|
Emperor: Vulturret[NS] Prince of the First Rank: Sithis[NS] Imperial Council: Grand Councillor: Madeline[NS] Internal Affairs: Xemt[NS] Communications: Vulturret[NS] World Assembly Affairs: Manson [NS] External Affairs: Samsonyte[NS] Citizens' Assembly Officials: Speaker: McMannia Whitehall[NS] Imperial Justiciars: Chief Justiciar: Aav VerinHall[NS] Associate Justiciar: Smith VerinGuard[NS] Associate Justiciar: Zaphkael[NS] Imperial War Command: Fleet Admiral: Scottie[NS] Admiral: Samsonyte[NS] Admiral: Sithis[NS] Admiral: McMannia Whitehall[NS] |
|
~ Diplomatic Application ~ ~ Armada Enlistment Application ~ ~ Discord Server ~ ~ The Constitution and Criminal Code ~ |
| Welcome to Ragerian Imperium. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Constitutional Amendment #1; An amendment to Article III of the Constitution. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 29 2018, 02:34 AM (428 Views) | |
| Caesar | Jun 29 2018, 02:34 AM Post #1 |
|
Deputy Grand Councillor
|
Constitutional Amendment #1 An amendment to Article III of the Constitution. Authored by: Assembly Member Caesar Emperor Emeritus Cognat I D'Vhakk Proposed by: Assembly Member Caesar Foreword The purpose of this proposal to the members of the Assembly is to amend and re-enact the sections and provisions under Article III of the Constitution currently titled "The Citizens' Assembly". All additions and subtractions from the original sections and provisions of this Article are subject to change if given a legitimate reason on the Assembly Floor. Article III of the Constitution of The Ragerian Imperium shall be amended to read as such, be it enacted by the legislature of the region: ARTICLE III -
Additional Information Under current law, the Legislature is too specified in what sorts of legislation they are deemed to propose as evident in Sections 2 through 5. New law enacts that the Legislature, both Assembly and Senate, will have the power to legislate whatever they will be it acts of war, crimes and punishments, citizenship regulations, etc. Under current law, the Assembly is the only legislative body in the region. New law enacts that there shall now be an elected body of citizens known as the Senate. The system intended to be created through the Senate is one of checks and balances instead of legislative hierarchy. Instead of a bill going in a linear direction from Assembly to Senate to Sovereign, or from Senate to Sovereign, the bill will go in an nonlinear direction. New Law enacts the system that if the Assembly passes a bill, it then goes to the Senate who then vote on it and deliver it to the Sovereign among passing. New law also enacts that if a bill is started in the Senate, it is to pass a vote in the Assembly in the same manner as previously stated. Under current law, there is no set system determining the fate of a bill that fails assent. New law enacts that if a bill is denied assent, it is sent back to the house that delivered it, be it the Assembly or the Senate, for revisions and another vote. This does not conflict with the provisions of Section 5 in Article 1 of the Constitution which states that bills that fail assent can be "either" thrown away "or" rewritten. New law establishes the way legislation is to be rewritten so as to save potential bills that could prove useful in the future. Under current law, there are standard electoral procedures determining the election of Speakers for the Assembly and the Senate. New law enacts and upholds this standard procedure and leaves open any additional form of electoral procedure and regulation such as special elections, sudden resignations, impeachment procedure, and term lengths for Senators to be passed in laws separate of the Constitution. Under current law, votes require 3/4 percent of total votes of impeachment to pass. New law enacts that the required percentage will be 2/3 for an impeachment vote to pass so as to assure a reasonable chance that an official who should be removed from office is removed. Under current law, votes for standard bills and legislation require a "simple majority" of "50% plus 1" in order to pass. New law amends and enacts the reduction of the "simple" majority to the majority vote. For a bill to pass or fail, either side simply needs more than 50% of the total votes, be it 51%, 52%, etc. The Additional Information section is not a part of the proposed bill and, if made into law, shall not be included in the revisions. Edited by Caesar, Jul 3 2018, 10:32 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| His Imperial Highness, Scottie | Jun 29 2018, 02:39 AM Post #2 |
|
I give my full support for this. Note: If the Roman-esque names aren't liked we can easily change them to be generic but the reason for them was that the Ragerian Imperium was meant to be kinda like a roman sci-fi but also not totally roman. So I like them and I think they work! |
![]() |
|
| The Honorable Aav Verinhall | Jun 29 2018, 05:37 AM Post #3 |
|
Chief Justicar
|
I am fully against this in its current form. It seems like we could accomplish this with a bill rather than a constitutional amendment. I believe that while this is a step in the right direction, it is not quite there yet. I think instead of rushing this, as I have seen in the discord(or as it is apparent to me, at least), that we should give this the thought and careful attention that such a matter deserves. I also suggest that we poll the citizenry on how they like the idea of passing this amendment prior to bringing it to vote. I also have some minor quibbles with changing the standards for impeachment and the like, as the 3/4 measure was, I presume, put in to defend against so-called "lemming" voting. I also believe that we should set up a proper impeachment process and write standards for impeachment, but that is neither here nor there. Other than that, I believe that it is a relatively solid piece of legislation, again, my only issue besides minor changes is the steamrolling of it through, which to me appears to be a way to use momentum to your advantage here to push it through without people giving it the careful attention it deserves. Other than that, I haven't noticed any conflicts with other constitutional articles as of yet, but I'll probably pore over it a bit more tomorrow when I'm not so tired. |
![]() |
|
| Eli Hesial | Jun 29 2018, 12:51 PM Post #4 |
|
Why remove the CA's power to make laws on citizenship, declare wars, and such? |
![]() |
|
| Madeline | Jun 29 2018, 01:01 PM Post #5 |
|
If you read it has simply been put into one category: legislation. It doesn’t remove their powers, just broadens it so we don’t need individual sections outlining what can and cannot be done. If you can make it an act/Bill, it’s legislationable and can be done. |
![]() |
|
| Madeline | Jun 29 2018, 01:05 PM Post #6 |
|
There still is the check of the sovereign to deny impeachments and avoid the “lemming vote”. And luckily I’m sure plenty of discussion will occur on this bill before voting. I agree a great deal with most of what is written, but I am in no rush to vote on it now. |
![]() |
|
| Eli Hesial | Jun 29 2018, 01:57 PM Post #7 |
|
Ah, as it looks like it removes the power to do so. |
![]() |
|
| The Honorable Aav Verinhall | Jun 29 2018, 05:40 PM Post #8 |
|
Chief Justicar
|
Yes it does appear to do so. We need constitutional law that is clear as crystal, not mud, which this appears to be as of now. |
![]() |
|
| Caesar | Jun 29 2018, 05:51 PM Post #9 |
|
Deputy Grand Councillor
|
Constitutional law is not meant to be crystal clear. I left plenty of room for other members of the assembly to create legislations of their own to fill the gaps. |
![]() |
|
| Madeline | Jun 29 2018, 06:09 PM Post #10 |
|
And it is clear, I’m sure a judge can make the legal affirmation that declaring war, making treaties, or making legislation regarding citizenship are all acts of legislation, if we have to be specific for everything the legislature can do, you’re better off putting what they can’t legislate. And that should be a bill separated from the constitution by the way. Edited by Madeline, Jun 29 2018, 06:12 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Citizens’ Assembly · Next Topic » |





2:25 PM Jul 11