Closing Legal Loopholes Amendment

Closing Legal Loopholes Amendment:
1. Article Nine of the Constitution is amended as follows:
Article Nine: Amendments
1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights, which may be amended by a three-quarters vote of the Regional Assembly.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend this clause and the preceding clause by a three-quarters vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may amend any other part of this Constitution by a two-thirds vote.
2. Article One of the Constitution is repealed.
3. Articles Two through Nine of the Constitution shall be renumbered One through Eight, respectively.

Article 9. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution, with the exception of Article 9.2, Article 7.14 and Article 1, by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights, Article 1, Article 7.14 and Article 9.2 of this Constitution by a three-quarters majority vote.
Article 9. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution, with the exception of Article 9, by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights and Article 9 of this Constitution by a three-quarters majority vote.
 
So let's see here...

You are concerned that by 2/3rds vote that the regional assembly could change the constitution to permit the amending of the Bill of Rights to (probably) a lower threshold, in case a proposed change to the Bill of Rights doesn't meet the 75% threshold for one vote and the proposer wants to ram it through with 67% approval in two votes.

That actually makes sense, except you've put an increased threshold on changing the thresholds in Article 9. That is going to be an interesting debate.
 
Sil Dorsett:
So let's see here...

You are concerned that by 2/3rds vote that the regional assembly could change the constitution to permit the amending of the Bill of Rights to (probably) a lower threshold, in case a proposed change to the Bill of Rights doesn't meet the 75% threshold for one vote and the proposer wants to ram it through with 67% approval in two votes.

That actually makes sense, except you've put an increased threshold on changing the thresholds in Article 9. That is going to be an interesting debate.
Well, yes. You could only apply it to section 9.2. It is probably safer to keep this only for section 9.2. and make a seperate vote to change it for section 9.1 if that is actually wanted.
And I just realized that it should be expanded to Article 1 and Article 7.14 of the Constitution for similar reasons, so I have added them.
 
I would prevent making super specific bills. Don't want to create more loopholes.
 
This is a pretty good idea, really. It would prevent a determined 2/3 majority from changing the Bill of Rights by simply changing the threshold by which it can be amended. In its current form, however, I think it suffers from some clarity and flow issues that I will attempt to clean up. I suggest that the author adopt this version of the proposal:
Article 9. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend this clause, the preceding clause, and Article 1 of this Constitution by a three-quarters vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may amend any other part of this Constitution by a two-thirds vote.

This version makes things a bit more clear, I think. You'll note that I've left Article 7, Clause 14 out of this version, because I think that if 2/3 of the RA no longer wanted the constitution to be supreme law, that's enough. We shouldn't be picking and choosing parts of the Constitution to be harder to amend, just because we think they're more important. This fully closes the loophole of being able to amend the BOR with 2/3 vote, and we should probably stop there.
 
I like COE's version of the bill. It does the job of making the Bill of Rights tough to touch and doesn't get all specific into clause numbers, which can change with other amendments and then require a change in the old version of the bill. I'd support this new version.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
This is a pretty good idea, really. It would prevent a determined 2/3 majority from changing the Bill of Rights by simply changing the threshold by which it can be amended. In its current form, however, I think it suffers from some clarity and flow issues that I will attempt to clean up. I suggest that the author adopt this version of the proposal:
Article 9. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend this clause, the preceding clause, and Article 1 of this Constitution by a three-quarters vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may amend any other part of this Constitution by a two-thirds vote.

This version makes things a bit more clear, I think. You'll note that I've left Article 7, Clause 14 out of this version, because I think that if 2/3 of the RA no longer wanted the constitution to be supreme law, that's enough. We shouldn't be picking and choosing parts of the Constitution to be harder to amend, just because we think they're more important. This fully closes the loophole of being able to amend the BOR with 2/3 vote, and we should probably stop there.
Adopted, with minor changes.
You are probably right about Article 7 Clause 14.

I motion that the current proposal in the opening post(the old, spoilered drafts are not part of it), named Closing Legal Loopholes Amendment, should be put up to a vote in this Regional Assembly.
 
Sil Dorsett:
I like COE's version of the bill. It does the job of making the Bill of Rights tough to touch and doesn't get all specific into clause numbers, which can change with other amendments and then require a change in the old version of the bill. I'd support this new version.
I agree with COE version as well.
 
Clean Land:
Crushing Our Enemies:
This is a pretty good idea, really. It would prevent a determined 2/3 majority from changing the Bill of Rights by simply changing the threshold by which it can be amended. In its current form, however, I think it suffers from some clarity and flow issues that I will attempt to clean up. I suggest that the author adopt this version of the proposal:
Article 9. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend this clause, the preceding clause, and Article 1 of this Constitution by a three-quarters vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may amend any other part of this Constitution by a two-thirds vote.

This version makes things a bit more clear, I think. You'll note that I've left Article 7, Clause 14 out of this version, because I think that if 2/3 of the RA no longer wanted the constitution to be supreme law, that's enough. We shouldn't be picking and choosing parts of the Constitution to be harder to amend, just because we think they're more important. This fully closes the loophole of being able to amend the BOR with 2/3 vote, and we should probably stop there.
Adopted, with minor changes.
You are probably right about Article 7 Clause 14.

I motion that the current proposal in the opening post(the old, spoilered drafts are not part of it), named Closing Legal Loopholes Amendment, should be put up to a vote in this Regional Assembly.
I second the motion.
 
Clean Land:
I motion that the current proposal in the opening post(the old, spoilered drafts are not part of it), named Closing Legal Loopholes Amendment, should be put up to a vote in this Regional Assembly.
This Bill is now in formal debate, during which it may still be edited. Formal debate will conclude in five days, after which a vote will be scheduled.
 
I'm still not a huge fan of the numerical reference to article 1.

Not sure how one could possibly get around that, except by combining articles 9 and 1 into one article.
 
Now that is a darn good idea. What would we call it though? And would it be Article One or Article Nine?

EDIT: How about this:
1. Article Nine of the Constitution is amended as follows:
Article Nine: Amendments
1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights, which may be amended by a three-quarters vote of the Regional Assembly.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend this clause and the preceding clause by a three-quarters vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may amend any other part of this Constitution by a two-thirds vote.
2. Article One of the Constitution is repealed.
3. Articles Two through Nine of the Constitution shall be renumbered One through Eight, respectively.
I use the terms "two-thirds vote" and "three-quarters vote" instead of "two-thirds majority vote" and "three-quarters majority vote" because I feel it makes it clearer that exactly 2/3 or 3/4 are sufficient to pass such amendments, as opposed to a vote that must exceed 2/3 or 3/4. They are also the terms used in Robert's Rules. It's not a deal breaker.
 
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)
 
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)
No vote on this proposal is currently scheduled.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Now that is a darn good idea. What would we call it though? And would it be Article One or Article Nine?

EDIT: How about this:
1. Article Nine of the Constitution is amended as follows:
Article Nine: Amendments
1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights, which may be amended by a three-quarters vote of the Regional Assembly.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend this clause and the preceding clause by a three-quarters vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may amend any other part of this Constitution by a two-thirds vote.
2. Article One of the Constitution is repealed.
3. Articles Two through Nine of the Constitution shall be renumbered One through Eight, respectively.
I use the terms "two-thirds vote" and "three-quarters vote" instead of "two-thirds majority vote" and "three-quarters majority vote" because I feel it makes it clearer that exactly 2/3 or 3/4 are sufficient to pass such amendments, as opposed to a vote that must exceed 2/3 or 3/4. They are also the terms used in Robert's Rules. It's not a deal breaker.
COE, do you think that I should change the text of the current proposal(currently in formal debate) to the text of the quoted proposal?
 
Clean Land:
COE, do you think that I should change the text of the current proposal(currently in formal debate) to the text of the quoted proposal?
If you're worried about editing the bill during formal debate invalidating it, don't worry, you are still free to do so without invalidating formal debate. That is, after all, what debate is for.

It's only when the vote is scheduled that editing the bill will cancel the scheduled vote.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I would favor the version I posted, yes. It's your bill though. You don't have to change it
Yes, but... I like your changes on this matter. I think your arguments are sound. I changed it.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Eluvatar:
I believe this proposal requires an omnibus clause.
How come? It only amends one document, the Constitution.

Yes, however this proposal amends a clause of the Constitution which I would argue must have an elevated level of support to amend, specifically this:

2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters majority vote.

I would argue that that clause must not be amended by less than a three-quarters majority. I believe this bill should make clear that it only passes if carried by that level of consensus.
 
Eluvatar:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Eluvatar:
I believe this proposal requires an omnibus clause.
How come? It only amends one document, the Constitution.

Yes, however this proposal amends a clause of the Constitution which I would argue must have an elevated level of support to amend, specifically this:

2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters majority vote.

I would argue that that clause must not be amended by less than a three-quarters majority. I believe this bill should make clear that it only passes if carried by that level of consensus.
No. I disagree with that. Intent aside, what's written must be applied. Currently, the Constitution may be modified on a 2/3rds vote per Article 9 Clause 1. The law does not currently provide for any exceptions as you've described. That's why the bill is necessary. Clause 2 of Article 9 is not the part of the Bill of Rights and therefore not subject to the 3/4ths rule. Potential impact and available workarounds are irrelevant.
 
I would argue in court that it cannot exist, that the intent of the text adopted should govern how we interpret it, et cetera.

However, assuming it does exist... why should we use the loophole we think should not exist in the process of making sure that it doesn't in the future?
 
Clean Land:
Closing Legal Loopholes Amendment:
1. Article Nine of the Constitution is amended as follows:
Article Nine: Amendments
1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights, which may be amended by a three-quarters vote of the Regional Assembly.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend this clause and the preceding clause by a three-quarters vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may amend any other part of this Constitution by a two-thirds vote.
2. Article One of the Constitution is repealed.
3. Articles Two through Nine of the Constitution shall be renumbered One through Eight, respectively.
4. No other part of this amendment may come into force if it has not been approved by a three-quarters majority in the Assembly.

Article 9. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution, with the exception of Article 9.2, Article 7.14 and Article 1, by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights, Article 1, Article 7.14 and Article 9.2 of this Constitution by a three-quarters majority vote.
Article 9. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution, with the exception of Article 9, by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights and Article 9 of this Constitution by a three-quarters majority vote.
 
Clean Land:
Clean Land:
Closing Legal Loopholes Amendment:
1. Article Nine of the Constitution is amended as follows:
Article Nine: Amendments
1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights, which may be amended by a three-quarters vote of the Regional Assembly.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend this clause and the preceding clause by a three-quarters vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may amend any other part of this Constitution by a two-thirds vote.
2. Article One of the Constitution is repealed.
3. Articles Two through Nine of the Constitution shall be renumbered One through Eight, respectively.
4. No other part of this amendment may come into force if it has not been approved by a three-quarters majority in the Assembly.

Article 9. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution, with the exception of Article 9.2, Article 7.14 and Article 1, by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights, Article 1, Article 7.14 and Article 9.2 of this Constitution by a three-quarters majority vote.
Article 9. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution, with the exception of Article 9, by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights and Article 9 of this Constitution by a three-quarters majority vote.
Why are you repealing article one of the Constitution?
 
Article 1 only has one clause, which under this bill would be moved to Article 9 (actually, Article 8 with renumbering), Clause 1 and combined with the process of amending the BoR.

It's not a very elegant solution as it moves the guarantee of rights to the Amendments article. I see how it avoids mentioning numbers, but this makes it more disorganized. Plus, there's just something about having the opening clause of the constitution be "All nations are guaranteed the rights..."

Also, what is clause 4 of the bill? If I'm reading it right, this bill would require 3/4ths approval to pass? Not a very clean way of wording it but I get what it's doing, I think.
 
That fourth part is absolutely not required. The constitution says it can be amended by a 2/3 vote. We're amending the constitution. End of story. There is no reason at all to add that.
 
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.




If keeping a separate article for the bill of rights is desirable, then instead of referring to it as "Article 1" in Article 9, we could refer to it as "the article regarding the Bill of Rights" or similarly.
 
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.




If keeping a separate article for the bill of rights is desirable, then instead of referring to it as "Article 1" in Article 9, we could refer to it as "the article regarding the Bill of Rights" or similarly.

In my opinion, there is no need for a seperate article.
 
If this article were to be become so important, shouldn't this be the new article one?
 
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.
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.
 
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.
That's the loophole this bill will be closing!! o_O

I wholeheartedly disagree with you that we cannot legally amend any part of the Constitution, as it currently stands, by 2/3 vote.

I also have some pretty strong concerns about the legality of a proposal to amend the Constitution that requires a higher threshold to be met. If less than 2/3 or more than 3/4 vote in favor, we'll be fine... but anything between 2/3 and 3/4 enters a legal gray area, because amending the Constitution takes only a 2/3 vote.

Clean Land, I strongly encourage you to remove that clause and keep this bill simple and clean.
 
It's only articles 1 and 9 that I don't think may appropriately be amended in certain ways without a 3/4 majority.

Granted this amendment would not have the effect of amending the bill of rights, so perhaps my concern is overblown.
 
Eluvatar:
It's only articles 1 and 9 that I don't think may appropriately be amended in certain ways without a 3/4 majority.

Granted this amendment would not have the effect of amending the bill of rights, so perhaps my concern is overblown.
So, in other words, you don't think the loophole we're trying to close exists?
 
Back
Top