Amendment: Ministerial Bill Proposal/"Universal Bill Proposal"

Kloreep · December 16, 2002, 21:54

This amendment would change this section of Article II (the Senate) in the constitution:

Quote:

2 Any Senator may propose a law.
(a) To propose a law, a senator must post a poll that is clear, unbiased, states the proposed law in its entirety, and gives three options: “yea”, “nay”, and “abstain”.

To this (changes in bold):

Quote:

2 Any Senator may propose a law. Any Minister may propose a law that addresses one of the powers granted to their office.
(a) To propose a law, a senator (or minister under the conditions above) must post a poll that is clear, unbiased, states the proposed law in its entirety, and gives three options: “yea”, “nay”, and “abstain”.

As required by the constitution, this poll will last 7 days. The prepoll discussion is located here.

For reference, here is the text of Article IX, Amendments:
1. Amendments to this Constitution can be proposed by any citizen. An amendment is passed and made official when 2/3rds or more of the citizens who vote approve of the change to the Constitution.
(a) A poll to pass an amendment must be clear, unbiased, state the full text of the change proposed, and be open for at least 7 days.
(b) Abstain votes are not counted for or against passage.

DAVOUT · December 17, 2002, 10:02

I voted Yay. It is enough different from yea to make the result of this poll questionnable ...

Meshelic · December 17, 2002, 10:32

Davout just had to go and ruin a perfect 100%.....

ManicStarSeed · December 17, 2002, 15:47

This will streamline the process and add much needed flexibility. While I like the checks and balances, the Ministers should be able to propose bills that fall under their direct jurisdiction

Mss

Kloreep · December 17, 2002, 15:53

I take a page from the great OPD and misspell something, and it breaks the 100%. Ah well...

Just kidding.

It was actually a real mistake. One I've made many times before, now that I think about it...

Shiber · December 17, 2002, 16:06

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I voted Yay. It is enough different from yea to make the result of this poll questionnable ...

I'd call you a disperfectionist, if there was such a term.

Jonny · December 17, 2002, 16:48

I say yes.

It gives ministers slightly more power, but still maintains the checks and balances. (If the senate doesn't like the minister's proposal, they can still vote it down.)

E_T · December 17, 2002, 17:45

E_T

Kloreep · December 17, 2002, 17:56

Hmm... 2 nays now. Do some people just hate my spelling, or will someone actually present an argument against this amendment?

Meshelic · December 17, 2002, 17:57

Kloreep you are a great speller.

I think Davout just decided to be a poop.

Kloreep · December 17, 2002, 18:07

I'm joking around.

But seriously, does anyone have an objection to this amendment? I doubt your silent vote is going to persuade anyone, and a healthy democracy should have debates. (Though what there is debate over this poll, I can't imagine, or I would post counter-arguments to the points I could think of.)

Togas · December 18, 2002, 18:58

^bump^

Kloreep · December 21, 2002, 01:34

As simple as this is, amendments really should be kept on the front page.

^bump^

GhengisFarb™ · December 21, 2002, 01:38

This is a good ammendment.

Arnelos · December 21, 2002, 01:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Kloreep
As simple as this is, amendments really should be kept on the front page.

^bump^

^Top^

Aidun · December 21, 2002, 15:33

Is there unity in th cabinet? If there is, why should ministers make bills against their collegues, can't they simply discuss the items they do not agree on?
If there isn't, there should be more collegiality in the cabinet. No formal behavour between ministers, it makes their relations worse.
I'm against, but is there anybody who can change my mind before I vote?

Kloreep · December 21, 2002, 16:03

This amendment isn't taking away any minister's current rights (and it's certainly not trying to seperate them from each other; so far we've had no probs with ministers interfering in each other's business). Rather, it's to let them propose their own bills; under the current system, ministers are merely citizens and not senators, and thus cannot propose bills (though they can vote).

This is generally not a problem, but the FAM must have senate approval for signing a lot of treaties (alliances, ROPs, MPPs), which means he must find senators to go through whenever he needs authorization. This amendment would let the FAM propose his own senate bills authorizing the treaties he wants available.

Note that this is not a blank check, however. This only allows ministers to propose bills on issues relating to their office; the senate could still vote any of them down if it disapproves.

Aidun · December 21, 2002, 17:49

I see. In the current situation the CoL hinders the minister in fulfilling his job, thats not good.
Thank you for explaining Kloreep.

GodKing · December 23, 2002, 14:20

no objection

Kloreep · December 24, 2002, 01:06

It passed. Yay.

I can go down in history as proposing the first NewCon amendment, too.

Arnelos · December 26, 2002, 11:45

Togas, please note that this poll has passed. Perhaps a new copy of the NewCon can be posted with the appropriate changes. Please PM me if you want such a thread closed or placed in a currently closed thread (such as the Term 7 Government thread). Thanks.