Preservation of the Code of Laws: Discussion

[Timeline]

Originally posted by Trip
That's how they've been specified to be added to our Constitution, that's how it should go.

When, where?

I don't remember any such vote being held. Can you back this up with a previous thread?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Rewriting would provide an opportunity for some future, unethical president, banana forbid, to alter it in small, unnoticed at first, but signifcant ways.

[Timeline]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Rewriting would provide an opportunity for some future, unethical president, banana forbid, to alter it in small, unnoticed at first, but signifcant ways.

This could happen no matter what you do.

To avoid this, all Justices should have a copy, to cross reference during hearings.

Also, such an offense would mean impeachment.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Timeline
When, where?

I don't remember any such vote being held. Can you back this up with a previous thread?

Remember the original Constitutional ratification? You do? Yeah, there.

Amendments:
Amendments to this Constitution can be submitted by any member of our nation. An amendment is passed and made official by a 2/3 or greater vote on the amendment's inclusion.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Areyou saying ANYONE coud go and edit Ninot's post should he make one now? And wouldn't there be a little "last edited by..." if Ninot himself tried to change it?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Areyou saying ANYONE coud go and edit Ninot's post should he make one now? And wouldn't there be a little "last edited by..." if Ninot himself tried to change it?

What I mean is that there should be a way that the current threads can always stay up, but the current President will always have access to them (instead of having to put up new ones like what we did with Ninney and I).

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Trip

What I mean is that there should be a way that the current threads can always stay up, but the current President will always have access to them (instead of having to put up new ones like what we did with Ninney and I).

yeah, it was annoying to repost everything Trip had topped.

We need a way of having Presidents edit eachothers posts...

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Trip

What I mean is that there should be a way that the current threads can always stay up, but the current President will always have access to them (instead of having to put up new ones like what we did with Ninney and I).

I was talking to Timeline, acutually...

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I was talking to Timeline, acutually...

I wasn't sure about that... I thought it could go either way, and I felt I ought to explain myself more thorougly anyways.

[Timeline]

Originally posted by Trip

Remember the original Constitutional ratification? You do? Yeah, there.

Well, we all know you wrote this part because you lacked the coherency to call it a Code of Laws, but rather, a Consititution. But anyway....

Just because an amendment adds things into our constitution and corrects references to it in other places, DOES NOT MEAN IT'S NOT INCLUDED into the document.

These amendments "E-mail and MoE" are specifically stated to be included. We are simply arguing over HOW they should be included.

So, again, you fail to show me anywhere it states amendments cannot replace outdated areas of the constitution.

As far as historical reference. I assure you, our historians and myself have logs of this constitution, through these people like Tassadar and History Guy, we will always be able to see the different stages of our Code of Laws and how it evolved over the years.

It is vital to keep everything coherent, as even now i am annoyed by having to scroll up and down to see which amendment on the bottom applies at the top. It is extremely unorganized, and in this condition, does not befit a document representing our government. I hate to think what it will be like when we have 5 amendments, or 10, or more. :shudders:

[Jon Shafer]

Then write up a new Constitution with 2/3 vote if it's that horrible...

[Timeline]

An interesting note: The original Code of Laws document only required a majority 1/2 vote to pass. All amendments to follow would require the 2/3 to be accepted. So it was much easier to get the document up there than to correct and refine it.

Now, back on track. I am just saying, to say that an amendment that replaces something is not *included*, is ridiculous imo. Of course it is included, or it wouldn't be there in the first place.

There is nothing unconstitutional about these polls, and if they are voted by a 2/3 vote then thay should be enacted as stated.

[Jon Shafer]

Oh the thing passed with 2/3 anyways, quit complaining.

Definition of include: "To contain as a secondary or subordinate element".
In other words, to add on an extra part to a previous body. No where does it allow the 'replacement' or 'deletion' of current material... only inclusion.

[Timeline]

One of the definitions of "amendment" is alteration, but that doesn't seem to stop you .

Btw, the Random House Websters College Dictionary states: "Include means to contain or encompass as part of a whole; it may indicate one, several, or all parts"

Clearly, this amendment wishes to become part of the whole, in a very integrated way. It does not completely replace all text, but it make itself a part of the constitution by adding itself into it in place of others.

The word 'inclusion' does not exclude the word amendment, which is exactly what this proposal is. Just give up the word game Trip, it's not going to work to block this, only the vote can do that.

[GoodFella]

Pardon me, Timeline. It seems you think rewriting the constitution (or code of laws if you prefer) would be a good idea. Please allow me to say, "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FREAKIN' MIND!?!"