• Facepunch Constitution Convention: A Forum Political Experiment
    120 replies, posted
I henceforth submit the following: Proposition 1-B, the "Let's amend this shit" Act To clarify which article of the constitution the submission of the delegate should be included in or to introduce a new article entirely to the constitution, I propose the following: Article VI: Constitutional Convention Rules and Regulations - Each new submission must clearly indicate which Article of the Constitution the laws should be incorporated in. This can include the introduction of a new article to the constitution; If said law is accepted, the new Article is also to be included in the Constitution by default. If an individual proposed law does not clearly indicate in which Article of the Constitution the law should be incorporated in, it shall be considered invalid. It's possible that the Chairman of the Convention might not be present to confirm or deny the ratification of submissions because of illness or other hindrances. As such, I propose the following: Article VI: Constitutional Convention Rules and Regulations - The Chairman of the Convention can at his discretion appoint deputies that will share his responsibilities and powers to make sure that any submission can be ratified in a timely manner and to take care of other menial tasks. Since the deputies cannot directly modify the original post or Constitution, they are allowed to communicate privately with the Chairman of the Convention. The deputies can be delegates that will also retain whatever responsibility they currently hold. To help keep the OP clean and readable, I propose the following: Article VI: Constitutional Convention Rules and Regulations - The original post and the Constitution can be modified at will by the Chairman of the Convention or a deputy of the Chairman as long as the precise wording of each laws is maintained.
Not trying to make an exact submission so no quotes. The structure of the government is based on the US model, and the problem with a political president is that it inherently forces a two party system. Therefore, I propose that either there is no president or that the president is merely a figurehead to represent the country without having any significant political power. This power would instead be performed by a prime minister (the head of a population based house of representatives) who must be nominated by their party at the time of the election. Parties may not change leader without a new election, however if the leading party changes due to coalition arrangements then that is allowed. This house should use the single transferable vote (STV) system to ensure that many parties can participate, leading to better representation of the people.
Comrades, I would like to submit my glorious amendment: Bill 1-C, the "Chronological Order AcT (C.O.A.T)" @StrawberryClock is doing something I like. Notice how he has the Bill/Propositions' Identifier and a name. so I propose that, Article VI: Constitutional Convention Rules and Regulations - Propositions/Amendments submitted by delegates must include an introduction that states the Bill Identification (B.I.D), Which is codified as a number followed by a hyphen an a series of letters (I.E 1-A), and the name, which must be unique, of said bill. The I.D must be underlined and the Name must be quoted and underlined. The actual contents of said amendment must also be preceded by the Article it is amending separated by a hyphen. Any submission not in the correct format is invalid and must wait a full day before re-submission. An example of an acceptable format is highlighted below: Bill/Proposition/Amendment 69-D, the "Example Act" Article Z: The Example - This is an example for the above proposition. Since we are gonna do this quasi seriously I would like to have a really cool system of referring to bills. So that means if someone does 1-C you can either do 1-D or 2-A. Plus that means we can track how far we've (Di)Progressed!
You should quote in your posts the exact submissions accepted to make it clearer. This is always what I was referring to in my submission: If it's not too much of a bother, can you do it retroactively?
If a mod wants to act as deputy, they could potentially edit the OP when I'm absent. I work a full time job that runs 40 to 60 hours a week so this is a pretty good idea. @OvB have an interest?
A mod could work, I was also thinking normal users could be deputized to declare a submission as accepted or rejected after the 24 hours has elapsed so that votes afterward don't affect the outcome.
Imo facepunchia needs at least 3 branches of government, so it's 2 acting as a power check on the other. Ideally from different groups so there is no tyranny of the majority, eg if there are 2 branches and both are elected then you allow for a skilled orator to effectively gain complete control.
Bill 2-A, the "Automation in Industry Act" Article I: Industries who rely highly in automation will be evaluated by the estate and a certain part of the profit to be defined by the evaluator and the representative of the evaluated company would be directed towards Social Security to aid the unemployed and disabled. Note that this would be a opt-in, and the companies that would do so would be eligible for certain benefits defined on Article II of this bill. Article II: The companies who opt-in will have access to tax reductions in the acquisition of the machines that allow the company to operate with a reduced workforce, it would also allow these companies access to startup loans with reduced interest rates that allow the establishment of the company to be made more easily.
I don't think your submission conforms to convention regulations, the articles that have to be mentioned for each law is which article of the Constitution you want your law to be included in.
Those would actually be new laws for regulating companies. How should I go on then since it's an area where there is no section about yet? Should it be like: Bill E-1 - The "Example Act" 1. Example text 1 2. Example text 2 I thought it should be: Bill E-1 - The "Example Act" Article I : This would be Article 1 of the Bill E1 Article II - Amendment to Article V: Rights of Citizens l, Point 2nd: Example Text with the amended legislature. The articles in the Constitution or laws should have their own distinctive ID, for example "Decree 1/2018 of 25th of September (Page X - Poster XYZ)" so it would be easier to refer to said laws or amend them.
Be sure to submit it as a new post then as I don't think the whole retroactively looking at edited posts thing is in law yet.
Scorpius if you need a script to sift through and sort posts by ratings or anything to make it easier to find posts which are being voted on, let me know
Shouldn't need one. So far, this thread isn't gaining a whole lot of posts per hour and it's fairly easy to scroll through the pages and spotting the Agree ratings. On a side note, it's amusing that majority of the submissions so far have been about how to submit things rather than actual government structure ideas
Article IV is insanely stupid and people who voted for it didn't read through it. No claims should be made towards the author's lack of foresight (technological or otherwise) in these documents. No attempts to abridge or nullify these documents or its subsections shall be made because of claims that they are no longer applicable due to the march of progress (cultural, technological or otherwise) without following the formal process for amending this document and its subsections in full. It's a complete non-article and should be removed entirely. No shit any proposed amendment should follow the formal process for amending the document and its subsections in full. The second part of the last sentence should be its own article under something like "How to amend this document" not something stupid about one of the authors. If we didn't make any claims towards the author's lack of foresight then literally no part of the Founding Document would EVER change. Amending a founding document is literally the process of improving it because the original writers couldn't think of every possibility Human beings are very fallible, and societies change all the time. Creating a founding document which is resistant to change because of some asinine reason like "The founders were the most super intelligent and also omniscient and omnipresent superhumans with knowledge of everything also they knew everything" is something that should cause a fucking coup, not be enshrined in the document itself.
It's just so people can't try to remove things like the 2nd Amendment with the societal progress argument.
Well that's fucking stupid and shows a lack of foresight (technological and otherwise)
I don't even care about the second amendment right now, I've tried not posting about it since I was made aware of the huge infodump that Zombinie or whoever it was did. I haven't worked through it so I don't have the complete information on the subject. But it still feels like you ignored my points. If we consider that, quote, "No claims should be made towards the author's lack of foresight (technological or otherwise) in these documents. ", then no part of these documents would ever change. Every amendment to the US constitution would immediately be blocked because "The lack of foresight on probation doesn't matter, it's in there" or "The permission of slavery was written by one of the authors, their lack of foresight into society eradicating slavery and considering it morally abhorrent is irrelevant, it's in there so it stays"
Not defending it, just why it's there (at least I think that's why it's there)
Submission approved
If you say so: Comrade I would like to Propose: Amendment 3-A, the "Wonderful Ordinance Regarding Knowledge (W.O.R.K)" act. This country is infested with NEETs and I find it necessary to propose legislation to make their worthless existences useful: Article IV: Rights of Citizens - Citizens are to be provided basic necessities for public schooling starting in early child development into their young adult years. This will include full tuition and money for supplies and other expenditures deemed necessary for the child's success. This would also include Room and Board for Young adult scholars who are pursuing higher degrees. Every parental unit has the right to accept or deny the wondrous gift from the benevolent state but those who deny their education must fulfil due compensation as listed below: Children are to be seized by the State and brought to laboratories to be examined on their intellect and physical characteristics. Older children reaching their teens must be sent to Collectively Organised Atonement Legion facilities to be come C.O.A.L Minors. C.O.A.L Minors will produce physical gross domestic product that will be predetermined by the state. Parents of C.O.A.L Minors will be send to Government Ultra Leisure And Guidance camps to allow maximum efficiency when streamlining the C.O.A.L Minor process. Young Adults must work a minimum of 12 years as due compensation to help their Scholarly peers have the necessary resources for achievement. Lastly: Any student that receive low marks (Lower than an "A") will be automatically be transferred to the C.O.A.L Minor program or other respective government compensation program.
Yeah, I think we should be good for a while.
1-D, the Preventing Elder Abuse Amendment Article V - Citizens over the age of 66 and their families have the option of keeping a publicly funded elder-law focused lawyer on retainer to create wills and trusts etc., and to protect against unscrupulous actors and fraudsters.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.