SENATE ORDER 2015-2 CONSTITUTION ACT

SENATE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY UNION

SENATE ORDER 2015-2

Constitution Act
ARTICLE I: Preface
In recognition of the Constitution of the Union, and its possible ambiguities, this Parliament moves to strengthen the power of said document, while providing means of augmenting its power in the future.

ARTICLE II: Recognition
The Constitution is hereby recognized by this Parliament as the utmost code of law of the Union, the highest set of guidelines for the Government of the Union, and the superior representation of the Union’s principles.
We hereby vow to uphold the spirit of the Constitution in its entirety, while allowing for improvement of the clauses of said document.

ARTICLE III: Improvement and Amendment
Section A: Amendment and the Parliament
A: The Parliament and its Senators shall be the sole entities permitted to officially
propose a formal amendment to the Constitution.
B: An amendment must receive 3 Senator sponsors, including the author, in order to be
considered by the Legislature.
The Parliament shall execute “Voting Stage 1”, where the Senators will vote on a proposed Amendment.
A: An amendment will not advance to “Voting Stage 2” if it does not win the vote of ⅔
of the legislature, and will be considered rejected.
B: A rejected amendment may be reproposed at any time.
C: Shall the President choose to veto the Amendment, a re-vote may be called at the sole
discretion of the Prime Minister.
D: Shall the Prime Minister call a re-vote, Parliament will repeat “Voting Stage 1”. Shall
⅔ of the legislature vote again in favor of the Amendment, it will advance to “Voting
Stage 2” without interference by the President.
E: Shall the Prime Minister not call a re-vote, and since the Amendment has already
received enough votes to override a veto, the bill will advance to “Voting Stage 2”
without interference by the President.

Section B: Amendment and the People
A: The people shall retain the right to recommend an amendment to Parliament.
B: A formal recommendation must be expressed through a written petition with the
signatures of at least 20% of the population.
2) The people shall execute “Voting Stage 2”, where the people will vote on a proposed
Amendment.
3) A: An amendment will not advance to “Voting Stage 3” unless it receives the vote of ⅔
of the People, and will be considered rejected.
B: A rejected bill may be reproposed as per Article III, Section A, Subsection 3, Clause B
of this document.

Section C: Amendment and the Judiciary
The Minister of Jurisprudence (hereinafter MoJ) shall execute “Voting Stage 3”, where he shall determine the legality of the Amendment.
A: The MoJ will either affirm or deny the Amendment.
B: Shall the MoJ affirm the Amendment, it shall become accepted as law and recognized
by Parliament as per Article II of this document, and the Constitution will be updated
to reflect the Amendment.
C: Shall the MoJ deny the amendment, the Prime Minister may decide to revert the
Amendment to “Voting Stage 1”, however, if the Prime Minister does not within 48
hours of the MoJ’s decision, then the Amendment shall be treated as if it were
affirmed.

ARTICLE IV: Conclusion
We, the Parliament of the Union, hereby enact this document and its provisions as law.


October 25, 2015
Libertarian Democracy
The Kingdom of Stornland, Senator

Simplified process: (brackets denote optional)
[Petition to amend constitution (signature of 20% of population) submitted as recommendation to Parliament]
Senator proposes amendment with two other Senator Sponsors
Senate votes. If less than 2/3 vote for the amendment, it is rejected, but can be re-proposed.
[President vetoes; Prime Minister decides if re-vote necessary, since 2/3 is required for the amendment to hit the president's desk]
People vote. If less than 2/3 vote for the amendment, it is rejected, but can be re-proposed.
Minister of Jurisprudence affirms or denies amendment. If affirmed, it becomes official. If denied, the PM may choose to send it back to Parliament. If the PM does not, the amendment becomes official.

Abdoa supports this bill in its entirety. We would just like to clarify that, technically, the President's veto and the denial of the MoJ are really in this case just recommendations to the PM that can be rejected by the latter and/or by parliament.

The way this bill is written makes for there to be no way for anyone to stop a proposed amendment. The only way a amendment can be struck down is in a vote. Perhaps the veto can be sent to the Cabinet for a vote, requiring a majority of Cabinet members, including the PM.
Following a denial by the MoJ, the amendment can be sent to the PM, President and Founder for a vote to overrule the MoJ.

Just some thoughts.

We both agree and disagree with the Right Honorable Founder Aralunya. We agree that an amendment should have at least one or two members of the Executive backing it (perhaps the PM and/or the President) before it can be considered. However we find that the Executive branch should have no veto power, just the power to support or condemn, and advise. We find that the Executive, being comprised of only 2 elected members (the President and PM) to 5 non-elected (the Founder and the Cabinet) is unable to as a whole constitutionally overrule the decision of either a fully elected body or the membership of this Union itself.

The original intentions of the proposal were to allow for amendments to be passed by the two most important institutions: the legislature, and the people.  I added the Veto clauses because there could be important inaccuracies or potentially dangerous clauses overlooked by others.  It is a chance to allow for reconsideration of an amendment by the Parliament and/or the People.  It is not intended to give one or two nations the power nullify a majority vote of the people.

I guess, what I'm saying here, is that the vetoes of the Pres and MoJ are not to kill and amendment, but rather, to allow a review of the amendment so it can be improved upon.  If the PM determines that there is not enough merit to the President's or MoJ's arguments, then the amendment moves on.

EDIT: Also, after re-reading the Founder's post, I want to clarify that the proposal is not meant to allow for any one person to be able to stop the bill; the only bodies authorized to do so are the Senate and the People.

Abdoa formally supports this legislation in its entirety.

We would also like to request that the Right Honorable Prime Minister set an explicit time limit on the debate on this bill.

Stornland supports the proposal in its entirety.

This proposal has been on the floor for three days, and no amendments have been proposed. May I ask when voting will take place?

Apologies for the delay, friends. Voting will begin on this bill immediately.