|
|
Post by Vladovaskia on Feb 25, 2015 0:40:04 GMT
AS Chief Justice, I feel it is my duty to reform and protect the Commonwealth in terms of legality and justice, ACKNOWLEDGING that the Constitution does not have a steady system of amending, and that the "liquid" Constitution we now have evaporates what legality our own Constitution has to stand as a constitution itself, HEREBY proposing that we enforce a final stamp upon the Constitution, protecting it from mishaps and mishandling, UPON this final stamp the Constitution may only be amended by: A 60% or above majority as found by a public Referendum, able to be cast by any Resident; A 4/6 Cabinet approval, with open votes as to where citizens may see what the representatives vote for; AND the approval of Either, the Chief Justice or Chancellor, and Lord-Chancellor: WITH that stated, we now must address the issue that all laws are considered part of the Constitution due to the "liquid" clause, STATING that only those words which we have recorded in these documents; www.nationstates.net/nation=the_lord-chancellor/detail=factbook/id=309118www.nationstates.net/nation=vladovaskia/detail=factbook/id=300599AND those words in these documents which are labeled "Constitution" shall hereforth be known as the Commonwealth Constitution, SEEING that all laws not directly worded in the Constitution paragraphs will now fall under the Commonwealth Law Code, a system fully changeable by Parliament and the proper authorities, as long as such laws fall under the acceptability of the Commonwealth Constitution, leaving acceptability to be judged by the Supreme Court, FEELING the need to ensure understanding and the ability to compare and protect that no ill deed is done, the Constitution must be stored in at least 2 (two) separate copies, managed by 2 (two) separate citizens at all times, THE wording of these copies must remain the same, with due time allowed for the respective owners to update whenever a proper amendment is passed, ACKNOWLEDGING that a Mr. Unfallious currently hosts a Constitutional amendment in Parliament, not under the aforementioned guidelines, STATING that if Mr. Unfallious' amendment is to pass, it shall be duly added, exempt from these guidelines, VERIFYING that this law itself will be a full and embodied article of the Constitution if passed. ~Authored by Vladovaskia |
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Feb 25, 2015 1:02:45 GMT
This just seems like an unnecessary measure. Why must we have referendum for a constitutional amendment?
I understand the cabinet vote, for extra security. I do not understand why we need a referendum for every amendment. It seems unnecessary and something that lengthens the process of passing amendments.
Under the current circumstances I have no other choice but to denounce this bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vladovaskia on Feb 25, 2015 2:26:23 GMT
This just seems like an unnecessary measure. Why must we have referendum for a constitutional amendment? I understand the cabinet vote, for extra security. I do not understand why we need a referendum for every amendment. It seems unnecessary and something that lengthens the process of passing amendments. Under the current circumstances I have no other choice but to denounce this bill. Because it's an amendment. It's not your simple everyday law. The US has Congress and the States themselves combined decide if amendments are passed or not. In this situation, we are having our normal legislative process, PLUS a referendum (the States in this situation), which only takes 3 days (I believe), as it is outlined in the Constitution how referenda work. Under this system, it actually takes less time than a normal bill for an amendment to pass. Granted, I would hope more debate than that would take place, but the lifespan of a bill is 7 days, an amendment only has to last 3. Also, to clarify amendments, they are things that should rarely happen. The bill you have, that's a proper amendment. Creating a detention center, the Democratic Games or whatever, etc. Those are simply laws. The problem with our Constitution was that it wasn't a Constitution. Constitutions don't change every week. They're near static doctrines to protect the ideas and lifestyle of our region. That can't happen if every single bill that gets passed changes the Constitution (which it legally did), and most of the time those bills were contradicting of the Constitution. With this new activity in Parliament we're down to be heading down a self-destructive and unorganized, bureaucratic mess, which will probably lead to more than one massive change in our entire system (ie: NGA -> CFN). This bill is an effort to begin repairing ourself, and as I see this game should be, working in a legal area with actual matters of legality, rather than simply passing mindless bills. As well, I'd just like to point out that I did make your bill exempt, as it was proposed prior to mine, so I won't force you anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Markotovia on Feb 25, 2015 13:36:19 GMT
I do not believe the referendum must have a 60% approval, I believe in having a referendum, but it should only be a 51% majority.
Until changed, I DENOUNCE this bill
|
|
|
|
Post by Vladovaskia on Feb 25, 2015 16:23:33 GMT
I do not believe the referendum must have a 60% approval, I believe in having a referendum, but it should only be a 51% majority. Until changed, I DENOUNCE this bill Once again, amendments are a bit more serious than the average bill. In the US, an amendment requires like 75% approval. Also, I believe in 60%, as let's take the recent Scottish referendum for example. If it were to pass with 51 or 52%, that's still 48% of the country that doesn't agree or like the new path. We can't just allow tyranny by majority. Democracy exists to cater to the needs of all. |
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major on Feb 25, 2015 19:38:40 GMT
ENDORSED
HOWEVER, I suggest 1) "Either the Chief Justice, Chancellor and Lord-Chancellor:
", the Constitution must be stored in at least 2 (two) separate copies, managed by 2 (two) separate citizens at all times (to be appointed by the Minister of Justice and approved of by the Chief Justice),"
|
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Feb 25, 2015 20:21:43 GMT
I do not believe the referendum must have a 60% approval, I believe in having a referendum, but it should only be a 51% majority. Until changed, I DENOUNCE this bill Once again, amendments are a bit more serious than the average bill. In the US, an amendment requires like 75% approval. Also, I believe in 60%, as let's take the recent Scottish referendum for example. If it were to pass with 51 or 52%, that's still 48% of the country that doesn't agree or like the new path. We can't just allow tyranny by majority. Democracy exists to cater to the needs of all. The Scottish referendum was No by 55%. |
|
|
|
Post by Markotovia on Feb 25, 2015 20:30:19 GMT
I do not believe the referendum must have a 60% approval, I believe in having a referendum, but it should only be a 51% majority. Until changed, I DENOUNCE this bill Once again, amendments are a bit more serious than the average bill. In the US, an amendment requires like 75% approval. Also, I believe in 60%, as let's take the recent Scottish referendum for example. If it were to pass with 51 or 52%, that's still 48% of the country that doesn't agree or like the new path. We can't just allow tyranny by majority. Democracy exists to cater to the needs of all. Very well, I see your point. I officially ENDORSE this bill |
|
|
|
Post by COLDR on Feb 25, 2015 21:46:26 GMT
I endorse this
|
|
|
|
Post by Vladovaskia on Feb 25, 2015 22:00:40 GMT
ENDORSEDHOWEVER, I suggest 1) "Either the Chief Justice, Chancellor and Lord-Chancellor:", the Constitution must be stored in at least 2 (two) separate copies, managed by 2 (two) separate citizens at all times (to be appointed by the Minister of Justice and approved of by the Chief Justice)," I see your first point, and I will make that change, however, for the second one, I feel it is too bureaucratic, and currently Silver and I hold the two copies. Any citizen could take the responsibility, and I'd rather not make it a bureaucratic measure such as what you suggest, but I promise I will include a clause to ensure that the Lord-Chancellor and Chief Justice hold copies in my next bill, which will focus on stabilizing the Judicial Branch. The Scottish referendum was No by 55%. I was only making a theoretical example, and in that case, would it have been wrong for them to hold a revote until they could reach 60% to one side? 60% is still iffy, but the line has to be somewhere, and I'd rather not be in the 50's, as that's where civil wars begin. (No, I'm not implying Scotland will delve into civil war, but those are the type of issues that normally spawn such actions) |
|
Ruclax
Court Administrator
Posts: 328 
WA Member: Yes
CFN Political Party: Liberal Party
|
Post by Ruclax on Feb 26, 2015 1:07:55 GMT
Endorsed.
|
|
|
|
Post by AOS on Feb 26, 2015 6:07:37 GMT
Denounced. Unless you lower it 51% for the referendum, I will not support it. Also, reducing Cabinet control in these matters is highly preferred.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major on Feb 26, 2015 20:44:18 GMT
Denounced. Unless you lower it 51% for the referendum, I will not support it. Also, reducing Cabinet control in these matters is highly preferred. I'm sorry AOS, but Vlad is right. 51% is a bit too low a number to be acceptable. A slight majority overriding a strong minority leads to great strife. Anything in the 65-75% range is acceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by Everestopia on Feb 27, 2015 0:07:05 GMT
I hereby ENDORSE this bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vladovaskia on Feb 27, 2015 23:11:48 GMT
Changes made, Vista. Also, yes, 51% seems dangerous. Look at science, humans naturally oppose change. Yes, there may be some of us who feel the need to say "no I don't," but yes, the vast majority of us would rather sit in a little pain than risk freedom or major pain. If we don't have more than a majority on an issue as big as an amendment, it will fall apart and be a scar upon the region. The US requires 75% of Congress and the States to pass an amendment. Food for thought.
|
|
