Ratification Poll: Constitution preamble thru C

[DaveShack]

This is the ratification poll for the preamble to the constitution, and articles A thru C. A majority of votes cast in the affirmative will signify these articles are ratified. Amendments to these articles may be proposed and passed using a majority until such time as the constitution in its entirety has been ratified, at which time the rules regarding ratification of amendments (if any) take effect.

Please vote yes to ratify (accept) these articles as written, no to reject them, or abstain if you wish to record your indifference to this decision. A majority is defined as (YES > NO) AND (YES >= NO + ABSTAIN). For example, yes=15, no=14, abstain=1 -> the articles are ratified. yes=15, no=15 -> ratification fails.

This poll will remain open for 7 days, and the option to see all the votes is enabled to ensure that we can tell later whether people voting in the poll were actually intending to become citizens. If there is significant disagreement with the poll being open, I will ask the moderators to delete it and I'll repost it as closed.

The text to be ratified:

We, the people of Fanatica, in order to create an atmosphere of 
friendship and cooperation, establish this Constitution of our 
beloved country. We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must 
have an equal voice in the government and ruling of our country, 
that government itself is a construct of and servant to the people,
that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to 
facilitate the active participation of the people and to make 
possible the dreams and desires of the citizens.

Article A.  All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen 
            Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the 
            right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right 
            to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to 
            representation, the right to seek to redress grievances 
            and the right to vote.

Article B.  Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the 
            Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower
            forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be 
            valid that contradicts these Articles excepting an 
            amendment or lower form of law specifically tasked
            to do so.

Article C.  The government will consist of the Executive Branch, 
            Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.

 

[zorven]

Article B "...No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles excepting an amendment or lower form of law specifically tasked to do so."

How can you have a lower law that contradicts the Constitution?

 

[ravensfire]

No
Presupposes structure of government without any discussion on the matter.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Article B "...No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles excepting an amendment or lower form of law specifically tasked to do so."

How can you have a lower law that contradicts the Constitution?

Happens all the time in real life. That's why we have a Supreme Court in the US to strike down unconstitutional laws.

Anyway, I'm voting yes on this poll.

 

[Sarevok]

Looks ok to me, Yes.

 

[zorven]

Happens all the time in real life. That's why we have a Supreme Court in the US to strike down unconstitutional laws.

Anyway, I'm voting yes on this poll.

But in this case the Constitution is allowing for laws to contradict the Constitution...so how could you ever have a law that is unconstitutional?

 

[donsig]

But in this case the Constitution is allowing for laws to contradict the Constitution...so how could you ever have a law that is unconstitutional?

All I can say is

Guess I should have read the thing before voting!

You are indeed right. As written that article allows lower laws that contradict the constitution! :thumbdown

I'm beginning to agree with ravensfire as well. We need to discuss this propositions before polling them.

I move that all these ratification polls be closed, proper discussion threads started for each and then we repoll.

 

[Immortal]

agree with donsig.

 

[DaveShack]

Without the provision of Article B, several people argued in DG4 that a law specifically meant to clarify an article could not do its intended purpose, because a law may not contradict the constitution. One notable example is the appointment of new officials for "vacant" offices. donsig repeatedly argued that the constitution said all vacancies must be filled by an appointment, as an attempt to keep runoff elections from being held, on the grounds that the election law in the CoL could not override the poorly worded article saying vacancies are filled by appointment.

The Article B provision is specifically intended to ensure that when an article says "as prescribed by law", the subordinate law "specifically tasked to do that function" may revise and extend the constitution.

 

[Cheetah]

I voted No, because article C presupposes a structure of the government. If we want another government for this DG, then we must discuss that first!

 

[ravensfire]

I voted No, because article C presupposes a structure of the government. If we want another government for this DG, then we must discuss that first!

Too late! Prepare to have the form of government ramrodded through!

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Without the provision of Article B, several people argued in DG4 that a law specifically meant to clarify an article could not do its intended purpose, because a law may not contradict the constitution. One notable example is the appointment of new officials for "vacant" offices. donsig repeatedly argued that the constitution said all vacancies must be filled by an appointment, as an attempt to keep runoff elections from being held, on the grounds that the election law in the CoL could not override the poorly worded article saying vacancies are filled by appointment.

The Article B provision is specifically intended to ensure that when an article says "as prescribed by law", the subordinate law "specifically tasked to do that function" may revise and extend the constitution.

Get the story straight. Before we started DGIV we debated whether we wanted to use the DGIII method of filling vacancies (highest remaining vote getter in the previous election) or use scrap that and use appointments. The decision was to use appointments and that is what I based my DGIV arguements on. The trouble we ran into came with the first judicial elections, remember?

In any event, the DGIV history does notjustify the addition of such a silly phrase in our constitution.

 

[Sarevok]

Too late! Prepare to have the form of government ramrodded through!

-- Ravensfire

The problem is people are just voting on this poll, most probably arent even reading the text...

 

[ravensfire]

The problem is people are just voting on this poll, most probably arent even reading the text...

Gee, that's a big surprise.

So we have now decided the basic structure of government without talking about it, allow laws to superceed the Constitution. What else will we find in these, and the other articles posted for ratification without bothering the citizens with a discussion on the matter?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Without the provision of Article B, several people argued in DG4 that a law specifically meant to clarify an article could not do its intended purpose, because a law may not contradict the constitution. One notable example is the appointment of new officials for "vacant" offices. donsig repeatedly argued that the constitution said all vacancies must be filled by an appointment, as an attempt to keep runoff elections from being held, on the grounds that the election law in the CoL could not override the poorly worded article saying vacancies are filled by appointment.

The Article B provision is specifically intended to ensure that when an article says "as prescribed by law", the subordinate law "specifically tasked to do that function" may revise and extend the constitution.

I agree with what you're saying in this post, DaveShack. This is exactly the kind of discussion we should have had in the forums before we posted a poll on the subject.

 

[zorven]

Without the provision of Article B, several people argued in DG4 that a law specifically meant to clarify an article could not do its intended purpose, because a law may not contradict the constitution. One notable example is the appointment of new officials for "vacant" offices. donsig repeatedly argued that the constitution said all vacancies must be filled by an appointment, as an attempt to keep runoff elections from being held, on the grounds that the election law in the CoL could not override the poorly worded article saying vacancies are filled by appointment.

Then the poorly worded article should be revised to be well worded.

The Article B provision is specifically intended to ensure that when an article says "as prescribed by law", the subordinate law "specifically tasked to do that function" may revise and extend the constitution.

So, I could have an article that says "All government offices shall be filled by election as prescribed by law". Then write a law that says "all offices shall be filled by the first citizen to post that they want the job" and that would be perfectly legal based on this proposal.

You cannot have any laws beneath the constitution be contradictory, otherwise why even have a constitution? It is like saying "here are the rules, but if you don't like them, just write new ones" !

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I voted NO.

It should never be possible to write a law that overrides the constitution. If you want to change the constitution, then do that, not try to sneak around it with lower laws.

 

[Immortal]

is this poll still applicable?

 

[DaveShack]

is this poll still applicable?

No, we voted separately to cancel all the pending ratification polls and reissue them after discussions on each article.

 

[Immortal]

I was confused by that, as it was the only poll which moved with the forum this afternoon...

Thanks for clarifying.