Re: Extraordinary Constitutional Convention 2017

by Hashkin Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:19 pm

Libertarian Democracy wrote:I stand against this proposal. I do not think the Founder should have the authority to dismiss Cabinet members. The Prime Minister is perfectly competent in that respect.

I agree

by Abdoa Tue Sep 26, 2017 2:59 am

I also concur.

by Aralunya Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:23 am

Agreed

by **Libertarian Democracy** Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:30 am

I hereby move to suspend debate.

by Abdoa Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:31 am

Supported.

by Aralunya Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:22 pm

I second the motion.

by **Libertarian Democracy** Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:30 am

Debate time for SO#2017-21 has expired. We will now begin debate on the next item.

SO#2016-12 ("The Region’s Administrative Branch 2016")
Initial Proposal: July 6, 2016; Senator Nassau-Windsor, Fifth Parliament

TEXT:

by **Libertarian Democracy** Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:15 am

Lots to say here. Lots of Amendments to propose.

The Founder should have no right to decide what Acts of Parliament they have to follow. It is the sole role of the President to give assent.
Amendment I: In Article 6, in the proposed V.3.1, the phrase "approved by the Founder as such" shall be stricken.

Parliament should be the most supreme regulatory body regarding the administrative functions. Just as Parliament can override a Cabinet regulation, it must be able to exercise basic powers over the Administrative Branch.
Amendment II: In Article 6, in the proposed V.3.5, the phrase "subject to the regulation of the Parliament" shall be appended.
Amendment III: In Article 7, in the proposed V.4, the phrase "subject to the supercession of Parliament" shall be inserted after the phrase "he is entitled to update and regulate them."
Amendment IV: In Article 9, in the proposed V.6, all text after the phrase "Executive Branch" shall be stricken.

Article 8 of this Act, as written, would effectively deny all judicial rights to an accused. However, it must be recognized that summary action is necessary to immediately stop a spammer. So this next set of Amendments will make a compromise that will satisfy both needs.
Amendment V: In Article 8, in the proposed V.5.2, the phrase "within the Administrative Branch" shall be appended.
Amendment VI: In Article 8, the following shall be added to the proposed V.5:
"Subsection 3: Nations may appeal any ejection or ban made under this Section to the relevant judicial authorities. This shall be done by filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Speaker of Parliament. The Speaker of Parliament will then issue public notice that the Ministry of Jurisprudence shall have fourteen (14) days to file charges or the ban will be automatically lifted."

In order to retain full democracy, the People must be able to vote on Constitutional Amendments directly.
Amendment VII: In Article 10, in the proposed V.7.1, the following phrase "except Constitutional Amendments" shall be appended.

I strongly believe that no officeholder should be their own oversight.
Amendment VIII: In Article 14, in the proposed V.11.1, the phrase "created and published by the Founder" shall be replaced by the phrase "created and published by the Parliament".

I also believe that Parliament and the Courts should be the bodies determining punishments, not the Founder. So this Amendment should only exclude punishments that would not be logistically possible.
Amendment XI: In Article 20, the proposed V.17 shall be replaced by the following text:
"Because of his administrative role, the Judicial System may not punish the Founder in such a way that he is required to remove his nation from the Region, nor may they issue any punishment that would prevent the Founder from exercising his out-of-character powers under this Article."

by **Nassau-Windsor** Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:05 am

[Placeholder for comments.]

by **Libertarian Democracy** Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:38 am

Debate time for SO#2016-12 has expired. We will now begin debate on the next item. Due to my lateness in doing this, I have pushed all further items one day back to allow for adequate debate time.

SO#2017-64 ("The 2017 Constitutional Amendment Act on the Administrative Branch")
Initial Proposal: August 25, 2017; Senator Nassau-Windsor, Tenth Parliament

TEXT:

Also, to my Honourable Friend Nassau-Windsor, as per the rules of this Convention set forth by the law that authorized it, debate time has expired for the previous item. Therefore, I ask that you not post comments in your reserved post. It would be unfair to the other Delegates who cannot respond to it since we have moved on. I hope you understand.

by **Libertarian Democracy** Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:41 am

I do not find this proposal to be substantially different from the previous. I therefore table a Motion to Suspend Debate.

by CR Lhistonia Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:22 am

I second the motion

by Aralunya Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:04 am

I sustain the motion.

by Abdoa Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:26 am

I oppose the last two constitutional amendments on the grounds that a) they would make about half of the Constitution's text be about the Founder, in way too much detail for that which is allocated to the other branches, and b) I don't think the Founder should be considered separate from the other current executive officers (Pres and PM), because they all have OOC functions that have to do with administration - even the Parliament has a lot of administrative authority - and I don't think that we can afford to just lock off that entire policy area and give it indefinitely to the Founder.

With that, I sustain the motion.

by **Libertarian Democracy** Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:28 pm

Debate on SO#2017-64 is hereby suspended. We will now begin debate on the next item.

"Vice President Amendment"
Initial Proposal: Sept. 13, 2017; Parliament Delegate Lhistonia, First Extraordinary Constitutional Convention

Please note that this proposal has been modified by the Chair to conform to legislative standards. None of the content was altered. The original version may be accessed here.

TEXT:

by **Libertarian Democracy** Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:36 pm

I think this is a pretty solid amendment, and Presidential inactivity has historically been a problem we've never really had a solution for other than the serious, time-consuming process of impeachment. There is only one amendment I have to offer, which really regards move of the spirit of this legislation:

Amendment I: In Article II, Clause 2, the proposed Article III, Section D shall read, "The Vice President shall serve as deputy to the President". None of the proposed subsections shall be altered.

by Abdoa Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:42 pm

I also support this amendment and the Amendment thereof.

I move to suspend debate.

by Aralunya Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:58 pm

I support the Amendment and the amendment to the amendment.

I second the motion

by **Libertarian Democracy** Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:22 pm

I also second the motion.

by **Libertarian Democracy** Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:21 am

The draft proposals and the relevant amendments have been submitted to the Chairpersons of the Parliamentary Committees. The Laws this Convention is bound to follow mandate that there shall be 21 days allocated for Committee Review before they submit their reports. I do not want to begin any voting procedures before those reports are submitted. As such, once debate on the current (final) item has concluded, this body shall be suspended. We will reconvene on November 1st to debate for fifteen days the reports from the Committees, then we will begin the voting process.

by **Libertarian Democracy** Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:00 am

Debate time for the Parliament Delegate's proposal has expired. As I previously announced, I do hereby suspend this Extraordinary Constitutional Convention until further notice.

by **Libertarian Democracy** Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:16 am

At this time, the Parliamentary Committee Chairs are invited to post their reports in this thread. To the Delegates, please wait until I formally reconvene the ECC before you post in this thread.

by **Libertarian Democracy** Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:18 am

Delegates of the First Extraordinary Constitutional Convention,

Over the course of fourteen days, the Development Committee of the Parliament of the Union discussed and debated the various proposals we were sent, as mandated by Article 12 of SO#2017-63 (“Motion to Convene an Extraordinary Constitutional Convention”). This report, compiled by the Chairman of our Committee, details the committee’s findings. Each proposal was analyzed and given one of three classifications based on how it would likely affect regional development and activity: Negative Effects, Positive Effects, or No Significant Effects. In short, our determinations are as follows:

SO#2015-07 (“Deputy Prime Minister Act”): No Significant Effects
SO#2015-11 (“Reducing Constitutional Ambiguity”) & Amendments: No Significant Effects
SO#2016-09 (“Ending Limitations on Debate Numbers”): No Significant Effects
SO#2017-21 (“Joint Appointment of the Minister of Jurisprudence Act”): No Significant Effects
SO#2016-12 (“The Region’s Administrative Branch 2016”) & Amendments: Negative Effects
SO#2017-64 (“The 2017 Constitutional Amendment Act on the Administrative Branch”): Negative Effects
“Vice President Amendment”: No Significant Effects

Below are the complete positions adopted by the Committee Members:

SO#2015-07:
This proposal, if passed, would have any significant effect on regional activity. It creates a new position in the legislature, however that could only be filled by a sitting Senator. A similar position already exists: the Speaker pro Tempore of Parliament. If that position did not already exist, the argument could be made that this amendment would affect regional activity be keeping Parliament up and running when the PM goes inactive. However, being that this amendment would merely enshrine a piece of existing procedure in the Constitution and would not significantly affect regional activity.

SO#2015-11 & Amendments:
This proposal would have no significant effects on regional activity and development. While it does narrow some of the provisions of the Constitution, it would in all likeliness not change the status quo. This proposal simply does not address topics that would impact the citizens' engagement.

SO#2016-09:
This proposal would not have a significant effect on development. It is a mere Parliamentary procedure proposal and while it could increase the legislative output, the number of bills in the Legislative Archive does not directly lead to more regional activity - it would depend on the content of those bills.

SO#2017-21:
This proposal would not have a significant effect on development. While it could potentially complicate or delay the appointment of the MoJ, or even lead to prolonged vacancies, such situations would likely be very rare.

SO#2016-12 & Amendments & SO#2017-64:
These proposals would carry negative effects for regional activity. While they do allow for the Founder to appoint administrative officials, the Founder is still fairly inactive as shown by the failure to execute most of the administrative provisions of the DISCORD Act a full three months after its assent. In addition, these proposals do not address previous legislation. If enacted, these proposals could void dozens of Acts, including development-focused Acts. These proposals would harm our regional development, and it is imperative that they are not enacted.

“Vice President Amendment”:
This proposal would have No Significant Effects. It simply addresses the issue of potential Presidential inactivity, and would not affect many members of the Union at all. It does open another position in the government, however just one. It therefore would not in any major way affect the regional development or general activity.
This proposal was drafted not with the objective of development, but to prevent the bill approval process being blocked by the President being inactive. It's more of a security measure.

A copy of this report will be posted in the Development Committee subforum. Upon the submission of this report to the First extraordinary Constitutional Convention, the Committee inquiry into these proposed amendments is officially concluded.

October 30th, 2017
The Right Honourable Minister of Jurisprudence Libertarian Democracy, RO MP LSM GSM, Chair of the Development Committee of the Parliament of the Union and Chair of the First Extraordinary Constitutional Convention.

by Abdoa Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:26 am

Delegates to the First Extraordinary Constitutional Convention, the Rules Committee hereby submits a report based on committee evaluation of the various proposals put to you and their effects on the functioning of Parliament and its divisions, as follows:

SO#2015-07: Unfavorable Recommendation
This proposal would both create confusion and possibly a constitutional crisis in the event that a Prime Minister delegates his authority to the Act of Parliament-created position of Speaker pro tempore of Parliament - which this proposal would not eliminate - and then goes inactive for more than two days. A Deputy Prime Minister would then have to be elected, but would have no powers to do anything.

SO#2015-11: Favorable Recommendation
Amendments: Favorable Recommendation
This amendment, along with the amendments thereto, would pose no significant problems to the Parliamentary Process.

SO#2016-09: Unfavorable Recommendation
This amendment would render obsolete or redundant several sections of the Parliamentary Procedure Orders, including those providing for Motions to Pass to a Vote and those organizing the order in which bills go to the Debate Hall.

SO#2017-21: No Recommendation
This proposal was a response to the accumulation of powers by the MoJ that have a huge potential for abuse if put in the wrong hands: however, giving the Founder - an unelected position - veto power over a member of Cabinet is rather abrupt and ultimately makes little difference in the risk. However, the proposal would have no effect on the Parliamentary Process.

SO#2016-12: Unfavorable Recommendation
Amendments: No Recommendation
SO#2017-64: Unfavorable Recommendation
The passing of either of these amendment, with or without the amendments to SO#2016-12, would cause rampant confusion as to the status of various laws passed by Parliament, either invalidating them, or calling their applicability into question. This means that the Parliament would have to move extremely quickly to safeguard many laws that are essential to the preservation and prosperity of the Union against possible invalidation due to procedural conflicts with the new Constitution: this might not be possible in entirety, and would certainly place an undue burden on the Parliament's schedule.

Vice-President Amendment: Favorable Recommendation
This amendment would have little impact on the Parliamentary process and other processes in the Union bureaucracy, other than assuring to a greater extent that bills will be considered promptly by the President or Vice-President upon passage through Parliament.

by Aralunya Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:51 am

Delegates,

The following is the Report on the Proposed Amendments from the Management Committee, submitted by the Chair of said Committee:

SO#2015-11: Reducing Constitutional Ambiguity
Reported Favorably:
It is the view of the Committee that this Amendment will greatly aid in the organization and functionality of Our Government. Reducing some of the ambiguity in our Constitution can greatly clarify the jurisdictions and prerogatives of of Government Members.

SO#2015-17: Deputy Prime Minister Act
Reported Unfavorably:
It is the view of the Committee that this Amendment will only hinder the efficiency of Government, especially with the creation of the Office of Speaker Pro Tempore. The clashing jurisdictions will weaken the organization of the Parliament, the heart of our Regional Union.

SO#2016-09: End Limitations on Debate Numbers
Reported Unfavorably:
It is the view of the Committee that this Amendment could be very good, with proper implementation. It is the suggestion of the Committee to raise the Limit in the Constitution without completely removing it.

SO#2017-21: Joint Appointment of the Minister of Jurisprudence
Reported Unfavorably:
It is the view of the Committee that this Amendment will hinder the organization and efficiency of the Regional Government and greatly enlarge the powers of the Founder, even if the powers being vested already exist in other bodies of our Region.

SO#2016-12
Reported Unfavorably:
It is the view of the Committee that this Amendment not aid in the efficiency and organization of the Government. This Proposal devotes a massive section of the Constitution to defining an Administrative Branch when the same can, and should, be done through Legislation by the Parliament.

Vice-Presidential Amendment
Reported Favorably:
It is the view of the Committee that this Amendment will greatly aid in the organization and functionality of Our Government. Counting the times Legislation and other other duties have been hindered by an inactive President, We see it as imperative the we close this loophole to aid in the functionality of our Government.

With Respect,

Aralunya
Leader of Parliament
Chair, Management Committee

by Sponsored content