa?
 
Oh no, it’s too late to change the text


I think we should have moved the clauses regarding amendment to Article 1 instead of moving the clauses regarding the BOR to Article 9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top