Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to the NDU's forums. 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 not only 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, but you'll be able to enjoy the rights as citizens, such as voting on the RMB. 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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Amendment to the Constitution
Topic Started: Jul 4 2012, 06:35 PM (625 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
Amendment to the Constitution

Amendment One
-Section VIII shall be added to Article VI of the constitution. It shall state:

Quote:
 
Congress shall have the power to remove the President from office after a week of deliberation on the issue, and a plurality vote in favor.


Quote:
 
Congress shall have the power to remove a Justice of the Supreme Court from office after a week of deliberation on the issue, and a plurality vote in favor.


Amendment Two
- Section IV shall be added to Article IV. It shall state:

Quote:
 
One month after Congress is elected, a referendum shall be held on the question of a full congressional recall. If a plurality of citizens vote in favor, an early election for all of Congress shall take place. If a plurality of citizens vote against, Congress shall serve the remainder of their two month term.

All full recall elections shall take place four days after the recall is approved.


Amendment Three
- The term ''impeachment'' shall be removed in all instances it occurs in Article II Section II.

Amendment Four
- Section IX shall be added to Article VI of the constitution. It shall state:

Quote:
 
Congress shall have the power and authority to remove any cabinet official the President appoints by a plurality vote in favor. Furthermore, Congress must approve, by a plurality vote, all cases of the President removing a member of his cabinet


Amendment Five
-Article III Section I shall be edited. It shall state:

Quote:
 
The Legislative Branch shall consist of five representatives elected by the people in a free and fair election, who shall be referred to as Congress.

The number of representatives shall increase by one for every twenty citizens gained.


Amendment Six
Article IV Section III shall be amended. It will now state:

Quote:
 
The citizens of the region shall have the power to petition Congress to pass a law. If 20% of votes in the last Congressional election sign a petition in favor (subject to the rules of Section I), then Congress shall be forced to draft that law and vote on it within one week.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Deleted User
Deleted User

Welsh Cowboy
 
Whenever we have an election, Birk always tells us to keep the chatter to a minimum, to allow the votes to be counted, and the ballot to remain visible.


Yes, that's him nicely asking us to be considerate. Technically, we don't have to be quiet. You'll just look like a jerk.

Quote:
 
So this would happen every single month in your plan.


Sorry, but again, this is just a complete non-sequitur. How do you get from:

''Birk asks us not to talk''

to

''Your plan, despite not even mentioning it at all, makes us be quiet when the referendum is being held.''

I'm failing to see any sense in this.

Quote:
 
And three signatures is lenient? According to your plan, you'd only need 0 signatures to spark a recall of Congress vote. No support would need to be shown


A plutarity of citizens is not zero people, the last time I learned how to do math.

Quote:
 
At times, couldn't you say a referendum might be a formality if everyone loved Congress?


If 100% of people supported Congress, then yes, it would be a formality.

It's not that strong of an indictment, however, because this situation will be rare.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
All I'm saying is a result, a consequence of every election, is the request by Birk for us to stop chatting. That's not an order, but we generally follow it. So to say it's a consequence isn't that much of a stretch. But if you don't agree, it's not the heart of my argument.

I was saying in my plan, three people would need to call for a recall election. In yours, it would be automatic, so in effect, no one would have to ask for a referendum for it to occur. In both, obviously, to recall Congress, a plurality would have to approve it.

It would be a formality if only one or two citizens supported the motion too, but maybe it wouldn't often be a formality. Neither of us know. Again, this isn't the heart of my argument.
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Welsh Cowboy
 
All I'm saying is a result, a consequence of every election, is the request by Birk for us to stop chatting. That's not an order, but we generally follow it. So to say it's a consequence isn't that much of a stretch. But if you don't agree, it's not the heart of my argument.


It is a stretch, because I can't control what Birk does, and it's not found in my plan anywhere. It's irrelevant to everything.

Quote:
 
I was saying in my plan, three people would need to call for a recall election. In yours, it would be automatic, so in effect, no one would have to ask for a referendum for it to occur.


Which, as you said yourself, isn't really a problem, as a plutarity have to vote in favor for the referendum to actually do anything. If not, it's about as consequential as Dromderdeener's experimental election.

Quote:
 
It would be a formality if only one or two citizens supported the motion too, but maybe it wouldn't often be a formality.


Again, a plutarity is much more.

Quote:
 
Again, this isn't the heart of my argument.


Sorry if this is rude, but your argument really doesn't exist. Everything you have said here really had nothing to do with the amendment, ranging from non-existent restrictions of the RMB, to things that you can't blame the idea for.

It's kind of like that one heart removal scene in Indiana Jones.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
Well, let me tell you my argument, plain and simple then.

This would be unnecessary sometimes, and therefore just a waste of people's time. Sure, it might be useful sometimes, but instead of having the occasional formality, my plan would ensure that it's almost just as simple to recall an entire Congress, but the whole region would only vote when there is some support for the notion.
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
Well, let me tell you my argument, plain and simple then.


* drum roll *

Oh wait, it's just the same thing you've been saying the whole thread.

Quote:
 
This would be unnecessary sometimes, and therefore just a waste of people's time.


''According to my entirely baseless and unproven assertion that this idea might not always be needed, it is therefore an entirely stupid idea that should never be implemented in any type of situation at all, due to the fact that it may not be needed in some unrealistic and implausible cases.''


Quote:
 
Sure, it might be useful sometimes, but instead of having the occasional formality, my plan would ensure that it's almost just as simple to recall an entire Congress,


''My plan is more simple, even though I have not demonstrates how it is. Maybe because if I tried to, I would realize there is no operative difference between approving of the recall on a ballot, and approving of it on a petition. I might also realize that allowing three people to recall all of Congress might be just as wasteful and unnecessary as the plan I'm opposing.''

Quote:
 
but the whole region would only vote when there is some support for the notion.


''I am postulating my idea by pointing out a benefit that is shared with the idea I am attacking.''
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
The sarcasm really doesn't add to your argument, but whatever.

While my assertion that this might be unnecessary is unproven, I would like to know if yours that it would ever be necessary is proven.

I didn't say my plan was simpler, in fact I said the opposite. And I dont see how three people cause a recall vote is unnecessary at all, unless you're opposing your own idea. Haha I'm not mad, I just don't see how you use wastefulness against mine, but not against yours.

In your plan, support wouldn't be required for a vote, it would be automatic, right? So that characteristic isn't shared.
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Minecraftia
Member Avatar
Former Title-Bearer of Terronia
(Sorry if this was already mentioned)

I also recommend changing the plurality of removing the president or a justice to four.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Minecraftia
Jul 4 2012, 11:19 PM
(Sorry if this was already mentioned)

I also recommend changing the plurality of removing the president or a justice to four.

Honestly, it seems very majoritarian and unnecessary to me. I'm honestly very skeptical that anybody here would initiate impeachment for no reason.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Welsh Cowboy
 
The sarcasm really doesn't add to your argument, but whatever.


Maybe not, but it kept me from getting extremely bored at having to defend this idea. It's like trying to defend the concept of fairness or justice for criminal. It gets tiresome because it's such an obvious thing to support.

Quote:
 
While my assertion that this might be unnecessary is unproven, I would like to know if yours that it would ever be necessary is proven.


Logic would dictate that if it cannot be proven that the referendum is unnecessary, then it must be necessary by default.

Quote:
 
I didn't say my plan was simpler, in fact I said the opposite.


Wait, what? Did you just admit your plan was complicated?

Quote:
 
And I dont see how three people cause a recall vote is unnecessary at all, unless you're opposing your own idea.


''there is no operative difference between approving of the recall on a ballot, and approving of it on a petition''

I guess you missed that part.

Quote:
 
In your plan, support wouldn't be required for a vote, it would be automatic, right? So that characteristic isn't shared.



*sigh*

1: A referendum is held.
2; The people vote on the referendum.
3: A plutarity in favor must approve of a recall election.
4: Candidates announce their candidacy for Congress.
5: Campaigning begins.
6: Candidates are elected.

So #2 and #3 are completely lost on you. Yes, there must be support for the recall.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
Not to be rude, but I wish you wouldn't call your plan "obvious." I have legitimate arguments against it.

Also, I think we are misunderstanding each other.

So, wait, you're saying that because I can't prove this referendum is unnecessary, you're automatically righ that it's necessary. Sorry that doesn't make sense. We have no evidence either way.

I said my plan was more complicated than yours. That doesn't mean it's complicated, but the small increase in difficulty is made up for in the lack of needless referenda.

What I was referring to in the wider context of the "three people approving a petition is unnecessary" part was that you'd called my idea wasteful, but your own, in which a monthly referendum would be held, instead of requiring some positive support, as mine does, is apparently not wasteful.

In vote, I was referring to the initial referendum, which is held monthly, not the actual "recall vote." sorry for that confusion. I was saying that instead of an "automatic" referendum that might be unanimously shot down, my plan calls for at least some support before a recall vote is held.
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

-mistake post-
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
Certainly. We were getting a little too confused, in my opinion.

Firstly, let me say I only have problems with mandatory referenda on recalling Congress. The rest are good.

I feel that requiring a referendum every month is unnecessary at times, and therefore I would advocate a petition system, in which an entire Congress recall vote could be triggered by three signatures. This would ensure that the idea has some support, and a referendum is not required, at times, for no reason.

I think that's my main argument...
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Is it needed?

Welsh Cowboy, you have wondered if we need this idea. Well, I have to say we very clearly do need this. I'll provide the most basic and simple argument: checks and balances. The previous amendments (which you support) give Congress more power. Since a branch is given more power, there must naturally be a check on that power. The other two branches are the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch. Since these new powers involve impeaching the other two branches, it would create a conflict of interest to let them check the power of Congress in this regard. Therefore, we must introduce a check by the people of our region. The reason why I do not want a petition is because it requires effort on the citizen side. That's not how a check should work. What type of check makes the people who are doing the checking work harder? It's supposed to be the one who gets checked that has the hard job. The petition idea is too weak of a check because it says to Congres, ''You may have a petition asking for a recall. It may get enough signatures. You may be impeached from office.'' That is not a check. It's chickenfeed. It's worthless.

What is a check is telling Congress, ''The people will vote on how much they approve of what you have done, and you will be removed if they want you to be.'' That is a lot more threatening and a lot more direct than the vague threat of a petition.

To summarize: A true check is supposed to make the one who is being checked be afraid and prove their record. It's not the one who's doing the checking that's supposed to be working the hardest. We have to have this amendment along with the others to check Congress.

It may be true that the referendum might end up being useless in cases where Congress is popular, but that's probably because Congress was scared of the people recalling them and decided to work harder.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
I agree that the people shouldn't have to do much work, but as you admit, some referenda may be unnecessary. And I just dont see requiring unhappy people to acquire three signatures, which isn't very hard, as a significant downside to unnecessary referenda.

Also, should Congress always be afraid of the voters? Sometimes they may need to do things that are initially unpopular, but are for the good of the region. Instead of worrying about essentially reelection every month, giving them only the threat of a petition still urges them not to do anything awful, but doesn't require them to be thinking about reelection.
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
I agree that the people shouldn't have to do much work, but as you admit, some referenda may be unnecessary.


My point was as follows: It is true that there must be a vote to recall a popular Congress, but that would be because their popularity came from listening to the people, who can take them out of office.

So while I did admit there are situations where it may not be needed, I attributed that fact to the referendum every month.

I don't see where your trying to go with this.

Quote:
 
and I just dont see requiring unhappy people to acquire three signatures, which isn't very hard


So it's about difficulty, then?

In this case, I win that point. My idea requires no petition, therefore making it less difficult.

Quote:
 
as a significant downside to unnecessary referenda.


Obvious semantic slanting is obvious.

Quote:
 
Also, should Congress always be afraid of the voters?


Yes.

Quote:
 
Sometimes they may need to do things that are initially unpopular, but are for the good of the region.


''Yes, the all-knowing Congress. How dare us proles question their wisdom? We should never question their infinite knowledge.''

Seriously though, I don't see why you think Congress knows what is best just because it's Congress. The throne is just an overdecorated piece of furniture. It's what's behind the throne that counts.

Quote:
 
Instead of worrying about essentially reelection every month, giving them only the threat of a petition still urges them not to do anything awful, but doesn't require them to be thinking about reelection.


The ability of three people alone to recall all of Congress, at any time they wish, without warning, seems like a lot more to worry about when it comes to re-election.

And none of this at all addressed my checks and balances point.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
I'll address your checks/balances point first, then.

Both of our systems are a check against Congress. You want Congress to be accountable every month, I want them to be accountable when the people want them to be accountable. So we really agree on that point.

If you're saying that mandatory referenda would cause Congress to act in the interests of the people, I think that's a stalemate. I think my petition threat would also cause them to do the same thing...

You split a sentence into two parts. I was saying that the downside of my argument, it's slightly more effort, is offset by the prevention of some unnecessary referenda. I wasn't suggesting all of your referenda would be unnecessary.

I wasn't saying Congress was all-knowing, I was saying that they shouldn't be constantly considering reelection. Because some tough decisions might need to be made, that might look bad in the short-term, but are beneficial in the long term. Requiring Congress to be beholden to the voters every month might prevent it from making tough decisions that need to be made.

Would you be open to compromising?
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Welsh Cowboy
 
I wasn't saying Congress was all-knowing


You only put them on some non-existent pedestal of superiority over the citizens. Basically, the argument is: What if the people are too stupid to realize Congress is right?

And I contend that we're just as intelligent as Congress.

Quote:
 
I was saying that they shouldn't be constantly considering reelection.


This is strange to me, considering your alternative.

My idea: A scheduled referendum taking place on the same time, allowing them a huge amount of time to prepare their case and campaign, with absolutely no unpredictability or surprises as to when the recall might happen.

Your idea: Congress can be recalled at any time, with an insignificant number of people supporting, at no specific date and with no warning.

Honestly, which one induces more uncertainty for our representatives?

Quote:
 
Because some tough decisions might need to be made, that might look bad in the short-term, but are beneficial in the long term.


Name one.

Quote:
 
Requiring Congress to be beholden to the voters every month might prevent it from making tough decisions that need to be made.


But allowing Congress to be beholden to the people at any point in time by a small handful of people is a great idea!

Quote:
 
Would you be open to compromising?


Let Congress work that out.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
Alright, I give you most of that point.

Frankly, I was considering RL, where things like Medicare and Social Security may need reforms that are tough to sell to the voters. In NS, these things don't really exist.

I also see that allowing three people to trigger recalls at any time would be very uncertain. Although couldn't we make this petition like individual recalls, having a one-time per term maximum?

So I agree that some sort of full recall is needed. I'm looking forward to Congress considering this, and giving their opinions.

Maybe we should make it some sort of opt-out system, where a referendum could be opted out of. Or maybe a petition system with more required signees.

I just dont think either of our initial systems are right.

I await Congress' comments.

Are you going to propose the full recall amendment separately, or all as one?
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

All the amendments are one bill, because I will not allow one to be passed without the others. It would break the system.

Welsh Cowboy
 
Although couldn't we make this petition like individual recalls, having a one-time per term maximum?


Technically, this only happens once in the term, so it basically is.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
How? (Not arguing, just wondering)
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Proposal Creation/Discussion Thread · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

edge created by tiptopolive of ifsz