Official: Constitutional Convention Enabling Act

[notyoueither]

The Constitutional Convention Enabling Act

The Code of Laws will be rewritten by a select committee who will return to us with a completed document(s) once they are finished. They may return to stage quick, unofficial polls to guide them in the meantime if they feel a question warrants it.

The select committee will consist of 4 people. They will come to some form of agreement among themselves before they return. That means that at least 3 of them will agree that they are finished before they return to present the finished document(s).

The members of the select committee will be nominated by 2 other citizens of Apolytonia and must themselves be citizens of Apolytonia. A person is a citizen of Apolytonia for the purposes of this nomination process if their user name appears on the citizen list as of the beginning of the nomination process (the opening of the thread).

A thread will be opened for the purposes of these nominations. It will be maintained by the opener by updating the initial post with information regarding various nominations in progress. The thread will be open for nominations for no less than 7 days and no days beyond that once 4 nominees are obtained. In other words, it will be open for 7 days or as long as it takes to get 4 nominees. The nominee must accept the nomination by posting in the thread for that nomination to be final.

If more than 4 people are nominated prior to the end of 7 days, then all nominees will stand for public selection in a multiple choice poll. Those 4 nominees with the highest number of votes for them will form the select committee. In the event of a tie for a given total, the nominee(s) who accepted their nomination(s) at the earlier date and time will be deemed to have won and will go on to the select committee. Should one be required, the poll to determine the members of the select committee will last 7 days.

The current Code of Laws will be replaced with a Constitution with high standards for amendment. It will include general organization of the state and general principles of good government for us to hold dear as well as other elements the select committee deem warranted. The Constitution will be the supreme law of Apolytonia.

The Code of Laws will continue as a junior, and specific body of laws. Repeal of old laws and passage of new laws will be possible with lower standards of agreement. The intent is that laws would be relatively easy to pass and repeal as the situation warrants and that current circumstances are best served by laws which are easier to implement and change. Any law will have to abide by the principles of the Constitution to remain valid.

The completed document(s) will be posted for public discussion and may possibly be amended by the select committee prior to being put to a vote. The discussion of the new document(s) will last no less than 7 days.

Once discussion is completed, the completed document(s) will be put to public vote in a poll(s). That vote will last 7 days. There shall be no other options than yes or no. It may be desired by the members of the select committee to put more than 1 poll into effect. For instance, there may be one poll for the main body of the Constitution and 1 extra for each original amendment if they decide that would be a better way to present the matter. Additionally, there may a single poll (or more) for the acceptance of a new code of laws. 67 percent of the voters must approve of any Constitutional item by voting yes before that item will be be passed. The percentage approval for the Code of Laws should be defined by the new Constitution. If the main body of the Constitution is not passed then no other items from this process are passed either.

Should this project be successfully concluded, the new Constitution may then stand in it's own right. It will contain a statement near the beginning that it has amended the prior Code of Laws in it's entirety.

All significant clauses of the original Code of Laws and it's amendments should be addressed and included in the new Constitution, it's amendments and any accompanying Code of Laws except in cases where obvious errors or contradictions exist in the existing Code of Laws.

------

The question is: Do we pass this Enabling Act to begin a Constitutional Convention?
Yes means we pass the Act and proceed as prescribed therein.
No means we reject the Enabling Act.
Abstain means that we should not proceed, but maybe the Act could be improved.

Abstain will be added to no for determining passage.

This is an Official Poll. It requires yes to outnumber no and abstain combined by 2 to 1 or greater (67%).

The poll will last 7 days.

Previous discussion:
1st thread

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58374

2nd thread

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58664

[notyoueither]

I think we should pass this Act.

We need a stream lined, well thought out Constitution. The evidence for this is scattered across the first 3 pages of this forum.

I would like to emphasise the provision that all clauses and amendments in the current Code of Laws be addressed by the select committee. This is not a proposal to throw out the old. It is a proposal to fix it properly, so that we can leave these debates behind.

BTW: If this poll is showing a strong tendency for yes (70%+) after a day or two, I intend to open the nomination thread before this poll closes. Please state your objections to this idea here.

[Inverse Icarus]

[notyoueither]

Hmm. 3 no's so far. Why didn't this come out in the other 2 threads?

[DAVOUT]

Yes, we need it and you make it start soon. Bravo !

[Panag]

hi ,

the committee should have 5 members

have a nice day

[MrWhereItsAt]

Oh yes please!!!!! Let's slap that beyatch into shape once and for all!

[Epistax]

If you vote no then you are a bad person and smell like feces.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Epistax

If you vote no then you are a bad person and smell like feces.

Exceptionally, bad persons smelling like feces are allowed to vote yes in that particular poll.

Why would we induce them to vote no ?

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Epistax


If you vote no then you are a bad person and smell like feces.

Hey, now I take offense to that.

I vote no, but as far as I know, I do not smell like feces. Its more of a manure smell.

My objections are in the original thread. This sounds nice in theory, but in practice, trust me, it will be wasted time. It is too all-encompassing of a task and we may not get any results for months.

And then the debate afterwards...oh the noise noise noise....and the threads threads threads...and the polls polls polls....and then we'll end up with a document that will be just as long or longer and just as fallible as the first, and then someone will say lets have another convention to fix it, and then...blah blah blah..ad infinitum. Athey think I smell like manure?

We already have a document, while not perfect, allows itself to be amended and fixed and changed, etc to meet our needs. Change it. It requires effort and follow through.

And I would like to note, for all that was discussed in the Revolution thread of several weeks back, this is all we came back with. Pretty sad in my opinion. If those revolutionaries had just proposed their amendment to change the minister set up and stuck with it, by now we would be voting on that amendment or maybe even adding it to the CoL. But it was not followed through with....now how are four citizens going to change the entire document and get us all to vote on it...will they stick with the task for months to come?

well, enough said...do wat you will....but beware! beware!

[MrWhereItsAt]

I vote yes to get the Constitutional debates out of the way. Give the responsibility of being harangued by everyone with complaints to those who want it. That way perhaps there will be less clutter for a while and who knows? maybe there will actually be an improvement or two. But hopefully the jdjd-smelling stuff will not hit the forum until after a month or two.

jdjd - what do you think is best?

[wervdon]

Question before I vote:

If the new constitution does not pass, we do keep the old one right? I have no problem with forming the committee and if what they come up with is superior to what we have using it, but I dont want to throw out the old before we see the results

You sort of implied that, but I want to make sure

[kring]

I voted yes. I agree with nye's original assessment in the other thread.

[Spiffor]

I voted yes. But I sure will want them to put up polls for everything they are to decide : our present CoL is pretty shabby because Trip rushed the thing, and suggested an unready document. All things which hadn't been voted have been written by Trip himself, and people voted to end the constitutional debate finally (remind you of something ? )

That's why I want polls for everything : the convention will decide how their polls are made (to avoid infinite debate about the legitimacy of the question), but it won't decide on true matters, except there is an obvious consensus

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
I vote yes to get the Constitutional debates out of the way. Give the responsibility of being harangued by everyone with complaints to those who want it. That way perhaps there will be less clutter for a while and who knows? maybe there will actually be an improvement or two. But hopefully the jdjd-smelling stuff will not hit the forum until after a month or two.

jdjd - what do you think is best?

Change what you think needs change. There are parts to the CoL that are fine as they are. Do we really need to redicuss the Court or Impeachment again...oh Banana, please not that?

If you want smaller Minister class, then make that change. If polling standards need to be clarified, fortified, etc, then tackle that.

My objection is that four people will go out and then a month or two or more of debate between them and polls and discussion threads to the populace....will bring it to the people, and then more debates and polls...and so on....

And there are no guarantees it will pass, first, then second, that it will be better, and third that it will be pertinent to our current situation.

Any constitution if it is to be worth a d@mn, must be "alive", i.e., be able to change, expand, shrink, etc as the people think it should. Trip allowed for amendments to what he wrote originally for a reason, he knew that things change, people change, situations change...the old proverb says "the same man never crosses the same river twice", that is true on so many levels, and so again I say, leave what we have and change what needs change.