|
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:
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
|
# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 13:57 |
|
|
# ¿ May 17, 2024 06:48 |
|
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.
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 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 |
# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 16:16 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 02:02 |
|
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' 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.
|
# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 02:16 |
|
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 |
# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 02:23 |
|
Loel posted:
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.
|
# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 02:36 |
|
Loel posted:
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 |
# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 02:41 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 01:41 |
|
RandomPauI posted:Amendments regarding the vote and representation 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 |
# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 02:27 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 02:47 |
|
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???)
|
# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 02:48 |
|
|
# ¿ May 17, 2024 06:48 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 02:54 |