Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012

Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

As a community leader in Cleveland, I would remind the delegations to remember the federal nature of our government. As it was in 1787, all agreements must be ratified by the 50 states. Any attempts to legislate controversial issues will likely result in state rejection. I ask that the delegates exercise restraint and caution throughout this process. I also ask that each delegation keep their colleagues interests in mind, so that this discussion can avoid red lines and unnecessary battles.

As a proud Ohioan, I would ask the Libertopian delegation fight for the following:
  • Saving Our Cities: The last few decades have been tough for Libertopia. Cities like Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, and Gary have suffered greatly due to the loss of manufacturing and trade. Millions have lost opportunities and many more have left their states for other regions. Something must be done to staunch this bleeding before the region becomes a shell of its former self;

  • Saving Our Businesses: As a small business owner, I know how tough it is to compete against groups like Wal-Mart. When the federal government helps these big businesses, either through inaction or malfeasance, it is disheartening. Our new system of government must recognize that corporations are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as people.

  • Saving Our Water: Natural resources are important for any state. Few, though, are more important than water. While we are sympathetic to the concerns of states like California, the Great Lakes are a regional treasure and a source of security for our people. We would oppose any other region's attempt to infringe upon our sovereign rights. No authority should be able to extract another region's resources without its consent;

  • Saving Our Status: Libertopia is one of the most diverse regions in the country. It is a place where people of different ideologies come and work together. It makes sense why states like Ohio and Pennsylvania enjoy such influence in election years. While other regions have become polarized, Libertopia remains a beacon of bipartisan solutions. As such, we would strongly oppose any attempts to reduce our region's status in the political system. We especially oppose any attempt to remove the Electoral College without very strong concessions;

  • Saving Our Free Speech: Today, more than ever, our ability to communicate is under assault. We would oppose any attempts to limit the breadth or depth of free speech. The ability of private citizens to "speak their mind" must not be infringed upon, nor can the ability of journalists be undermined. We also consider prohibitions against political speech in churches to be wrong. We would encourage the government to recognize the importance of each of these actors in fostering political dialogue;

  • Saving Our Soldiers: We are deeply concerned by the growing power of the president, especially in matters of foreign policy. The Imperial Presidency has dragged us into wars without congressional authorization or public debate. Our soldiers fight at the whim of the Executive. As such, we ask the Electoral College to rein in the excesses of the presidency and return the Congress to its position in matters of war and peace;

  • Saving Our Values: It's no secret that the United States of America is a country founded on Judeo-Christian values. Yet, our traditions are under attack by so-called elites who believe that we cling to our "guns and religion." If this country is to succeed another 240 years, it needs to enshrine our beliefs and values into the Constitution.

If an alternate is needed, I would be happy to participate. Until that time, I will comment on the proceedings and provide an outlet for the people's concerns.

also, puerto rico should totes be allowed to participate

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012

Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

Oh, and I would encourage the delegates to work out broad principles before focusing on minutia. As you all know, it is often easier to build consensus on a general philosophy of government than it is to build a philosophy out of several dozen inconsistent policy ideas. If I were to organize debate, I would go in the following order.
  • The Power and Authority of the National Government, the Several States, and the People;
  • The Role of the Legislature;
  • The Role of the Executive and Judiciary;
  • The Bill of Rights and the Doctrine of Incorporation; and
  • Economic Rights and American Capitalism;

Once you have have determined the relationship between the people, states, and federal government, you can go about developing a system to enshrine that relationship. Once that system of governance is developed, you can reaffirm or create particular civil rights. Once those civil rights are developed, you can see if you can form any consensus on economic issues.

That's just my suggestion. I would hate to see the body get bogged down on an issue like, say, the National Bird when it hasn't yet figured out who should be represented in Congress.

Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:

Obviously. Also I see you sneakdooring "churches can engage in political speech" up there :argh:

I have nothing but the best intentions for this country and all its citizens.

QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Sep 4, 2016

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012

Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

As much as I love trains, transportation networks seem like a matter for an eventual legislature. It would set a dangerous precedent to enshrine pork-barrel projects into the national constitution.

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012

Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

Loel posted:

Thats why I have sections for 'this only counts as a law' or 'the govt will do x, with a 2016 budget of y' :D

Now, I appreciate good infrastructure projects, but is a constitutional convention really the best place for that? These are complicated issues, deserving of public scrutiny and input. By its very nature, this constitutional convention is closed off from the people. It is organized by an unelected body, representing regions instead of the several states. If you want trains, that is a matter for an eventual governing body to decide upon. It seems short-sighted to pockmark the instrument of government with temporary appropriations.

It would be a subversion and manipulation of this body's actual purpose. If you want to get around congress, enshrine national referendums and plebiscites.

As for military involvement in national disasters, the military already involved itself through the national guard. If you want the military to become involved in civil emergencies, then you run the risk of violating posse comitatus and due process.

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012

Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

The original constitution empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads." It does not mandate a particular budget for a particular year. It only grants Congress the power to facilitate commerce.

If you want to grant the national government the power to build trains, that's entirely acceptable. I would disagree with that inclusion, but it is ultimately your prerogative as delegates. My sole objection is with specifying a particular budget, as that is liable to abuse and sets a bad precedent.

The system might not work, but it is your responsibility to fix it. You cannot call a constitutional convention every time the Interstate Highway System fails to get repaired. You cannot call for an amendment because the Air Force did not get an amendment for Fiscal Year 2018.

QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Sep 5, 2016

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012

Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

Loel posted:



How is there a precedent? Do we expect to have a third constitutional convention anytime this century?

Everything about this is a special case. And while the previous Constitution listed 'post office' under responsibilities, the recent Congress has been doing their best to destroy it. They are ignoring their responsibilities to pass bills, budgets, and Justices, which is why the appendix to this iteration requires a bit of handholding.



If we are so worried about Congress failing to pass certain bills, why even have a Congress? Why not just declare the members of this Constitutional Convention to be absolute rulers, governing into perpetuity? Why not undo the revolution and bring back the age of kings? I understand that the democratic process can be inconvenient, but it exists for a reason.

The Framers failed to enshrine appropriations for a reason. If we were to do that, it would encourage states to call for a constitutional convention whenever they lost a grant or pet project. It would encourage constitutional amendments over asinine minutia when those matters can be better decided by a deliberative standing body.

I don't disagree that infrastructure spending is important, but it deserves to be discussed in the public sphere and voted upon by elected representatives, not decided in a smoky backroom.

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012

Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

Loel posted:



Well, it would take 6/11 votes to do so, which I don't think we'll get.

Additionally, calling for a constitutional convention is hard enough that it happens once every ten generations. I think your claims are much ado over nothing.



Excuse me, but I am a very important newspaper man and the media would never stir up unrealistic fears or fabricate controversy for personal benefit.

QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Sep 5, 2016

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012

Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P



I would urge the delegates to preserve the Preamble in its entirety. It remains just as relevant today as it did in 1788. I would not object to modernizing the spelling of defense, but that seems like a pedantic issue that can just as easily be ignored.

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012

Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

RandomPauI posted:

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.

Any amendment that tries to lay waste to the Electoral College tramples on state sovereignty and neglects our unique history. It would mean a diminishing of New England, Libertopia, Midlands, Kanakaua and the NCR. I would urge the representatives of those respective regions to oppose this measure and those like it.

RandomPauI posted:

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.

Reducing voter fraud and guaranteeing the sanctity of our voting process is essential to our long-term stability. It is also a sound compromise for the current debate over voting ID laws. While I have some concerns about the cost, I think that is a small price to pay for stabilizing our democratic process. I urge all delegates to support.

RandomPauI posted:

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.]

While I support the spirit of this amendment, I think that it makes the House of Representatives much too large to govern effectively. The British House of Commons, which has much stronger party systems and fewer personalities, holds 650 members. This proposal would bring the number of representatives to 638.

Instead, I would propose that this body accept the Wyoming Rule. Such provision would increase the standard representative-to-population ratio would to that of the smallest entitled unit, which is currently Wyoming. Under this rule, state power would become more proportional to population without inflating membership to almost ungovernable levels.

RandomPauI posted:

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.

The District of Columbia can already apply for statehood. The question is whether Congress accepts it. As such, this amendment would mean nothing.

Either grant the District full representation in the Constitution or allow the Congress to go about its business.

RandomPauI posted:

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...]

These territories can have referendums on statehood if they want. Congress should not be required to accept their applications if they do not feel that they are economically or politically viable in the long term.

I also oppose for the reasons specified in the context.


quote:

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]

You cannot mash together two different territories with completely different cultures and hope that they work together. This would not be an acceptable admission process.

quote:

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.]

Tribes already receive representation in Congress as part of their respective states. This amendment carves out huge swathes of the NCR, Midlands, and Cascadia without the consent of the people within those states.

I believe that native issues should receive more attention, but this approach is poor. I would highly encourage the delegations to oppose this measure.

QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Sep 8, 2016

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012

Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

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?

It's going to look a little odd if you, say, grant native tribes a senate seat and then later abolish the Senate.

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012

Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

Loel posted:

Literally no one has supported a measure to abolish the Senate, I already checked.

It was more of a general example than me trying to point out anyone in specific. I just don't want the delegates crafting detailed provisions and then having to scrap them because the underlying instrument of government changed.

Abolishing the electoral college is going to look a bit moot if you later move to a parliamentary system (for some reason???)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012

Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

Loel posted:

If they want to write long posts, why stop them?



Well, time is limited and not everyone wants to read a dozen provisions that may or may not still be relevant when a final document is written. You generally try to work efficiently so as to focus debate, avoid wasting the time of others, and address potential issues.

As always, I'm just an observer. The current proceedings just seem a bit helter-skelter to an outsider.

  • Locked thread