Prepoll discussion for an amendment to the Constitution

[roadcage]

Wartime is not the issue. Events which require complex voting (like today) are the issue. War votes can easily be defined as yea/nay/abstain

This ammendment sure looks like change for change sake.

Why must we always address the symptom instead of the cause?

[DAVOUT]

I have missed something, sorry; I thought that the existence and the use of a GL was a direct consequence of the war, and that the emergency was due to the fact that we did not want to loose opportunity of winning another one in the next battle of the same war.
Thanks to tell me what is the cause of the emergency.

[WhiteBandit]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Well, I attended the chat today, and I really cant see its purpose.
The concept of meeting for the Senate is totally new; the Senate is ALWAYS in a permanent meeting through the threads. Nothing has been done in the chat room today that could not have been done in the forum.
And last but not least, nobody can summon the Senate in another location.

While the chat itself may not have been the most effective idea, I do think it was a rather interesting idea that could be utilized more in the future. If anything, this amendment will at least grant constitutional authority to a chat.

Originally posted by roadcage
Wartime is not the issue. Events which require complex voting (like today) are the issue. War votes can easily be defined as yea/nay/abstain

This ammendment sure looks like change for change sake.

Why must we always address the symptom instead of the cause?

Well it hopes to address the fact that we haven't played a single turn in over a week which in itself is a constitutional violation. This should help speed up the game during these hectic sections, rather than having to wait for certain decisions to be made.

You yourself claimed you were thinking about issuing a poll of no confidence towards our government during the chat. This amendment would give the government a specific course of action and do it quickly. Right now the government's hands are tied until a decision is made regarding Seti. We've already gone through at least 2 polls (roughly 5 days of voting) and neither one has really provided a clear view of what to do.

[roadcage]

I will try once more. The symptom was slow resolution. The cause was not that the required clock time was too long, but rather that the clock didn't get started until too late.

The constitution already directs the president to stop the chat in emergency situations. There is no real reason to go off on an emergency definition bruhaha. There is reason based upon recent events to ensure that the clock gets started.

What I am trying to say, is with 20/20 hindsight, what we want to have happened goes something like this:

.)Emergency happens
.)Chat stops playing turns but may continue for discussion purposes
.)Log and save posted
.)The President posts a Senate chat call for some certain time. Content of chat loosely defined as backup resolution plan for the emergency. Details to follow
.) forum discussion
.)some senate bills posted
.) discussion and voting
.) ...disaster all bills fail
(or alternatively one passes and the senate chat is cancelled)
.)President appoints someone (mostlikely a cabinet minister) as the resolution master or some other such fancy sounding title.
.)Resolution master posts a multiple choice pick all you can support poll stating that while this poll will be open until xx hours before the sessionand results available in some fashion for the special sesion but as a minimum as a quorum generator. How this is done needs to be worked out.
.)resolution master posts instructions for absentee ballots. The ballot questions should be logically derived but not necessarily identical to the multiple choice poll. Realistically it would be a short list of the leading options.
.) special chat session happens. Absentee ballots are trumped by in persona ballots and all tabulated by court representative. Resolution master by custom does not vote unless needed to break a tie. Winner is highest vote option. Majority not required.

---------------------
ok that's what I think we want or atleast an outline of what we want. Do we have any legal experts who can tell us
.)what if any constitutional change is needed
.)what if any general enabling legislation is needed
etc

respectfullysubmitted
Ssgt roadcage (retired)

[civman2000]

The Senate has the power to declare an emergency meeting 24 hours in advance, and during that meeting, to establish law, according to the preceding regulations.

This creates the same problem as the bill currently being voted on does: Unless such meetings were open for three days, it would violate the constitution. However, the following change to your proposal should fix this problem:

The Senate has the power to declare an emergency meeting 24 hours in advance, and during that meeting, to establish law, according to the preceding regulations. Exception: Bills proposed in emergency meetings may only require a 24 hour vote (rather than 72 hours)

[roadcage]

What is the purpose of the 72 hr thingey? You know, the clockspin limitation on just about everything. So that our less active participants can feel comfortable with checking in every couple of days and still feel part of our group. And normally, this is not a problem for game progression because it does take some time for our very active leadership can get the plans in place for chats.

So it really doesn't matter how long the meeting is or how long the vote period of the meeting is but simply that notification of the special meeting (date certain) is adequate and that there be an absentee method of some kind. I believe that a 72 hour notification period with ongoing refinement of the detail meeting scope (adgenda) satisfies the intent of our timng requirements, and requires no constitutional change to implement. We may need some special enabling legislation which the senate coould simply ask the executive to draft since it is part and parcel of the executive duty to play the game, and therefore permitted under the 1st Amendment. Why do we need to struggle so to create a rubenesque monstrosity under our Amendment procedure, when there are already better mousetraps at hand.

[civman2000]

I think we should get this amendment made ASAP, before a legal battle breaks out. It should also contain a section authorizing the recent meeting retroactively so no one can impeach the administration for following its decisions.

[DAVOUT]

I am dropping this reasonnable amendment. The urgency now is to kill this *senate meeting* story.