|
May I make proposals to the thread without being a delegate? Edit: Screw it I'll be Appalachia. Louisiana being based on civil law instead of common law will probably let me get away with some poo poo. RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Sep 3, 2016 |
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
This are not the final positions of apalachia, they're merely reflective of preferences of the Delegate from Apalachia, a region suffering from unemployment, natural disasters, and rife for being deligated by a beloved populist. He may have been recovering from a hangover while typing this position paper. 1) Executive branch needs a strong leader president and a figurehead appointed by the legislature to remind the strong leader president that the legislature still signs the checks. 2) Legislative branch needs to be increased in houses and numbers. There's a lot of work to do and a lot of people to representin different ways. This also needs to expand downwards to the state govts too re: making sure people are represented in their state govts and able to influence the affairs of their community and the state. Technically this isn't a contradiction or a paradox! 3) Judicial branch was fine as it was. Maybe tie increases to the court system to changes in the population? 4) There's a gentlemans agreement to not discuss states rights and responsibilities to eachother at this time. 5) Amendment process is working! 6) Gentleman's agreement to keep hands off religion. News needs to be seperate from infotainment again. The state shouldn't fund the arts or protests at all but it should be funding museums and parks and other places where people can get together and talk and exercise freedoms. 7) National standards for police is vital to ensure continuity in law enforcement in the aftermath of a disaster. Community policing and a strong local presence in police activities is vital to maintaining trust in the community between its officers and the citizenry. Technically this isn't a contradiction or a paradox! 8) Ending gerrymandering and the ERA would probably help a lot with civil rights but the latter will be a tough sell, so I'll I'll have someone send suggestions thru a back channel, I'l need kickbacks to soften the blow, and I'll probably make symbolic votes against things that were destined to pass in the name of looking like Im doing my job. 9) There's a gentlemans agreement to not discuss government procedures at this time. Unless it involves disaster response, building infrastructure, strong national defense, increasing trade while protecting jobs, and stopping the earth from waging its campaign of destruction against our great region! This will not be difficult. 10) Personally I love the idea of increased states or representation to the united states terrirotires or the native territories. Officially I'm not opposed but will need a kickback to win the support of the population. 11) People want social mobility again so wealth needs to be distributed differently. People don't want tax increases becasue they percieve them as unfair, but that can lead to cycles where people can keep acruing more money without spending it and blah blah blah. So...this'll be a tough one. 12) I picked this as my campaign song as a joke back in my first campaign and it stuck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89z2b1hJ9TI 13) Yes, I know Jack Oswald was born in Lousiana but he killed JFK in Texas so by the transitive property that means he's Texas's greatest shame. Not ours! Edit: 14) If we get mroe states and we get them then I call dibs!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Out of character: I want to treat this irreverently outwardly using the demands of the region and my delegates personality as cover. Behind the scenes I really want to make sure that we develop a system that could work. Like lets say someone proposes nationalizing the power grid. A lot of parts of that are good ideas! But in different places that's run into different problems ranging from complete disregard to the environment to gross inefficiencies to lack of innovation. Also, so many things have gone wrong when people decided to denationalize. So what gets fully nationalized, what gets partially nationalized, what can stay private, what mechanisms will we put in place for further nationalization/denationalization?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:As a native of the NCR (for the record Idahoans would burn the state to the ground before they'd willingly be part of anything that had California in the name) we need to devolve land ownership to the states/regions. None of this federalized nonsense, local ranchers, Appalachia looked into the costs of the states taking care of the disaster response obligations if we redeveloped the lands, what happens if we assumed state ownership, reverted to local ownership, or private ownership. After taking all the real and potential problems into account the numbers didn't look good. So we tried to figure out a way to get the feds to pick up most of the tab without the feds owning the land and that just isn't realistic. So we're inclined to leave things as they are for pragmatic reasons outside of increased federal ownership of recurring natural disaster sites that just happen to be expensive for the state to take care of. Edit: OOC Appalachia delegation is nominally in support of guns but if we can backdoor a way for increased arms control measures I won't be as fervently opposed to them. Then I will be shocked, shocked that the federal government overstepped its bounds after I acted in good faith! RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
The first thing we'll have to settle is how broadly written the constitution will be. For the sake of our sanity I'm going to appeal to it being written broadly with the delegates having the option of stating their intents and desires at the time. Also, these are the rough forms of what I plan on introducing first. They do not look pretty, they are not the final proposals. --- Issue 1, draft 1: Tri-cameral legislature Want the govt to more closely match US demographically but don't want to do a quota for all of govt. Want designated 3rd party to review and comment on legislation before it can go before house/senate. Speaking of parties, want a way for third parties to be more viably nationally. Have plan that'll make them more viable locally but still... So create a third chamber. Problem: don't want them to actually propose and pass permanent laws in case of extreme and temporary ideological swings. Solution: Limit ability to actually propose and vote on legislation. 1) Create an advisory council that matches demographic and ideological makeup of US 2) Elected every 2 years 3) Standing committees to review house and senate legislation and make comments 4) Reconcile house and senate bills 5) Appoint a special adviser to house to propose legislation on their behalf 6) Appoint a special adviser to the senate to propose legislation on their behalf 7) Appoint a special adviser to the presidents cabinet to remind him "of the needs of all the people". ---- Issue 2, draft 1: Changes to how individuals represented in local, state, territorial, fed govt. Local govt 1 elected rep per 4000k people minimum. Details left up to the local govts. Maybe very big city councils. Maybe every 4k people elect aldermen who have limited power and every 20k people councilmen with more power. They get to decide! State govt 1 elected rep per 20000k people minimum. Maybe they go tri-cameral to get that done. Maybe they have a really big house and a regular sized senate. Details left up to the state govts. Territories (US and native) govts follow the same pattern re: local/state level representation. Also gets reg votes in lowest and middle house. Advisory council 1 elected rep per 100000k people minimum 1. 2 year term House 1 elected rep per 500000k people minimum 1. 4 year term Senate 3 elected reps. 6 year term. RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
OOC: I'm taking advantage of the lack of a formal history or explanation behind the convention to retcon why my regions taking the positions its taking.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:OOC: I think the intention is "some wingnut governors made this happen, run with it but try to stick with your actual constituents' values," OOC: Well, there are a lot of policies I would like to get done but I know they'd be unrealistic even with the alt history I had in mind. Nat disasters + riots = WE WANT CHANGE which leads to the rise of a few populists. I'm going to propose a national security amendment and would appreciate any suggestions. Here's what I have so far. -Make a Fema+Coast Guard/nat guard type bastard child to handle nat disasters -Uniform standards for policing and cooperation between local, state, fed agencies (ed: note. Discussions will paradoxically emphasize need for community policing AND a highly militarized police force. That won't be included in the amendment though, and the actual implementation will be left up to legislature.) -Executive branch authorized to keep existing gun control programs, to track weapon use, movement, registry, but not authorized to implement any new programs for the next 10 years w/o congressional approval. Legislature prohibited from passing any new legislation on domestic weapons control without a 2/3rds vote. This will sunset after 10 years and cannot be renewed. (Yes, this is implementing the info tracking stuff before kicking the can down the road. It's also realistically doable.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
OOC: I like the sound of that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Pragmatic Populist's soundbite posted:I look forward to working with my colleagues to 1) reunify an american people divided by the culture war, 2) correct the under-representation of real, honest, working Americans in governance, 3) increase the freedoms of the states to innovate without an overbearing federal government, 4) rebuild America to it's former greatness, and 5) address the consequences of an unnatural number of natural disasters which are befalling my constituents. Pragmatic Populist's notes to himself posted:
OOC breakdown: 1) Tri-cameral legislature (My future will live or die based on how this does) 2) Social Security 3) Infrastructure bank 4) FEMA on steroids 5) Citizenship
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Facebook message reply to loel posted:Got the list and letting you know how I feel. We can talk about any disagreements over ratification later.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
Olothreutes posted:You realize that two year terms are garbage right? Unless you intend to drastically alter the manner in which elections are run so that you don't spend 75% of your time raising funds for re-election instead of actually legislating. It is contingent on other electoral reforms going through.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
backdoor communication to loel posted:You know I support this, but my voters are knee-jerk against this. Publicly we'll both have to sell this hard and somehow bullshit an explanation about how this won't raise taxes and here are the safeguards we'll put in place to make sure that the locals spend the money as they see fit but also that there's complete transparency so no waste and so on. But I'll still take a hit and if I'm taking a hit I'll want something back.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
It is abundantly clear that there is a desire to ensure proper funding for infrastructure. It is unfortunate that the initial effort was done in such a hamfisted way. But that doesn't change the fact that the common man in the street has to deal with the failure of congress to act on its moral obligations. He knows that it's wrong for states to have to beg Congress for the infrastructure funds they're rightly owed by virtue of the taxes they send to Washington! We shouldn't mandate how much money gets spent on what, we can still address this constitutionally. To that end I'll propose adding a 19th clause to article 1, section 8 of the constitution. "To see to the maintenance and security of our critical resources and infrastructure." Legislatively this can be through the creation of an infrastructure bonds program, or an infrastructure bank, that particular debate must be held in public. But whenever the congress fails to act you can bet that the people, the towns, the counties, the states will take the feds to the court and that the feds will lose! (OOC: I feel like I'm jumping the gun here...)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Nevermind
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
(OOC: [Ed note: Loel and I reached an agreement where I'd reformat his amendments in a way that'd more easily fit the existing constitution.] Okay, so, figuring out a way to fit loels infrastructure proposals into the existing constitution took a few hours longer than desired. The stuff that's not quoted is the spin/explanation. The stuff that is quoted/bolded are the amendments. The draft doc is here. Feel free to make notes by going [name: spelled this wrong, used word wrong, etc] but don't delete anything okay?) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RRotn2RFG4eDJMxMk0r3rx2r4LMxtMtdjoEu7XO5aMo/edit?usp=sharing RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
(OOC: Calling a victory feels like jumping the gun, especially given how minimal the discussion in thread was. There's a big difference between "we all want this so now it has to get done!" and "here's how we authorize fixes, identify needs, and pay for it". I definitely see Pragmatic Populist Charles Tingle taking a short-term political hit back home for increasing government spending and a long-term political hit for the UN treaties.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
 Senator Charles Tingle Appalachia is concerned with preventing 2008 from ever happening again and rebuilding a region that suffers chronic unemployment, frequent natural disasters, and costly infrastructure repairs. We feel like we're being left to suffer while all the money and the attention goes to liberal cities. I've got to consult with the delegate from Texas. My campaign staff will provide you with our concerns in greater detail...  The Gang of Five: Jon Johnny Johnson, Frank Benedetto, Maximilian "Frank" Isidore, Robert Odenkirk, Ace "Ventura" Montalvo My name is Frank Isidor, I'm Senator Tingle's chief of staff, this convention is incredibly dynamic but we'll still be steadfast to the needs of the people. Robert will put out a press release shortly.  Charles Cromwell, Reporter Off the record, I'm the person who'll leak stuff to the public to test the waters, write stuff in favor of the Senators position, etc. I'm stoned off my rear end right now which is why I'm breaking the fourth wall!  Stand-in for Governor Pratt, wealthy donors, special interests, or the voters You're loving this up! Don't gently caress this up!  Elizabeth Tingle Okay, so, people keep telling me they want to dance on Chuck's grave. The movers lost all our things. The caterer pulled out of the house warming party at the last minute but it wound up not mattering because no one showed up! You will keep it together Liz! And not with wine!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Robert, Chief of Staff, Middle Senator Tingle has spent the past few weeks consulting with his constituents, constitutional lawyers, technical experts, and fellow politicians. He's bringing knowledge to the table and he's bringing a plan! Senator Tingle knows that his first purpose being sent here was to make sure that we never saw the legislature crown another Obama. So the first three points of his five-point plan focus solely on how to prevent that. The fourth point calls for fixes for three of the most vital programs to his constituents, funding for social security, medicare, and medicaid. The final point regards the biggest internal threats our country faces outside of terrorism. The crumbling states of our roadways, our weakening levees, a power-grid on the bring of failure. After all, Al-Queda didn't poison Flint, Obama's EPA did. Liz Tingle, on the phone Oh, Hi, Mom. You don't get what Chuck's proposing. Well, he is still being kind of vague but I can fill you in. Mainly he wants to replace the electoral college with a popular, preferential vote. This'll keep a tie from ever happening again. He's also worried about voter fraud but he knows he'll have to trade something for it. So the second thing he'll propose is getting the Feds to provide the state government with enough resources to prevent voter fraud in exchange for a national voter ID card and national standards. No Mom. Not the Blacks. The Chinese. I mean, he'll spin it so it sounds like he's preventing democrats from voting multiple times but he's really worried about other countries hacking our computer systems and changing the election results. He's still worried about the blacks though, his third proposal deals with that. No mom, not prisons. Preventing race riots. The third thing he has in mind is changing how districts are drawn, which'll increase minority districts. But he'll compensate for the initial loss of republican districts by increasing the number of representatives. I agree, I think this is too risky. It's not that he doesn't have a plan though. He's banking on a court case ruling that districts have to be drawn based on the number of voters, not on the number of people. Why doesn't he propose that himself? Oh god it'd be political suicide. He's still going to take a hit though. He'll wind up being in an awkward coalition where a bunch of people on the left are like "you republicans are gerrymandering!" and he's like "us conservatives need to be represented!" and the other conservatives say "then don't vote with the liberals!" The fourth thing, fixing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? It'd be enshrining them in the constitution so they'd have to stay funded. He doesn't actually have a fix in mind beyond requiring a fix. The last thing is just to show that he wants to fix the states problems while he's here. It'll still do some good though, it'll lay the groundwork for writing and passing legislation while there's still a will to do something. Oh, right. So for the infrastructure thing he'll demand an infrastructure bank and a Fema on steroids. Oh dear, I've got to get going Mom. I think Charles just bought me flowers which means he'll be really touchy and grouchy for a while. Crap, it's jewelry... Oh hi honey! [click] RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Charles Cromwell, voicemail to editor I know you're not picking up this late so I'll cc you my report after this but maybe you would pick up because sometimes you're up late at night. Yes, I know my voice is racing right now, but it's caffeine and cigarettes and l-theanine and piracetam from Canada and modafinal from France. All completely legal and safe. So don't interrupt me. Okay, so, you know how the delegates are arriving at different times right, and how today was supposed to be just general get to know you house cleaning stuff right? We'll, hears the skinny on what I'm going to break in 2 minutes and that's going to hit the news networks in 10 minutes and that'll be formally announced in an hour. This is straight from Chuck to Johnny to me. Today most of the delegates get together right? Speakers there too. Just informal chatting stuff. People go back and forth between bullshitting and talking policy. Charles already had an infrastructure thing written up, knew the bullet points and speaking points by heart. So he spends all his time schmoozing on getting that done legislatively. Making sure its popular enough to have a decent chance at passing in the senate. Going into the convention Hernendez gave the law itself his blessing, Chambers of Commerce gave it their blessing, a lot of people are on board even though the public has no idea it's on the table. So, he has popular support from the delegates and their backers, he makes some trades for votes as legislation because he knows he won't get an amendment passed once the full session opens. But then he and Marmon and Hernendaz organize like a conventional putsch. Calls for a up or down vote. Linda gets her treaties, Charles gets his infrastructure. Minimal favors are traded. And there was nothing in the rules to prevent it from happening. I'm sure Kevin Young was the one to actually make the putsch happen but there's no evidence for that. Johnny sold it as all Tingle and oh yeah these people were here too. Oh yeah, complaints are definitely going to be raised. poo poo will hit the fan. Court cases will be filed. But that's all unconfirmed and off the record. On the record I'm going to report that delegates arrived early, votes happened early, delegates approved several things, here are the preliminary details.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Appelacia, Liz Tingle, wife of Senator Tingle. To an upper level female staffer for the Tejas delegation Oh, hey, hi there. So, I was wondering if I could meet up with Senorita Hernendez? It'll be nice to socialize with the other wives, share our own, personal thoughts and concerns about how the delegation's coming along. ... Oh, well, I can tolerate that but it would still be nice to talk with the other women spouses just about things, in a nice friendly informal setting ... What? You don't seem to be reading between the lines here, perhaps things are done differently across the border...(forced smile and chuckle) ... I understand that the delegates and their staff are handling the actual decision making. God you are making this difficult! Okay, so, if a Misses Hernendez wants to talk with myself or the other wives we're sharing our numbers. And if she happens to bring up something she thinks is important she can give a call to THIS NUMBER. And if I happen to think its important too and I might pass that on to my husband. No need for memos or emails, this'll just be a thing that happens! RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Loel posted:Oh, we doing this now? Okay. Let's throw out some trial balloons. Appelacia, "Frank" Isidore (middle), Sen. Tingles Chief of Staff Okay, we owe you one for the Infrastructure thing so let's see if we can reach common ground. More states and territories? We have a low-ball in mind but if it doesn't gain traction and your stuff does and he should be able to support those without taking a big hit. Vote proposals. Depending on how things are worded this can add votes to one party or the other, it can remove barriers to voting, or it can add barriers to voting. Charley will get hurt anyway so he can afford to be more "principled" once the discussion starts. So what's your goal here? Changing how the president's elected, Charley's already on board. Our delegates probably have similar ideas, we can work out the details later. Mandating changes to how the states run elections...that will be tough, a states rights issue. Hypothetically speaking, if the federal executive and legislative all go one system the states might just follow out of convenience. Finance reform, even tougher. Biggest question is how do you decide who pays, who gets paid, and why shouldn't people be allowed to spend their own money to say "I like so and so!". A few piecemeal things like overturning citizens united would be popular enough with the constituents and uniform enough to make the campaigning hit tolerable. Vacancies, he will need something tacked providing protection if the congress is out of session or congress decides they don't like the appointment. Getting rid of the Senate? What the gently caress will you replace it with? It sounds like you'll replace it with nothing. Charley proposed a clusterfuck of a system back in the day and brought it up again just for the press attention but there's no way that will pass so he won't even bring it to the floor. What happens when like 200 Texans vote in favor of taking control of the Mississippi against 20 Louisianans and there's no Senate to stop it? On behalf of Charlie I say no, gently caress you and on behalf of myself I hope his momentary outburst doesn't impact our working relationship.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
 Exasperated lawyer Email with draft statehood proposal to delegates from CA, Texas, LA. 1 am. posted:
 Reply from Tejas, 1:05 am posted:I think I already got the votes! Exasperated lawyer Reply to Tejas, 1:06m. posted:But...that’s not enough time to discuss things. That’s not even enough time to read that and think it through. Did you do this with the other, I mean, did you even…? Nevermind. I’m going to bed. I’m sure you mean already got it on the agenda. (OOC: I'm happy with fluff and benefited from the pustch it's not fair for us to railroad things. We make our positions known to the speaker, the speaker establishes the agenda.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
(OOC, are we agenda setting or voting for amendments?)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
(OOC, should I post the Tejas/Appalachian drafts for the different proposals?)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Amendments regarding the vote and representation Amendment #A - Respecting the Popular Vote [modification of existing proposal] Section 1. The President and Vice President shall be elected by the people of the several States and the district constituting the seat of government of the United States. Section 2. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of Senators and Representatives in Congress from that State, except that the legislature of any State may prescribe less restrictive qualifications with respect to residence and Congress may establish uniform residence and age qualifications. Section 3. The election of the President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives shall be determined by (popular vote/preferential vote/concurrent vote). Section 4. Names of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates may not be joined unless they shall have consented thereto and no candidate may consent to the candidate's name being joined with that of more than one other person. Section 5. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any candidate for President or Vice President before the day on which the President-elect or Vice President-elect has been chosen, and for the case of a tie in any election. [Comment: I was thrown by the use of "for the case" at first, oh well.] Section 6. This article shall apply with respect to any election for President and Vice President held after the expiration of the 1-year period which begins on the date of the ratification of this article. Amendment #B - Protecting the Integrity of the Personal Vote and the Electoral Process Section 1. The congress and the states shall collaborate to ensure the security, integrity, and accessibility of the electoral process. Section 2. The congress shall also establish the creation of a national voter identification card. This card shall be recognized as a means to verify one’s eligibility to vote in local, state, and federal elections in those areas which require a form of identification. Section 3. The congress shall not place undue burdens on individuals who lawfully seek a national voter identification card. Section 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Amendment #C - Ensuring Full Representation Section 1. In recognition of the founders intent to maintain a close relationship between the representatives and their constituents, the number of persons a representative may represent shall not exceed 500,000 people. Section 2. Voting districts at each level of government shall be mathematically made to be optimally compact, with respect to equal population and demographic makeup. [Potential problem: What does this do to special districts? Either the legislature fixes this or the courts do.] Amendment #D - Representation For the District of Columbia The District of Columbia shall become eligible to apply for statehood and the United States Government shall respect any future votes by it's citizens in favor of it's statehood. Until such time, one representative shall be granted to the District of Columbia. Amendment #e1 - The Territories , Tejas statehood version Section 1. The United States Government acknowledges that territorial status for permanently populated regions serves as a transitional state between statehood or independence. Section 2. All individuals born on on the American territories shall be considered American Citizens. Section 3. The unincorporated territories of American Samoa, Guam, and The Northern Mariana Islands are to hold a binding referendum on their status as territories within three years time. The referendums shall allow for joint statehood, compacts of free association, or full independence. The United States Government shall immediately honor the results of that referendum. [Context. These three territories have populations of 55k, 159k, and 77k respectively. A combined population smaller than Wyoming. The average US county has a pop of 100k. Making each territory it’s own state would give them extremely disproportional power in the US Senate. So for practical purposes either they should all become a state with disproportionate power in the US senate or none becomes a state. Explanation: A compact of free association is independence with legal expectations between the US and COFA nations. It’s like friends with benefits.] [Potential problem: What if two want to become a state and one wants independence?] Section 4. The unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands are to hold a binding referendum on their status as territories within three years time. The referendums shall allow for joint statehood, compact of free association, or full independence. The United States Government shall immediately honor the results of that referendum. [Context. Puerto Rico has a population of 3.5 million, the United States Virgin Islands has a population of 100k. See above for additional information.] Section 5. One delegate shall be offered to each present or future signatory to the Compact of Free Association. [Explanation. A delegate is a member of the house of representatives with a voice and a vote on committees, but no votes on the floor of the house. This is a way to partially redress the fact that we haven’t done a good job of honoring COFA commitments lately...] Amendment #e2 - The Territories Act, the Appalachia enhanced representation version Section 1. The United States Government acknowledges that territorial status for permanently populated regions serves as a transitional state between statehood or independence. Section 2. All individuals born on on the American territories shall be considered American Citizens. Section 3. The unincorporated territories of American Samoa, Guam, and The Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin islands shall jointly share representation in the House of Representatives as if they were a single state. [Context, this means 8 reps as of 2010 census. Pacific territories get one representative, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands get 7.] [Potential Problem, If Puerto Rico votes to become a state and Virgin Islands doesn’t opt to join Puerto Rico things will get awwwwwkward] Amendment #f - Representation for the Native Peoples in the Federal Government. Section 1. The Navajo Nation shall become eligible to apply for statehood should they so desire. Until such time one representative shall be granted to the Navajo Nation should they so desire. Section 2. The remaining combined federally recognized Native Reservations shall be granted 3 representatives, should they so desire. The tribal governments, united states legislature, and united states executive shall collaborate to determine the distribution of representation. [Comment: Tribal inhabitant might be the wrong word.]
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
OOC: Other delegates are free to offer amendments or to make modifications to the proposed amendments. Also, working on the citizens united one now unless someone already has something in the chamber.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Amendment #G - Democracy For All Amendment. AKA Thank god someone already wrote a citizens united amendment. SECTION 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections. SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections. SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Are you all sure you want to be writing amendments about the minutia of congressional representation, the electoral college, and the presidency when you haven't agreed what institutions you want to retain? OOC: Well, the way it started was a few of us wanted similar things. I had been writing things up as general ideas along with notes to myself about how to argue the things. Then six of us agreed in principle to some things and OMG the OP agreed with Loel that this meant the constitutional amendments passed. Except they hadn't actually been formally discussed in detail or written out beyond my working on draft proposals. So I went from writing stuff along the lines of "Okay, here's the language, here's how I'll try to spin things, blah blah" to "Okay, here's the language, I guess these are amendments now?" So now I'm trying to pull stuff together ahead of any vote proper so it doesn't happen again. Unfortunately for the thread, I have virtually no background in crafting legislation or constitutional law. But having a jumping off point is better than nothing! Edit: I hadn't even shared the contents of the infrastructure amendment before it passed! RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Loel posted:And all of these are nominally related to Article 1 (legislature), so we're doing some of the horsetrading for next week. OOC: Not really. The OP says "here's the agenda" and you say "here are the votes on what we talk about" and I set about writing the amendments to make sure we actually have amendments to vote on. I get a kick out of having so much power and influence. But this makes it less a PBP and more an exercise in Loel and Cat_herder telling me what they want and I ditch sticking to character in favor of working on the best amendment I could realistically hope for, mostly informed by whatever info I glean from wikipedia. DivineCoffeeBinge posted:(when did I become the principled obstructionist my god what is even happening) What's happening is we're on a wild ride!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
(OOC: Re: Convention calander, I can view it but I can't add my vote)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
OOC: Request for clarification. What is the current makeup of the senate? 50/50 split?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
(OOC: Would it be regionally appropriate for the Appelacian delegation to call for a re-institution of militias to those organized by municipalities?)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Appalachia, Senator Tingle Yes, I'm concerned about Article 1, Section 3, Subsection 4. Specifically the addition of "Until such time as his death, Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden Jr. shall serve as President of the Senate." At best this duplicates the intent of the existing language. At worst this effectively crowns Biden as President of the Senate for the remainder of his life. We've already had the legislature crown Obama, we don't need the states to crown Biden too. I'm also concerned about the removal of Article 1, Section 8, Subsections 15 and 16. The laws providing for the creation of the national guard were not amendments proper, as such they were never repealed. And there is no need for them to be repealed. In fact, there is a strong desire in the Union for a return to locally organized Militias, particularly in the face of terrorism, unjust government aggression, and other criminal actors. If we must amend these subsections constitutionally then it should strengthen the power and autonomy of the states to empower and recognize citizen-lead militias!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Loel posted:
Appalachia, Sen Tingle I'm certain that the members of these state militias would greatly appreciate the provisions but membership in a militia has always been and must always be voluntary! Mandatory conscription in exchange for the freedom to exercise your 2nd amendment rights, that will inevitably lead to intrusive Federal registrations and regulations on all gun-owners in the name of having a "uniform policy" on all gun ownership. No, we cannot travel down such a slippery slope.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
OOC: Just to be clear, we're voting on keeping Article 1 as is OR adding one vaguely worded part and removing two other parts of it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Appalachia. Reporter Charles Cromwell's cellphone Skype session with his editor All you have are rumors and press releases. < Everyone has those. Do you have anything meaningful? < > Chuck's not holding out on us > But nothing going on in public or private > The dels not involved in the putsch and some dels involved just not participating > Not attending convention sessions, discussions, meetings, not even fundraising > Internet rumors gaining steam silent dels organizing parallel convention &/or vacationing > Former impossible, latter more possible for one but political suicide and why 2/3s, so something else? > Rt will prob pick up tom night, then fox or msnbc, then CNN & papers > Can't figure out their endgame
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
OOC: We never had a discussion on the removal of "unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken". Or a discussion for that matter.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Appalacia, Sen Tingle I have heard no compelling arguments for the removal of the constitutional requirements for the maintenance of a militia, or for any changes to the ways that taxes are collected. Will anyone here go on record as to why those sections had to be removed?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Appalachia, Chief of Staff, Middle, Frank Okay, so, when it came to the taxes and the militias we were going to hit talking points to appeal to your constituents but I think we're actually going to have to propose policy changes here. This fell into your lap. Give the right speeches, squeeze the right hands, you've got a path to the White House! But now we have to be careful, now we have to plan things for an exploritory committee next year. Appalachia, Wife, Elizabeth Except for needing to expand our core demographic. We can't get to 270 votes if we only have the support of all the poor whites, and half of the middle class whites. *Chief of Staff shoots her a glare, she glares back at him.* Appalachia Delegate, Senator Charles Tingle You're throwing out the game plan? We had a plan for wheeling and dealing, graceful bow out for a few years, then return to political life. Now you're telling me we've got to prep for a White House run in the year? *chief of staff nods* Charles I don't agree about needing to rush to an exploratory committee. You're practically asking me what hill to die on right now! Frank You won't be dying on any hills. You'll just have to be more vocal and more careful with your words is all. Okay, my gut tells me to go for the militia thing, spin it as the feds wanting to shift their obligation onto the state, force the states to pay for the upkeep and training and follow the national standards while whatever laws prevent them and the local counties from running things like they want. Elizabeth And just make noise on the floor and in press releases about needing to fix our broken tax system? If there were someone else talking up the issue that'd be fine but that's not being addressed either. If you're being serious and you want to start up an exploratory committee soon you'll have to grab this and run. You'll have to make a decision and an effort post! *Tingle looks at Liz confused, then shrugs it off* (OOC: Heads up. I'll yield on the tax thing when I figure out how Charles spins it but won't be yielding on stripping the clauses out of Article 1 Section 8. Is there a mechanism to move for the striking of a revision?)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
RUSSIA TIMES BREAKING NEWS LIVESTREAM Russia Times Coverage of the American Republic on Deaths Door: Livestream From the Convention Floor as it Happens: posted:
(It's Russia Times so you know it's not close to being true. But I wanted to make sure the game had something like an epilogue.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 06:13
|
|
