Closing Legal Loopholes *Properly* Amendment

Sil Dorsett

Sil Dorsett

The Belt Collector
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
sil_dorsett
Discord
sildorsett
Bill of Rights Loophole Removal Amendment:
Article 9: Amendments
1. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights, its application, or the process of making such amendments by a three-quarters majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may otherwise amend this Constitution by a two-thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...

Adopting Eluvatar's wording, this is similar to Clean Land's "Closing Legal Loopholes Amendment" except it doesn't repeal Article 1 to do it. The effect is the same. The threshold for amending the threshold for amending the Bill of Rights is now 3/4ths instead of 2/3rds.

Closing Legal Loopholes Amendment:
Article Nine of the Constitution is amended as follows:
Article Nine: Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights and this clause by a three-quarters majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Constitution except for the preceding clause by a two-thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
A more elegant way of accomplishing what Clean Land had in mind before it was rammed through the gates to the RA voting floor.

Thoughts?
 
and we're back to the debate over whether the Bill of Rights is self executing or not. besides, the old version is failing spectacularly and I presume it's because Article 1 was touched. what's the chance of the RA voting twice to change it knowing that any sane delegate would veto the first attempt?
 
The main reason that the Bill of Rights is a separate document, as I understand it, is that it is intended to outlast any particular constitution we adopt. The rights it enshrines are universal and inalienable, and so it should be beyond the constitution (which, up until 2007, was a fairly transient document).

I submit that it is time to recognize that our current constitution is the permanent law of the land, and there will be no more constitutional conventions. As such, it is appropriate that we re-combine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I suggest that we adopt the Bill of Rights as a new article, and include the threshold for amendment at the beginning of that article (e.g. "This article may only be amended by a three quarters vote of the Regional Assembly.") That, in my view, is the most elegant solution.
 
Sil Dorsett:
what's the chance of the RA voting twice to change it knowing that any sane delegate would veto the first attempt?
Click to expand...
Just noting that the Delegate can veto legal amendments. Keyword legal, referring to the Legal Code, not constitutional amendments which refer to the Constitution.
 
I think that as the development of the Bill of Rights has been separated from the development of the Constitution, and as it has different style and structure, and as it has a different role, they need not be merged together.

How about language like this:

Article 9: Amendments
1. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights, its application, or the process of making such amendments by a three-quarters majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may otherwise amend this Constitution by a two thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...
 
I've adopted Eluvatar's language and changed the name of the bill to "Bill of Rights Loophole Removal Amendment" for when it goes to vote. Elu's version is much nicer than what I came up with.

Also, Darc, thanks for correcting me. Learn something new with every post.
 
Does anyone have a better idea for the word to use than "application"?

It's meant to describe the actual application of the Bill of Rights to be a law of the land.
 
Eluvatar:
Does anyone have a better idea for the word to use than "application"?

It's meant to describe the actual application of the Bill of Rights to be a law of the land.
Click to expand...
I think it’s better to say either implementation or enactment
 
Administration, authority, enforcement, execution or jurisdiction are some alternatives I can think of.
 
I don't like "application" - I think to someone new, it would have to be explained to be understood. I also don't think there's any suitable one-word substitute.
 
I'm not interested in continuing this bill. If someone else wants to pick it up they can, but I motion to remove it from the floor. I have bigger fish to fry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top