Committee on Style

Motion to amend accepted.

All in favor of amending the above as such
Say aye all opposed say no.

Correct me if I'm wrong Sam on the above.
I'm a bit confused how did you want to amend it?

sky-opera wrote:Alright, My thoughts:

Overall, I liked it and will probably be satisfied with it.
However, there are two portions I don't quite like those being
Section XI of Article VIII President
I think it would be too much power to the President giving him dictatorship powers by allowing him to dissolve the Representatives.
and
Bill of Rights #3.
I don't think a soldier should be forcibly quartered at any time under the law or not in
someone's private residence.

Given these items I move that they be removed from the Constitution.
All in favor say aye all opposed say no.


I will look at my previous notes and determine whether there is anything else,
but as I see it now, it is good!

Ummm.... No, no, and another no. I ask that I be given the ability of defending my own propositions before a vote.

(afore I start, I added Wesley's passed amendment to Article V Section III)

Since I have not time to defend my proposition with my own argumentation, I will look to J.S. Mill for a quick defense:

"There is another mode of giving the head of the administration as much independence of the Legislature as is at all compatible with the essentials of free government. He never could be unduly dependent on a vote of Parliament if he had, as the British prime minister practically has, the power to dissolve the House and appeal to the people; if, instead of being turned out of office by a hostile vote, he could only be reduced by it to the alternative of resignation or dissolution. The power of dissolving Parliament is one which I think it desirable he should possess, even under the system by which his own tenure of office is secured to him for a fixed period. There ought not to be any possibility of that deadlock in politics which would ensue on a quarrel breaking out between a president and an assembly, neither of whom, during an interval which might amount to years, would have any legal means of ridding itself of the other. To get through such a period without a coup d'état being attempted, on either side or on both, requires such a combination of the love of liberty and the habit of self-restraint as very few nations have yet shown themselves capable of; and though this extremity were avoided, to expect that the two authorities would not paralyze each other's operations is to suppose that the political life of the country will always be pervaded by a spirit of mutual forbearance and compromise, imperturbable by the passions and excitements of the keenest party struggles. Such a spirit may exist, but even where it does there is imprudence in trying it too far.

Other reasons make it desirable that some power in the state (which can only be the executive) should have the liberty of at any time, and at discretion, calling a new Parliament. When there is a real doubt which of two contending parties has the strongest following, it is important that there should exist a constitutional means of immediately testing the point and setting it at rest. No other political topic has a chance of being properly attended to while this is undecided; and such an interval is mostly an interregnum for purposes of legislative or administrative improvement, neither party having sufficient confidence in its strength to attempt things likely to provoke opposition in any quarter that has either direct or indirect influence in the pending struggle.

I have not taken account of the case in which the vast power centralized in the chief magistrate, and the insufficient attachment of the mass of the people to free institutions, give him a chance of success in an attempt to subvert the Constitution, and usurp sovereign power. Where such peril exists, no first magistrate is admissible whom the Parliament can not, by a single vote, reduce to a private station. In a state of things holding out any encouragement to that most audacious and profligate of all breaches of trust, even this entireness of constitutional dependence is but a weak protection." (Considerations on Representative Government)

On the third Bill of Rights, I must remind you that those words were taken directly from the U.S. Constitution...

Certainly, please give us a defense for your position.

Well I have not the time to read the above quote right now, but
in reference to the Bill of Rights #3 I would be alright with it if the
rest of the government didn't seem to have so much power
already over the people. That was my original thought.
However, I guess what I was thinking I have now discovered is somewhat irrelevant.
So I agree with it.

Is there no way you could summarize your position? I am a slow
reader, so it would definitely be appreciated if you could.


Sam do you have any thoughts?

Is there no way you could summarize your position? I am a slow
reader, so it would definitely be appreciated if you could.

Okeyday.

Summary
President/Prime Minister should have power to dissolve Congress because:

1) The Executive should be able to, when in deadlock with Congress, appeal to the People (through elections) for the justness of his measures (this prevents executive/legislative deadlock),
2) If no party has a strong coalition/majority in Congress, Congress will not pass necessary measures for fear of lack of support,
3) It makes the House more careful in its encroachments on the Executive branch.

Furthermore, the Pres. requires the consent of the Prime Minister and the speakers/pres. of both houses of legislature in order to dissolve the House. Quite difficult unless there is great need for it to happen.

Also, dissolution may not be made within a year of the previous dissolution's re-election. Thus, the power of dissolution is limited even further.

Non-Summary, but select portion's of Mill

"There is another mode of giving the head of the administration... independence of the Legislature... He never could be unduly dependent on a vote of Parliament if he had... the power to dissolve the House and appeal to the people... There ought not to be any possibility of that deadlock in politics which would ensue on a quarrel breaking out between a president and an assembly, neither of whom, during an interval which might amount to years, would have any legal means of ridding itself of the other. To get through such a period without a coup d'état being attempted... requires such a combination of the love of liberty and the habit of self-restraint as very few nations have yet shown... Such a spirit (of liberty) may exist, but even where it does there is imprudence in trying it too far.

Other reasons make it desirable that some power in the state... should have the liberty of at any time (to call) a new Parliament. When there is a real doubt which of two contending parties (in Congress) has the strongest following, it is important that there should exist a constitutional means of immediately testing the point and setting it at rest. (No political bills/topics have) a chance of being properly attended to while this is undecided; and such an interval... (will prevent any party from attempting un-popular but necessary measures, for fear of lack of legislative support).

I have not taken account of the case in which the vast power centralized in the chief magistrate... give him a chance of success in an attempt to subvert the Constitution, and usurp sovereign power. Where such peril exists, (all magistrates must be able to be thrown out by Parliament with a single vote)."

I wanted to amend the part about the Bill of Rights, and take off "except as prescribed by the law."

Why should we take it off? If there is a national emergency (i.e. civil war), we may need to station troops inside the houses of certain citizens. If those citizens refuse, and the house is a critical point in the area (needed for field hospital, sniping position, etc.), the interests of the nation may just override the short term interests of an unhappy citizen. Besides, we could only station troops during a state of war, and as a wise man once said, "in war, you do whatever it takes to win."

Christopher S. wrote:Why should we take it off? If there is a national emergency (i.e. civil war), we may need to station troops inside the houses of certain citizens. If those citizens refuse, and the house is a critical point in the area (needed for field hospital, sniping position, etc.), the interests of the nation may just override the short term interests of an unhappy citizen. Besides, we could only station troops during a state of war, and as a wise man once said, "in war, you do whatever it takes to win."

Well, then add in, "in a state of war". :mrgreen:

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
That is what it means, but I'll change it anyway.

"No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Anyt'ing else?

Christopher S. wrote:Anyt'ing else?

When is the next call?

hmmm... Sky?

Okay, well I finally was able to read what you had condensed Christopher, and I agree
with it and think that we should go ahead and move on with a vote and pass this
Constitution!


As far as the next call is concerned if ya' ll want to have one,
a day that would work for me is the next Monday the 15th. Or possibly
Monday the 22nd at 4:00 CST.

What times would work best for all ya' ll ?


Also my apologies for not making it back here very soon... I've been having some email
trouble and so I haven't been receiving the prompts, I'm going to have to get a
new email provider.

Does anyone have any final thoughts?

Are we ready for a final vote?

I am personally ready to vote.

Sounds good.....

Sam how bout you?

I am ready to vote...

I assume it will be unanimous, but still haven't heard from Sam....

Well, we can vote, and if he has any more concerns, we can stop the vote.

Good idea..........

Well as previous Pro Tempore of the Convention

All in favor of the final draft of the Constitution say aye all opposed say no....


I vote aye.

err, aye.

Do we have to pass this on to the state legislatures?

At this point, because the Constitution was started with the intent, to pass
it without legislature involvement, and because all the state legislatures are
probably not organized, I would say no.

Therefore, in my opinion after Christopher votes we will pass it unconditionally.

I vote aye.

Yayyyyyy!


I declare this Constitution of the United States as passed by a unanimous majority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One thing. We didn't say anything about the debts of the previous United States. Do we we assume them or abolish?

*This will influence our standing to debtor nations*

Well it seems like that it would be the right thing to assume our past debts, but I think we should pull out all the stops where diplomatically adequate to require all nations who owe us to pay up.