Failed General Assembly Abolition Act

The Speaker or Chairperson may assign this to a thread that has failed their respective house's legislative process.
Status
Not open for further replies.
EUKBICR

EUKBICR

The Devil
Citizen
Oct 25, 2020
1,729
175
Awards
6
The Constitution (Amendment: General Assembly) Act 2020

An Act to abolish the General Assembly.​

Introduced in the Senate of the Union of Democratic States by British Isles and Commonwealth Realms, and Kingdom of Sacento.​

Be it enacted by the Senate and the General Assembly, with the assent of the President to the same, the following:​

Section I - Short Title, Definitions, and Commencement​

  1. This Act may be cited as the General Assembly Abolition Act 2020.
  2. “Legislation” shall be interpreted as laws, constitutional amendments, motions, etc., unless specified otherwise.
  3. This Act shall come into force upon the expiration of the term of the General Assembly.

Section II - Abolition of the General Assembly​

  1. The General Assembly of the Union of Democratic States will hereby be abolished, and Section 4 of Article 4 of the Constitution of the Union of Democratic States shall be removed.
  2. All offices and committees of the General Assembly constituted or created therein or in connection therewith will hereby be abolished.
  3. All references in any enactment to the General Assembly, unless the context otherwise requires, and in the Constitution shall be removed.
  4. All references in any enactment to the Senate and the General Assembly shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be read as reference to the Senate.
  5. The Senate shall have the power to enforce this law through appropriate legislation.

Section III - Provisions​

Subsection: Constitution​

  1. The Constitution shall be amended to remove all mentions, references and allusions to the General Assembly, and Officers of the General Assembly.
  2. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3 shall be amended to read, “Primary public offices, defined as the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Senator, and Justice of the Supreme Court, shall be mutually exclusive.”
  3. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 5 shall be amended to read. “For reasons not criminal in nature, a motion to remove the President may be introduced in the Senate. Following an appropriate debate period, the Senate shall hold a four-fifths vote of approval. If approved by the Senate, the motion to remove the President shall be in effect.”
  4. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 8 shall be amended to read, “During announced inactivity of the President, the Vice President shall serve as Acting President, with the powers, restrictions, and responsibilities of the Office of the President. The President may issue directives to their Vice President which shall be binding for their service as Acting President. No Acting President may appoint a Vice President.”
  5. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 15 shall be amended to read, “The President shall process and grant or deny applications for citizenship and diplomatic status according to the law. The President may declare any player not holding citizenship Persona Non Grata. Such declarations may be nullified by a nullification motion passed by a four-fifths majority vote by the Senate.”
  6. Article 4, Section 1, Clause 1 shall be amended to read, “ Legislative power shall be vested in the Senate.”
  7. Article 4, Section 5, Clause 1 shall be amended to read, “Following introduction, a bill shall be granted an appropriate debate period, during which amendments may be made. Upon the conclusion of the debate period, the bill shall be subject to a majority vote of approval. If approved, the bill shall be delivered to the President for his assent.”
  8. Article 4, Section 5 Clause 4 shall be amended to read, “Upon approval from the Senate, a bill shall be presented to the President by the Speaker of the Senate. If the President approves the bill they shall sign it into law. If the President does not approve the bill they shall veto the bill stating their objections. If the President has neither signed nor vetoed the bill within 5 days following its presentation, it shall become law. Should the legislative session end whilst the President is considering a bill, the bill shall be considered vetoed.
  9. Article 4, Section 5, Clause 5 shall be amended to read, “Should a Senator choose to contest a veto of the President, a vetoed bill shall be granted an appropriate debate period, during which both the bill and the President’s objections shall be reviewed. Upon the conclusion of the debate period, the bill shall be subject to a four-fifths vote of approval. If approved, the veto of the President shall be considered overturned and the bill shall become law.”
  10. Article 4, Section 5 Clauses 2, 3, and 6 shall be removed.
  11. A Clause shall be added, and appropriately numbered, to read, “Should the Senate pass a constitutional amendment, it shall be brought before the citizens for a region-wide referendum.
  12. A Clause shall be added, and appropriately numbered, to read, “The Citizens may propose a bill to the Senate through any of the Senators. The Citizens may debate upon the bill and propose amendments to the bill.”
  13. Article 6, Clause 4 shall be amended to read, “A Chancellor may only be removed from office for reasons criminal in nature. Upon conviction by the Supreme Court, a motion to remove a Chancellor may be introduced in the Senate. Following an appropriate debate period, the Senate shall hold a four-fifths vote of approval. If approved by the Senate, a motion to remove a Chancellor shall be considered in effect.”
  14. Article 6, Clause 5 shall be amended to read, “Should a seat in the Office of the Chancellor become vacant, the remaining Chancellor shall nominate a replacement to the Senate. After an appropriate debate period, the confirmation motion shall then be subject to a four-fifths majority vote of the Senate. If approved by the Senate, a confirmation motion shall then be subject to a majority vote of approval by the Supreme Court, following an appropriate debate period. Following confirmation, a Chancellor shall be sworn in by the most senior Justice available.”
  15. Article 7, Section 2, Clause 1 shall be amended to read, “Following introduction in the Senate, a motion to amend or repeal this document or repeal a motion to amend this document shall follow the legislative process, requiring four-fifths majority approval of the Senate.”

Subsection: Union Laws​

  1. Section 2 Clause 1 of the Standardization and Formalization of Legislative Formats Act shall be amended to read, “The Speaker of the Senate shall assemble a Committee consisting of members of the Senate and Citizens and convene to determine the correct manner in which to format the laws of the Union.”
  2. Section 2 Clause 1A of the Standardization and Formalization of Legislative Formats Act shall be amended to read, “The Speaker of the Senate shall appoint the chair of the committee.”
  3. Section 3 Clause 1 of the Standardization and Formalization of Legislative Formats Act shall be amended to read, “The Speaker of the Senate, upon the approval of the proposals of the committee shall inform the members of their respective legislatures.”
  4. Section 4, Clause 3 of the Legislative Archive Act shall be removed.
 
This bill is needed for the sole factor which is the GA has become inefficient, unneeded etc, we have come to a point in the Union's history where we can finally take a step forward past the GA. It is inactive and we can survive without it, it does not make us undemocratic but it makes our democracy stronger by removing something that clearly does not benefit it. I believe this bill can go hand in hand with a motion to expand the senate. I urge my fellow senators to debate and consider this bill and to vote AYE. I now yield my time to the Speaker/ Deputy Speaker.
 
I suggest adding a clause to read, “Should the Senate pass an Override to a presidential veto, it shall be brought before the citizens for a region-wide referendum.”
I also suggest amending clause 15 to read, “Following introduction in the Senate, a motion to amend or repeal this document or repeal a motion to amend this document shall follow the legislative process, requiring four-fifths majority approval of the Senate and a simple majority in the referendum.”
 
1. 11 and a potential new clause seem odd. Half the things the Senate do are Constitutional amendments so we would only be shaving time half the time. Also, I see no difference in rubber stamping between rubber stamping on acts, constitutional amendments, and veto reversing.
2. 12 seems pointless since most introduction is done OOC in DM's from citizens
3. I personally do not wish to abolish the General Assembly though that is partially because I hate change. I feel that the General Assembly could be done better pretty easily with no amendment to the constitution.
4. 3 seems really dangerous. An unpopular President could get impeached by 4 people. A unanimous vote or a general referendum would be far nicer since citizens no longer can stop the Senate if they disagree.
 
Prorescia said:
3 seems really dangerous. An unpopular President could get impeached by 4 people. A unanimous vote or a general referendum would be far nicer since citizens no longer can stop the Senate if they disagree.
Click to expand...
This power is always exercised with caution. Do you really think that the senators will act against public will?
 
Prorescia said:
11 and a potential new clause seem odd. Half the things the Senate do are Constitutional amendments so we would only be shaving time half the time. Also, I see no difference in rubber stamping between rubber stamping on acts, constitutional amendments, and veto reversing.
Click to expand...
Saving half the time is still better than saving no time. And I don’t really understand the last part.
 
EUKBICR said:
I have highlighted the rights citizens have. They may exercise those rights as they see fit.
Click to expand...
There is no real need to argue on this one, really. It makes no difference whether it is stated or not so it only takes more effort to get rid of it.

EUKBICR said:
This power is always exercised with caution. Do you really think that the senators will act against public will?
Click to expand...
I think that Senaots can and have been against the free will of people. As is shown right now, Josephto appears to be the only non-government member arguing on this meaning they would be "the people". We certainly aren't acting on their will.

EUKBICR said:
Saving half the time is still better than saving no time. And I don’t really understand the last part.
Click to expand...
Rubber stamping is the term to mean that they always approve or disapprove almost unanimously and their opinions are based off of one or two people high up. My main question here is why we need to make citizens approve of constitutional amendments but not acts if they are going to do the same thing in both cases.
 
Prorescia said:
I think that Senaots can and have been against the free will of people. As is shown right now, Josephto appears to be the only non-government member arguing on this meaning they would be "the people". We certainly aren't acting on their will.
Click to expand...
The ministers are also voters. Their POV is equally valid and important.
Prorescia said:
Rubber stamping is the term to mean that they always approve or disapprove almost unanimously and their opinions are based off of one or two people high up. My main question here is why we need to make citizens approve of constitutional amendments but not acts if they are going to do the same thing in both cases.
Click to expand...
To keep the Senate in check. And with votes only not debate.
 
Prorescia said:
There is no real need to argue on this one, really. It makes no difference whether it is stated or not so it only takes more effort to get rid of it.


I think that Senaots can and have been against the free will of people. As is shown right now, Josephto appears to be the only non-government member arguing on this meaning they would be "the people". We certainly aren't acting on their will.


Rubber stamping is the term to mean that they always approve or disapprove almost unanimously and their opinions are based off of one or two people high up. My main question here is why we need to make citizens approve of constitutional amendments but not acts if they are going to do the same thing in both cases.
Click to expand...

It's kind of amusing that we're basing the will of the People on one Citizen who is fairly new to the region. Regardless of what he is arguing for or against, that is unfair to the opinions of those in a position of influence and those who aren't that hasn't spoken up. Citizens have always indirectly influenced the Senate before, by discussing along with the people they elected or choosing new Senators in an election. Citizens can still do so with or without the GA.
 
I agree that something must be done to solve the inactivity of the GA. Yes, I am aware that a very little percentage of the members are engaging in the activities of the GA. But, I don't think abolishing the GA outright is the way to go. I believe this is the against the will of the citizenry. I personally think we should take measures to make the GA more active and efficient (like making it so that only citizens interested in legislature get membership to GA and removing members who fail to remain active). I mean let's first try some things to make the body more effective and active before completely abolishing it.
 
Dawnsland said:
I agree that something must be done to solve the inactivity of the GA. Yes, I am aware that a very little percentage of the members are engaging in the activities of the GA. But, I don't think abolishing the GA outright is the way to go. I believe this is the against the will of the citizenry. I personally think we should take measures to make the GA more active and efficient (like making it so that only citizens interested in legislature get membership to GA and removing members who fail to remain active). I mean let's first try some things to make the body more effective and active before completely abolishing it.
Click to expand...
The problem is that despite efforts to revive the GA activity, most citizens don’t participate. Giving certain citizens rights and devoid those rights to the rest is not proper for a democratic union. We owe it to ourselves to at least try to pass this.
 
EUKBICR said:
Giving certain citizens rights and devoid those rights to the rest is not proper for a democratic union.
Click to expand...
It's not like we are depriving people of rights. It's more about giving the legislative rights only to interested ones. If somebody's interested in legislature, they're very welcome to join the GA but if they want to keep their rights, they'll have to fulfill their responsibilities of being active, voting in bills and all. This is just an instance of what could be done though.
 
Phoenix said:
It's kind of amusing that we're basing the will of the People on one Citizen who is fairly new to the region. Regardless of what he is arguing for or against, that is unfair to the opinions of those in a position of influence and those who aren't that hasn't spoken up. Citizens have always indirectly influenced the Senate before, by discussing along with the people they elected or choosing new Senators in an election. Citizens can still do so with or without the GA.
Click to expand...
I agree with Phoenix, we were elected to the senate by the people therefore our will reflects theirs and even if only one citizen is involved and is speaking against it that doesn't reflect the citizenry as a whole and so until this goes before the GA we are the ones to decide not a citizen. Hope that made sense. The GA is not essential to getting the citizenry involved because frankly hardly any of them do anyway.
 
I propose to close disc period and move to amendment period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back