Prepoll discussion for an amendment to the Constitution

[DAVOUT]

Prepoll discussion for an amendment to the Constitution

We have already tried to define what was an emergency state, and this effort resulted in nothing. The purpose of this amendment would not be to define new things ut to acknowledge that the state of war for our nation is enough to justify some adaptation to ordinary procedure.
The exercise made today in the chat room seems a bit complicated, let alone constitutional, and took more than on day overall, to get a decision. I propose that we amend the Constitution in its Article II,2,d which reads as follows :

The poll must be open for at least 72 hours.

to become:

The poll must be open for at least 72 hours in peace time, and 24 hours in war time.

I believe that this proposal would solve the problem raised, without creating potential court cases.

What do you think ?

[Thud]

This is a good idea for an amendment. I approve. However I have my own idea for this:

Constitutional Amendment
Under II, 2, h:
The Senate has the power to declare an emergency meeting 24 hours in advance, and during that meeting, to establish law, according to the preceding regulations.

Under II, 2, h, ii:
The Senate, during an emergency meeting, may give the President emergency powers. The emergency powers will have a specific mandate.

Under I, 1, b, 3:
If granted by the Senate, the President may take whatever action he sees fit to accomplish the mandate given with emergency powers during a turnchat.

[WhiteBandit]

Actually Thud

I do support this. It does give the President a little more power and a little more responsibility (still within reason of course).

As it is now, the Presidency is for the most part a "useless" position. (No offense intended to anyone for that statement) All the President is required to do now is carry out orders to the letter.

Granted, the President wouldn't be given a blank check but it would allow him to actually make/influence some decisions in regards to our game.

Combine DAVOUT's proposal with this one and you have the makings of an excellent amendment in my opinion.

[Kuciwalker]

I think that "during wartime" is far too vague. Right now we're at war. Should we let everything go for 24 hours only? No.

We should limit the 24 hour polls to polls that deal directly with immediate military concerns during wartime.

[Kloreep]

Thud:

skywalker: If we go with the 24 hour poll version, I think it should extend to treaties & GLs as well as military concerns; if someone brings a civ against us through MPPs or Alliances, we'll likely want counter-treaties. And the GL debate has taken far too long; it needs to be shortened so we can get on with the game.

[Kuciwalker]

Treaties and GL's ARE military concerns.

[Shiber]

I was just about to post what Skywalker had said. It's irrational that a poll which deals with a subject completely irrelevant to war or not relevant to the current war(s) will receive a 'wartime poll' status and have a shorter running period.
I suggest the following: a senator or cabinet member may conduct an emergency 24-hours poll should he manage to acquire the approval of four or more cabinet members or judges. The president may veto such a decision, thus voiding the emergency poll. The poll can be restarted with a 72 hours duration. Wording sucks and I'm tired, but that's my two cents.

[Kloreep]

Ah, okay. But we should throw 'em in to the bill anyway, to make it clear. Neither are under the SMC's jurisdiction, after all.

[Kuciwalker]

Spiffor:

We still should restrict is to matters of immediate military importance during wartime. This way you can still take it to court.

[DAVOUT]

We have always waged wars as total wars; this is why I believe that during a war no distinction can be made between peaceful laws and the others. Those which should be excluded are laws concerning specifically the period after the war.
Now if we want a screening to be made, it must be fast (couple of hours); the Senate could renew every week a war committee whose only duty would be to qualify on very short notice the proposed bills between emergency or ordinary.

[WhiteBandit]

I agree we should limit the polls concerned to military matters. However....

Originally posted by Shiber
I was just about to post what Skywalker had said. It's irrational that a poll which deals with a subject completely irrelevant to war or not relevant to the current war(s) will receive a 'wartime poll' status and have a shorter running period.
I suggest the following: a senator or cabinet member may conduct an emergency 24-hours poll should he manage to acquire the approval of four or more cabinet members or judges. The president may veto such a decision, thus voiding the emergency poll. The poll can be restarted with a 72 hours duration. Wording sucks and I'm tired, but that's my two cents.

I disagree with this. This purpose of this poll is to speed up the game so we don't have to wait around. Now we are shooting this amendment in the foot by having to wait for at least four cabinet members to approve of it.

Nor do I think the president be allowed to veto the idea for an emergency poll.

All other ramifications still apply to this poll such as quorum and the right for the cabinent to veto the decision AFTER the fact. I still agree with all that.

This in essence gives the President "double" powers over this issue. The fact that he, or the anyone else in the cabinent, can call for a veto after the polls results are known is already covered in the Constitution and serves the same purpose as a "pre-vote veto."

In either case, another poll would be required.

Anyone should be able to post a so called "emergency poll" (which I think gives it an overly dire name) regarding military affairs during wartime. This allows us to move on with the game and stick with the intended purpose of this amendment.

[WhiteBandit]

Note this is a draft of the current ideas we have so far.

Wartime Legislation Draft

Polls
a.) When our nation is at a state of war with another nation, polls dealing with military issues must be open for at least 24 hours. All polls dealing with non-military issues will remain open for the standard 72 hour period.
b.) A "military issue" is defined as any issue regarding treaties, trade, purpose of a great leader. (This definition needs work)
c.) Any senator may propose a wartime poll during a state of war.

Chats
a.) This amendment gives the Senate the authority to declare an emergency meeting to be held in a chat room.
b.) The chat meeting must be planned at least 24 hours in advance and define the issue to be debated.
c.) Military issues may be voted on in the chats and providing the number of votes meets the quorum set in the constitution, decisions made in the chats have full authority.
d.) At least one member of the court must be present during an emergency chat, whom will take and tally votes.
e.) Absentee votes can be sent in for people who can not make the chat. Absentee votes will be sent in to an agreed upon court member who will add them to the final tally.

Presidential Authority
a.) During a poll or a chat, the Senate may vote to give the President emergency powers with a specific mandate.
b.) The length of the mandate cannot exceed 1 turn (this may need work? Just adding a natural check/balance to this emergency mandate. In essence, the President can do whatever he wants for only 1 turn)
c.) The President may take whatever action he sees fit to accomplish the given mandate during a turnchat

Still needs work:
Possibility of getting government authority to post emergency poll, or allowing the president to veto the decision all together. (Which I stated my opinion above)

EDIT: Added "Presidential Authority" section to try and deal with the emergency mandate powers as posted by Thud.
EDIT: Modified Chats section for ET's concerns, specifically section B and section E.

[E_T]

This should also be something that has had at least 1 day of debate, before a meeting is called. That way, the senate won'
t be hit with this out of the cold, so to speak.

E_T

[E_T]

Do not forget that there can be absentee votes made. Either sent to an agreed on member of the court, or the cabinet member who called for the meeting.

E_T

[DAVOUT]

Well, I attended the chat today, and I really cant see its purpose.
The concept of meeting for the Senate is totally new; the Senate is ALWAYS in a permanent meeting through the threads. Nothing has been done in the chat room today that could not have been done in the forum.
And last but not least, nobody can summon the Senate in another location.

[roadcage]

Wartime is not the issue. Events which require complex voting (like today) are the issue. War votes can easily be defined as yea/nay/abstain

This ammendment sure looks like change for change sake.

Why must we always address the symptom instead of the cause?

[DAVOUT]

I have missed something, sorry; I thought that the existence and the use of a GL was a direct consequence of the war, and that the emergency was due to the fact that we did not want to loose opportunity of winning another one in the next battle of the same war.
Thanks to tell me what is the cause of the emergency.

[WhiteBandit]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Well, I attended the chat today, and I really cant see its purpose.
The concept of meeting for the Senate is totally new; the Senate is ALWAYS in a permanent meeting through the threads. Nothing has been done in the chat room today that could not have been done in the forum.
And last but not least, nobody can summon the Senate in another location.

While the chat itself may not have been the most effective idea, I do think it was a rather interesting idea that could be utilized more in the future. If anything, this amendment will at least grant constitutional authority to a chat.

Originally posted by roadcage
Wartime is not the issue. Events which require complex voting (like today) are the issue. War votes can easily be defined as yea/nay/abstain

This ammendment sure looks like change for change sake.

Why must we always address the symptom instead of the cause?

Well it hopes to address the fact that we haven't played a single turn in over a week which in itself is a constitutional violation. This should help speed up the game during these hectic sections, rather than having to wait for certain decisions to be made.

You yourself claimed you were thinking about issuing a poll of no confidence towards our government during the chat. This amendment would give the government a specific course of action and do it quickly. Right now the government's hands are tied until a decision is made regarding Seti. We've already gone through at least 2 polls (roughly 5 days of voting) and neither one has really provided a clear view of what to do.

[roadcage]

I will try once more. The symptom was slow resolution. The cause was not that the required clock time was too long, but rather that the clock didn't get started until too late.

The constitution already directs the president to stop the chat in emergency situations. There is no real reason to go off on an emergency definition bruhaha. There is reason based upon recent events to ensure that the clock gets started.

What I am trying to say, is with 20/20 hindsight, what we want to have happened goes something like this:

.)Emergency happens
.)Chat stops playing turns but may continue for discussion purposes
.)Log and save posted
.)The President posts a Senate chat call for some certain time. Content of chat loosely defined as backup resolution plan for the emergency. Details to follow
.) forum discussion
.)some senate bills posted
.) discussion and voting
.) ...disaster all bills fail
(or alternatively one passes and the senate chat is cancelled)
.)President appoints someone (mostlikely a cabinet minister) as the resolution master or some other such fancy sounding title.
.)Resolution master posts a multiple choice pick all you can support poll stating that while this poll will be open until xx hours before the sessionand results available in some fashion for the special sesion but as a minimum as a quorum generator. How this is done needs to be worked out.
.)resolution master posts instructions for absentee ballots. The ballot questions should be logically derived but not necessarily identical to the multiple choice poll. Realistically it would be a short list of the leading options.
.) special chat session happens. Absentee ballots are trumped by in persona ballots and all tabulated by court representative. Resolution master by custom does not vote unless needed to break a tie. Winner is highest vote option. Majority not required.

---------------------
ok that's what I think we want or atleast an outline of what we want. Do we have any legal experts who can tell us
.)what if any constitutional change is needed
.)what if any general enabling legislation is needed
etc

respectfullysubmitted
Ssgt roadcage (retired)

[civman2000]

The Senate has the power to declare an emergency meeting 24 hours in advance, and during that meeting, to establish law, according to the preceding regulations.

This creates the same problem as the bill currently being voted on does: Unless such meetings were open for three days, it would violate the constitution. However, the following change to your proposal should fix this problem:

The Senate has the power to declare an emergency meeting 24 hours in advance, and during that meeting, to establish law, according to the preceding regulations. Exception: Bills proposed in emergency meetings may only require a 24 hour vote (rather than 72 hours)

[roadcage]

What is the purpose of the 72 hr thingey? You know, the clockspin limitation on just about everything. So that our less active participants can feel comfortable with checking in every couple of days and still feel part of our group. And normally, this is not a problem for game progression because it does take some time for our very active leadership can get the plans in place for chats.

So it really doesn't matter how long the meeting is or how long the vote period of the meeting is but simply that notification of the special meeting (date certain) is adequate and that there be an absentee method of some kind. I believe that a 72 hour notification period with ongoing refinement of the detail meeting scope (adgenda) satisfies the intent of our timng requirements, and requires no constitutional change to implement. We may need some special enabling legislation which the senate coould simply ask the executive to draft since it is part and parcel of the executive duty to play the game, and therefore permitted under the 1st Amendment. Why do we need to struggle so to create a rubenesque monstrosity under our Amendment procedure, when there are already better mousetraps at hand.

[civman2000]

I think we should get this amendment made ASAP, before a legal battle breaks out. It should also contain a section authorizing the recent meeting retroactively so no one can impeach the administration for following its decisions.

[DAVOUT]

I am dropping this reasonnable amendment. The urgency now is to kill this *senate meeting* story.