|
|
Post by Vista Major on Aug 12, 2015 20:41:38 GMT
The Constitutional Convention Act
A resolution to prevent the Constitution and Law Codes from becoming archaic and detrimental to the operation of the Commonwealth
Author: Vista Major
Date: August 12th 2015 AD
PREAMBLE
This Parliament stands in recognition of the ultimate authority of the Constitution, as well as the power of the Law Codes. However, it is observed by this resolution that many changes to the Constitution and Law Code are reactionary rather than proactive. Therefore, a period should be established in which a full-scale review of all laws of the Commonwealth takes place and appropriate changes are made.
Article I
Every four (4) months, the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Free Nations shall host a constitutional convention to review and make desired changes to the Constitution and standing laws in the region, including full repeal of laws. The constitutional convention shall be hosted and managed jointly by the Speaker of Parliament, Chancellor and Chief Justice. However, amendments can still be made during the times in-between.
Article II
The constitutional convention is open to all Members of Parliament and all minister of the Cabinet. However, those who do not properly register to attend the constitutional convention by the last day of reservations may be barred from attending and/or voting on the floor, at the discretion of the Chief Justice.
Article III
During the constitutional convention, the Speaker of Parliament shall introduce every standing constitutional article and law of the Commonwealth in chronological order, from oldest law to youngest. The Speaker of Parliament shall, after introducing a law to the floor, ask for a debate and vote on a law. If a Member of Parliament calls for a vote and debate (and such movement is approved by the Chancellor), then the following procedure shall be followed in numerical order:
1) The floor is opened to the Parliament. Members of Parliament shall introduce amendments to the law, repeals to the law, move to repeal the entire law, or move to leave the law alone. This period of floor debate shall last a maximum of 20 minutes.
2) After the debate period, all amendments, repeals and movements that have not been formally abandoned shall be voted upon. If a vote receives simple-majority of 51%-65%, it is passed to the Chancellor to be either signed or vetoed. Should a vote be vetoed, it must receive a supermajority to be passed into law. If a vote receives a supermajority of 66% or more, it shall automatically be signed into law. If a vote receives 50% or less, it is rendered null and void.
If no call for debate and vote is pronounced after a 3 minute waiting period, the law shall be left alone, and the next law shall be introduced to the floor.
Article IV
The Chief Justice shall preside over the constitutional convention and ensure that any passed amendments do not violate standing law without clauses to bypass or nullify and such violations. Should a passed amendment be in unjustified violation of standing law, the Chief Justice is permitted to nullify the amendment.
Article V
During the constitutional convention, no original legislation (ie, a completely new bill) should be brought to the floor for vote, unless approved of prior to the convention, at the discretion of the Speaker of Parliament.
Article VI
It is the responsibility of the Speaker of Parliament, Chancellor and Chief Justice to cooperate with the Parliament to schedule a time to host the constitutional convention at which it conflicts with as few prior engagements as possible, NationStates-wise or in real-life, with real-life engagements given priority over NationStates engagements.
Article VII
If the supermajority (65%) of Parliament decides to bypass a constitutional convention, it shall be postponed until the next 3-month period passes., or until Parliament calls for a convention.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major on Aug 12, 2015 20:42:03 GMT
ENDORSEMENTS
DENOUNCEMENTS
|
|
|
|
Post by Ehrereich on Aug 13, 2015 0:46:14 GMT
Denounced.
This legislation chiefly ignores the need for continuity of law and action.
Even with the provision of a supermajority override of the need for a constitutional convention, it would call a completely needless vote. If legislation needs to be changed, change it through the spelled out formats, instead of wasting time with a blank slate every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major on Aug 14, 2015 16:05:44 GMT
I denounce this bill. Article I: There is no reason to limit the period during which amendments can take place. If constitutional changes are necessary, telling the citizenry that they have to wait up to four months to enact said change downright epitomizes the problem with this manner of procedural expansion. This will produce needless delays on our democratic process. Article II: This is restrictive. I will not support these continued efforts to restrict political participation in this region. Right now, every citizen may participate at anytime. This is how it should remain. Also, do you not see how inappropriate it is to bestow the power of legislative restriction with the judiciary? There's a reason these two branches of government are kept separate. Article III: This requires all of Parliament to make a snap judgement on an amendment within 20 minutes if just a single MP raises an issue with a section of the constitution. The fact that your preamble states that this bill should curb reactionary responses in favour of proactive ones would mean that we're experiencing more than a mild case of irony right about here. You want to delay change? Tell people they only have 20 minutes to think of something better and agree on it Article IV: You are again merging the duties of the judicial and legislative branches of government. Judicial review is judicial review; it shouldn't come in the form of a veto on Parliament's power to even consider the amendment. Article V: So, this convention can also act as our legislative chamber for select non-constitution related bills, as long as the Speaker agrees? What?! Why should it function as such at all? Article VI: Again, this will lead to restriction. Right now there is a long voting period for amendments that allow those from different time zones and with real life conflicts to still participate. This is how it should remain. 1) This amendment in no way makes it illegal to make an amendment in-between the 4 months. This is just a time where we can get everything we desire done in at once. I added a sentence to clarify that. 2) This article would ensure that everyone who attends sees everything done beforehand. It wouldn't be advantageous for someone to come in when we're almost done and likely miss out on important decisions made. And I placed such discretion with the Chief Justice because he/she is independent, and thus does not and cannot hold bias, irrationally barring citizens because they are of a different party (as the Chancellor or Speaker would be at liberty to do) 3) They would obviously be told of the convention beforehand, giving them plenty of time to write proposals before the meeting. I would be happy to extend or eliminate the time, but I simply added it for the above assumption and ensure the convention isn't tediously long. 4) If an amendment is unconstitutional, especially without reason, the Chief Justice should be within his/her authority to remove it. I do believe it has been done before. 5) Priority is given to amendments, of course. But, if one requests it, they can ask the Speaker to propose an original bill. If this is somehow wrong to you, again, I'd be willing to remove it. 6) See #1. They can still seek their own actions if they cannot attend. The Chancellor, Speaker and Chief Justice will make every effort to make sure everyone can attend. |
|
|
|
Post by Jaslandia on Aug 14, 2015 21:31:07 GMT
I hereby denounce this bill. I see no need for regular constitutional conventions when amendments and law changes can already be proposed at anytime.
|
|
