The 3/4 Majority Amendment

[Ian Plätschisch]

WHEREAS I have given up on trying to come up with satisfactory language for my original compromise bill, and

WHEREAS The proclamation crisis is still a thing that needs solving, and

WHEREAS This bill is a lot simpler than the last one

THEREFORE Article XV: Amendments to the Organic Law is hereby repealed and replaced with the following:

THEREFORE Article XV: Amendments to the Organic Law is hereby repealed and replaced with the following:

Section 1
The Organic Law may be amended by the Ziu and the people in accordance with the provisions of this article.

Section 2
Amendments to the Organic Law may be proposed by two-thirds of the Cosa with approval of the Senäts. Approval of the Senäts shall be by simple majority, except that amendments to this article, amendments to the articles regarding election to and composition of the Senäts, and amendments to the article regarding territorial subdivisions require approval of two-thirds of the Senäts.

Section 3
The King shall assent to amendments proposed by the Cosa and Senäts unless he returns them with his objections within thirty days of their proposal, or within fifteen days in the case of amendments passed on the last Clark of a Cosa term. The King shall not refuse assent if the identical amendment is approved by three-quarters of the same Cosa with an absolute majority of the Senäts, or by two-thirds of the following Cosa with a simple majority of the Senäts.

Section 4
After approval by the Ziu in accordance with the preceding sections, a proposed amendment shall be submitted to the people in a referendum. If the King objected to the proposed amendment under the preceding section, a statement of his objections not exceeding one hundred and fifty words shall be provided to the people along with the proposed amendment. The King shall promulgate the amendment as part of this Organic Law if it is approved by a majority of voters participating in a referendum on the question of the amendment no later than during the next scheduled general election following the approval of the Ziu, except as provided in the following sections.

Section 5
Proposed changes to this Organic Law that affect the representation of a province in the Senäts, or of the territory or equal sovereignty of a province, shall not be promulgated unless approved by a majority of participating voters in that province.

Section 6
The Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, being sacred and necessary to the defence of our free society, are entrenched provisions of this Organic Law. No amendment to the Covenants shall be promulgated unless approved by a two-thirds majority of voters participating in the referendum on the question of the amendment.

FURTHERMORE, Section 11 of Article V of the Organic Law is hereby repealed, and the following sentence is added to Section 10 of Article V:

Bills creating new provinces or changing the number of provinces in any way require two-thirds of the Senäts.

Noi urent q’estadra så:
Ian Plätschisch (MC-MRPT)

Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun (Senator to Maritiimi-Maxhestic)

Sir Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-RUMP)

 

[Ian Plätschisch]

I cant figure out how to allow the King to object to an amendment made in the last Clark. If someone could propose wording for that, I would be grateful.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

3/4 is ri-di-cu-lous. Ridiculous.

Also:

If the King objects to an amendment, he may, after it has been passed by the Ziu but before the 23rd of the month preceding the last Clark of the Cosa term, he may send it back to the Ziu with his objections, and that amendment will be placed unchanged into the next Clark.

You have written "he may" twice there. Furthermore, if the King can object it, and return it to the Ziu with his objections, then it should not be required that the objected bill be placed in the Clark unchanged. The Ziu may well recognise the King's objections as sensible, and may well choose to change the amendment.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 28, 2015 17:30:20 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

3/4 is ri-di-cu-lous. Ridiculous.

3/4 would only have to be achieved if the amendment was passed in the same term the King sent it back. If it passes in the next term, back to 2/3 and the King can't reject it.

If the King objects to an amendment, he may, after it has been passed by the Ziu but before the 23rd of the month preceding the last Clark of the Cosa term, he may send it back to the Ziu with his objections, and that amendment will be placed unchanged into the next Clark.

You have written "he may" twice there.

Good catch!  I will fix that

Furthermore, if the King can object it, and return it to the Ziu with his objections, then it should not be required that the objected bill be placed in the Clark unchanged. The Ziu may well recognise the King's objections as sensible, and may well choose to change the amendment.

Good point.  I'll add some language to take that into consideration.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 28, 2015 16:28:38 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

The sponsor may then amend the bill, in which case it is considered a new amendment, or he may submit the original amendment to the next Clark. 

Does this help?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I have... reservations about this bill. It does effectively solve a ton of the issues in the other one -- practical concerns and legal ones about how actual problems could be resolved -- but is this really enough of a safeguard?

I am open to this, though.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

You will keep asking this about anything proposing to remove the King's final "veto" powers over amendments, won't you? It is getting a bit tiresome...

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

As I said, I am open to the bill, I just have reservations. If you look at any major bill, like the census one, you might recall that I am never one for rushing into major changes, especially when there's almost no time pressure, like here.

I take it you think that this bill would be sufficient, then? Even with a temporary majority in power?

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

No, I understand that you are open to the bill. It seems to me, however, as though you would best not change anything about the status quo, which seems troubling...

I am absolutely not in support with anything that requires a three-quarters-hypermajority. But this bill might have a good point in allowing the amendment to be Clarked one Clark over, and then requiring only a two-thirds-supermajority.

I have to ponder this further, but I like it more than the Cort-Ordered Pontification Amendment (although the name is certainly very nice).

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

If it seems to you that the status quo is acceptable to me then you have just plain not been paying attention! This is very frustrating... wanting to discuss things and expressing concern does not mean someone really wants to avoid all change, and it is irresponsible to suggest as much, Senator! Slow your roll, my friend.

I think I prefer the other amendment, since it seems like it would be better at blocking unwanted change. But I do have to admit that, legally, this bill is more elegant and has none of the tricky problems of the other.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 29, 2015 7:09:26 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

I am absolutely not in support with anything that requires a three-quarters-hypermajority. But this bill might have a good point in allowing the amendment to be Clarked one Clark over, and then requiring only a two-thirds-supermajority.

Then it would become the How About This? Amendment...

Let me assure you again that imposing the "hypermajority" is something the King can do only once.  In the next Cosa term the needed majority goes back to 2/3 and the King can't send it back.  It is designed to give the King a safeguard against temporary "wave" elections.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jul 29, 2015 7:27:29 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Let me assure you again that imposing the "hypermajority" is something the King can do only once.  In the next Cosa term the needed majority goes back to 2/3 and the King can't send it back.  It is designed to give the King a safeguard against temporary "wave" elections.

I think I can support this basic idea. It shares some features with the suspensive veto idea I posted in the Democratic Amendment thread a while back, but adds an additional workaround for the Ziu.

As a matter of fact, I was on the verge of making a very similar proposal. My inspiration was the constitution of Finland. Under the Finnish constitution, a constitutional amendment must be passed by one parliament, then passed again by a 2/3 majority of the next session of parliament following national elections. But a 5/6 majority vote can declare a proposed amendment to be urgent, in which case the 2/3 vote to approve the amendment does not have to wait till after the next election. A few other countries have slow-track/fast-track options for the constitutional amendment process like that, including Estonia and Bulgaria. (5/6 majority, Epic! But Estonia's fast-track process only requires a 4/5 majority. )

I would describe the basic concept for this proposal as follows: An amendment can be passed quickly with a moderate degree of consensus and the support of the king. If the king opposes the amendment, the rest of the Ziu can still approve it on a slow-track basis with a moderate degree of consensus, or a fast-track basis with a high degree of consensus.

[King John]

This doesn't represent anything like my complete opinion, but ... a thought. Right now, the Crown has unlimited discretion as to whether an Amendment is to be enacted, and that seems (to most of us) excessive. Suppose we limited that discretion to apply ONLY to Amendments that affect the Organic prerogatives of the Crown? So the Crown could defend its own position in the constitution, but couldn't block any *other* Amendments.

— John R

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

No.

[Ian Plätschisch]

The King has graced my thread with his presence!

That is an interesting proposal, but it still leaves the fundamental issue that the King can veto a referendum that passed the population as a whole. The people should have the final word. The veto power would be a lot more limited than how it stands now, though. Perhaps if the King could veto such amendments before it went to referendum, and require a large majority of the Ziu (and perhaps of the people) in order to pass.

I don't like the idea of the King being able to completely overrule both the Ziu and the people, no matter how mundane the issue is