Can we reword the code of laws?

[Will 5001]

Or you could just delete the sections which dont apply!!!!

[GoodFella]

I like the idea of underlining obsolete sections.

[Timeline]

I still like my idea better.

[kring]

it needs a 2/3'rds decision to become official. So if it finishes anywhere between 66% and 50%, the vote can't apply to anything.

This appears biased in wording. I respectfully request the last sentence be edited out, based on that bias. Had other polls said the same thing, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I voted yes, for the same reasons Timeline mentioned. I would support the compromise mentioned.

1. An improvement. 2. A correction. 3. a. A revision. b. A formal statement of such a revision. This according to Webster's II New College Dictionary.

According to Encarta:

Amendment, in legislation, the alteration of an existing statute. Although the U.S. Congress has no power to alter the Constitution, it does have the power to repeal and alter laws. The method of amending the Constitution is provided by Article V. According to this article, an amendment passes after a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or after the petition of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Amendments are ratified by either the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by conventions in three-fourths of the states. The Constitution contains no provision directly limiting the power of the state legislatures to repeal the statutes of the several states, but Article I, Section 10, limits the power of a state legislature to repeal statutes that are in effect contracts with the citizens of the state. For details on specific amendments to the Constitution, see Constitution of the United States.

In parliamentary procedure, an amendment may be a motion, bill, or resolution. When adopted in accordance with the rules of parliamentary procedure, an amendment becomes a part of the original motion or bill.

In the law of pleading and practice, an amendment corrects an error or defect in a pleading or judicial proceeding in the progress of an action or other proceeding.

[Timeline]

Nice post Kring, but I think we woud want it to need 2/3rds to be official rather than a majority.

[civman2000]

THe problem is, is our default situation that it can be modified or that it cannot? The only argument for no is that the wording of the amendments clause could be interpreted to imply that all amendments must be added on, but the only argument for yes would be that the no argument doesn't work.

If the no arguemtn can be accepted as working, yes needs 67% to win, no needs 33%. If it cannot be accepted, no needs 67% and yes needs 33%

[Spiffor]

YES
I don't understand what use we'd have with obsolete sections. As everything, the CoL is called to evolve, and obsolete sections are called to be useless. Keeping useless text in our already long CoL would confuse people even more.
The purpose of a CoL is not to be carved in stone. It's to be a convenient document so that our mini society has rules. These rules must remain as clear as possible. Old and obsolete things shouldn't clutter the constitution.

Timeline's proposal is the best, because it keeps obsolete things at the end of the document, when only people interested in history go. Thos interested in current laws go to the beginning of the document.
However, I feel we'll have to make a separate text for old sections by the end of the game : our amendment section will be something like twice as big as the current CoL.

About the 2/3 majority, I don't see why this poll should need it. It's mentioned nowhere that an amendment must be written at the end of the constitution, nor it is written an obsolete section must be conserved. The only thing about amendments in our constitution is this :

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.

The first amendments were put at the end of the text, because Trip felt like it. If Timeline had been in charge of posting the constitution in the first government thread, his compromise would have been applied. Nothing official in the old way to do. We're not voting on an amendment here, we're voting on an unofficial practice.
A 51% is enough for this.

[UnOrthOdOx]

May I suggest a new poll representing the 'original' method, and the compromise as suggested by Timeline? and give examples of both in the poll.

I think that at least a few, myself included, would go for the compromised version, whereas they were adamantly against just simple changing. Whatever wins THAT vote, however, should become standard procedure to prevent this comming up with new Presidents. I was, perhaps, the most vocal against the straight changes, but I will go for the compromise as it gives both a smooth reading CoL, and preserves the original text for referance and history, the best of both worlds.

[Timeline]

In this poll you suggest, would 51% be enough to make the winning option the common practice for amending the constitution?

I say yes, because if neither option wins, we will be left at sqaure one.

[UnOrthOdOx]

well, um, how the hell should I know? This is why we need the court.

It's not really an ammendment, so the 2/3 rule would not NEED to apply, but probably should for the sake of argument, or we COULD mke it an ammendment... I believe most will see how it is best for the country, though, and really think 2/3 is obtainable. Just consider 10 of the 'no' votes in here occured BEFORE the compromise was proposed...

[Timeline]

I am leaving for work, I will make a poll regarding restructuring the CoL based on my "compromise" idea later tonight.

Actually, scratch that, I will make a discussion thread first for everything to hammered out (no idea is perfect).

Unorth, I am kinda pressed for time, could you make a discussion thread for it please?

[kring]

Well, I would think our CoL/Const., whichever you want it called, would need to be our guiding light on the vote. I think we could probably get the 2/3 as well. If the reasons stated so far were presented as to why the change wouldn't be bad.

I would vote for the compromise.

[UnOrthOdOx]

OK Time, I got your back, this time...

[Will 5001]

Why don’t people understand? This is NOT the U.S Constitution that we are discussing, this is the APOLYTONIA constitution, the US constitution, although similar is not necessarily the same! We don’t have to do what the US constitution does. It would be far less confusing to delete irrelevant parts and the constitution could grow to enormous proportions by the late game, with loads of crossing outs and Italics or whatever, its much neater just to delete the irrelevant parts, much better!!

[Kramerman]

I would be fine wih rewording the CoL, as long as we keep a pristine copy of the original, with ammendments added to the bottom. This compromise has been discussed on another thread, many of you were there... you know what Im talking about. I think it is a good idea. One with ammendments only added, kept for historical sake, and another changed and reworded if need be for practical use. But I interpret this poll as asking if we can just reword the one, the only, the original CoL and I'm firmly against this. So I must vote no.

Kman