Amendment to Code of Laws

[RegentMan]

If I read the code of laws correctly, then this is the correct way to begin the amendment process.

I want to amend Section F.2 of the code of laws. Here's how it stands now:

Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the House, and a thread poll for the Senate. If more than 50% of the voters, not counting abstain, in both polls support the declaration, war can be declared. If either poll gains a 67% majority in support of war, war may be declared regardless of the other poll.

I wish to change the 67% majority to a 2/3 majority. That was the way it was originally intended to be, but rounding has made this technically not the case.

Changes are in bold and italics.

Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the House, and a thread poll for the Senate. If more than 50% of the voters, not counting abstain, in both polls support the declaration, war can be declared. If either poll gains a two-thirds majority in support of war, war may be declared regardless of the other poll.

Do you approve? Options will be:
Yes
No
Abstain

 

[Black_Hole]

Two things:
1. Wait till the JR finishes, it might be ruled that way
2. Put that article in the constitution, that fixes the problem where the Senate can't ovverride the citizenry

 

[ravensfire]

For this particular issue, the 67 vs 2/3, I'd like to see this change regardless of the outcome of the first JR.

Depending on the second JR, of course, all of this might become moot due to some significant rewriting needed.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Bootstoots]

If the second JR rules that the Senate may overrule the Assembly on the matter of declaring war, and the first rules that 2/3 may not be rounded to 67%, I will oppose this amendment. I feel that, if the Senate is to have such power, it should not be done on a whim, and should require a large supermajority (5-1 in this case) to effect an override. As it stands now, if all Senators vote, 4-2 is the smallest majority that could vote in favor of war in the first place, as a 3-3 vote would not show majority support. Therefore, the Senate, a body of 6 officials, could in effect have more power than the full Assembly to declare war.

If the second JR rules that the Senate has override power on the issue of war, and the first JR rules that 2/3 may be rounded to 67%, I will support this amendment (though not enthusiastically), as it will simply change the wording of the law to make it clearer, but will not change anything in reality.

If the second JR rules that the Senate does not have override power on the issue of war, then this amendment will be moot unless a constitutional amendment is passed allowing the Senate to declare war.

Overall though, I think this amendment should hold off until the Court has made its decision on these reviews.

 

[Nobody]

i think that we should just let the judical review be the law. Case law is more intresting that statue law.

 

[Black_Hole]

i think that we should just let the judical review be the law. Case law is more intresting that statue law.

a JR is not always best for the country, however it should always be an exact interperation of the law

 

[DaveShack]

The judiciary has ruled in a way which means this amendment is relevant.

Any further discussion on the topic prior to posting it as a proposed poll and sending for judicial review?

 

[Civlord]

That is only a minor change, because 2/3 is aproximately 66.666% of the votes. I agree.

 

[Black_Hole]

send the amendment to the Judiciary!

 

[Bootstoots]

That is only a minor change, because 2/3 is aproximately 66.666% of the votes. I agree.

It's not quite as minor as it may appear. As it is worded now, a 4-2 vote of the Senate will not be sufficient to send the nation to war without the Assembly's approval. If this is passed, such a margin (which represents the smallest possible Senate majority if all Senators vote) would allow war to be declared even if the Assembly votes against it. I'm opposing this since I want the Senate to be able to declare war only by an overwhelming majority (such as 5-1), and feel that 4-2 should not be sufficient.

 

[ravensfire]

Proposed Poll:

Do you approve of the following changes to Section F.2 of the Code of Laws?

Changes are in bold and italics.
Summary: Change the supermajority threshold from 67% to 2/3.

Current:

Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the House, and a thread poll for the Senate. If more than 50% of the voters, not counting abstain, in both polls support the declaration, war can be declared. If either poll gains a 67% majority in support of war, war may be declared regardless of the other poll.

Proposed:

Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the House, and a thread poll for the Senate. If more than 50% of the voters, not counting abstain, in both polls support the declaration, war can be declared. If either poll gains a two-thirds majority in support of war, war may be declared regardless of the other poll.

Options are:
Yes
No
Abstain

Poll will be up for 3 days. To amend the Code of Laws, there must be more Yes votes than No votes.

 

[admiral-bell]

first, what poll. second a simple majority is not enough, the goveroners could rush prematurely into war. I support the current 67%

 

[Black_Hole]

first, what poll. second a simple majority is not enough, the goveroners could rush prematurely into war. I support the current 67%

okay, then is a proposed poll, which will be sent to the judiciary in 24 hours
second, all this changes is 67% to 2/3(66.6666%)... a simple majority of the governors and citizenry is normally needed, but one or the other can ovveride the other with 2/3

 

[Strider]

It should have been two-thirds to begin with. Every percentage should be told as a fraction, it's not that much more trouble, and it's exact.

 

[ravensfire]

Poll has been posted here.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice