Amendment to Article 3:1 of the Charter

[Rebel-topia]

I'd like to make an amendment to the Charter of the Coalition of The South Pacific.


I do not like the bickering going on over a recent addition to the CoL, and, as such, I think there needs to be some formal ground rule for revisions to the Charter/Code of Laws.This isnt the first time something like this has happened, and I'd like it to be the last.

 

​Article 3: Legislature
Section 1 - Assembly and Powers of the Assembly

1. The Assembly is comprised of all Citizens of The Coalition.
   
2. The Assembly shall constitute the sole legislative body in The Coalition.
   
3. The Assembly is responsible for the drafting and discussion of General Laws, and Amendments to the Charter and Code of Laws.
   
4. The Assembly may pass and amend a Law with a vote resulting in 50% + 1 in favor.
   
5. The Assembly may amend the Charter with a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor.
   
6. The Assembly has the sole power to declare a state of war exists with another region or organization.
   
7. The Assembly has the sole power to pass a treaty with another region or organization.
   
8. The Assembly may override the denial or Cabinet removal of citizenship upon the affected nation appealing and a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor.
   
9. Any article of Charter and Code of Laws may only be revised once every 30 days.
   
   
10. Declarations of War and Treaties require a 60% majority in favor to be enacted or repealed.
    
11. Proposed legislation may be moved to a vote by the Chair of the Assembly after a Motion and a Second to vote is lodged.
    
12. The voting period will last three days for all General Laws and five days for Amendments to the Charter.​
    

Im open to different wordings and additions. I think 30 days is long enough, but not too long.

[Sandaoguo]

I see the point, but I'm not sure this is the best method to prevent disagreements and long debates about Charter amendments. The Criminal Groups and Organizations Act was swiftly revisited because Belschaft was eager to get to vote, and proponents and opponents were debating the broad merits, not the technical language. So clear defects weren't caught and fixed. I saw that all the time when I was in the WA. 

 

Instead of limiting our ability to address mistakes, we should be enhancing our capacity to prevent mistakes from happening. Mandatory review periods, prerequisite judicial review, line-by-line review, etc. Those are all methods used in the real world to make sure bills don't have serious flaws.

[Escade]

Sometimes the implications or potential misuses of a law don't become clear until after it already has gone through.  Or, sometimes typos make their way into the charter or code of laws and aren't fixed until a while later.  There are many reasons why we might want to take a closer look at laws rather then stifle debate about them.

 

In fact, if we can get a judicial system up an running this year it would be ideal for the CoA and the Court and everyone else who could assist to review the laws of the charter and code of laws from beginning to end.

 

[Vibrant Coconuts]

Couldn't this be manipulated? So far as I know there is no procedure for not allowing a quorate motion to go to vote. Any time someone wanted to make an amendment someone else disagreed with, that person could propose one of their own just before, blocking the other for 30 days. Unless there's something about this process I'm missing.

 

If the above is the case, though, very strong support.

[Hileville]

I think this really isn't needed.  The law that has caused so much of an issue is not liked by some members here.  It probably could have used a little more ironing out to begin with.  I think putting a limit on amendments will cause issues in the long run.  The real problem I see is a split in our community which needs to heal itself.

[Punk D]

I'm not a fan. You can't legislate that people can't change their minds.

[Cormac]

I agree with what has been said here, and I will also point out that this won't necessarily resolve the problem of bickering over recently passed laws in the Assembly. On the contrary, this could prolong bickering as no action besides arguing will be able to be taken for thirty days. I would rather have a few days of arguing and an up or down vote than thirty days of arguing.

 

Attitudes in the Assembly and between its members have to do with the political culture of the region and you can't really legislate that.