Title: The Housekeeping Constitutional Amendment Act
hard_right - August 28, 2006 04:43 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
The Housekeeping Constitutional Amendment Act
Article 1 – Name.
1. This act shall be officially cited as the “Housekeeping Constitutional Amendment Act”.
Article 2. – Amending Article 11 of the Constitution of 2005.
2. Article 11 shall now have the following clause placed as Clause 1, with the current clause that serves as Clause 1 renumbered to Clause 3: | QUOTE | | “The Emperor conducts His Government for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of His people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one person, family or class of people among His subjects. Therefore, in making the laws for this nation, regard shall be had to the protection, interests and welfare not only of the Emperor and Rulers, but of all the people alike.” |
3. Article 11 shall now have the following clause placed as Clause 2:
| QUOTE | | “The Emperor shall be the Supreme Executive Magistrate of the Empire and the style of the “Emperor of all the Alexandrians and Perpetual Defender of the People of Alexandria”. The Empire belongs to the Emperor. |
Article 3 – Amending Article 15 of the Constitution of 2005.
4. Article 15, Section 8 of the Imperial Constitution of 2005 is hereby amended to read:
| QUOTE | | “The Emperor has the power, by and with the advice of the Prime Minister and/or the Cabinet, to appoint ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls who shall be commissioned, accredited and instructed agreeably to the usage and laws of nations. It is His prerogative to receive and acknowledge ambassadors and other public ministers from abroad.” |
5. Article 15 shall now have the following clause placed as Clause 15 with the following clauses renumbered accordingly:
| QUOTE | | “The Emperor, through His Ministers, coins money and, through the Imperial Parliament, regulates the currency by law.” |
6. Article 15 shall now have the following clause placed as Clause 16 with the following clauses renumbered accordingly:
| QUOTE | | “The Emperor, with the approval of the Prime Minister, in a case of invasion or rebellion, can place the whole Empire, or any part of it under martial law; and He can even alienate it, if indispensable to free it from the insult and oppression of any foreign power.” |
Article 4 – Amending Article 19 of the Constitution of 2005.
7. Article 19 of the Imperial Constitution of 2005 is hereby amended to read as follows:
| QUOTE | (1) All legislative bills must be approved by Parliament before they can be submitted to the Emperor for Imperial Assent.
(2) Any Member of Parliament shall be entitled to introduce Bills and other measures.
(3) In the case of a new election and at the end of a session all Bills and other measures which have not been finally passed shall be dropped.
(4) Any bill put before the Imperial Parliament that contradicts the Constitution or undermines the laws of the Empire hall be rejected at the discretion of the Speaker of the Imperial Parliament, subject to judicial review. |
Article 5 – Amending Article 33 of the Constitution of 2005.
8. Article 33 of the Imperial Constitution of 2005 shall now have the following clause added as Clause 2, with the existing clause being numbered as 1:
| QUOTE | | “The decisions of the High Court, when made by a majority of the Justices thereof; shall be final and conclusive upon all parties.” |
9. Article 33 shall now have the following clause added as Clause 3:
| QUOTE | | “The Emperor, the Ministers, the Imperial Parliament and citizens of the Empire have authority to require the opinions of the High Court, upon important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions.” |
Article 6 – Imperial Assent.
10. These amendments shall be entered on the Imperial Constitution of 2005 as specified by Article 38 of said document.
|
Pete James - January 8, 2007 11:00 PM (GMT)
No open. I motion to dismiss this.
Jon - January 9, 2007 10:59 PM (GMT)
Mr. Speaker,
Would you elaborate as to why you motion to dismiss this bill?
hard_right - January 10, 2007 03:05 PM (GMT)
I am opposed to dismissing this without proper debate.
Pete James - January 10, 2007 04:14 PM (GMT)
we have a constitutional commission at present. I think this shoud be sent there.
Jon - January 10, 2007 11:37 PM (GMT)
Mr. Speaker,
I disagree. This Act was submitted to Parliament to amend our Constitituion. The Commission on Constitutional Reform is only charged with the task of reviewing the Constitution and submitting its recommendations upon completion of its task.
The Commission lacks not only the authority, but the power to amend the Constitution.
Jacques de Beaufort - January 12, 2007 06:53 PM (GMT)
While I understand both points of view, I suggest that we keep this bill "on hold"so to speak until the Commission for Constitutional Reform can make its recommendations.
Even though I am not against any of the reforms proposed, I would hate that if this bill where passed, and then upon recommendarion from the CCR, new ammendments where introduced, even to the same articles here propose. This would mean that we would have actually ammended the same article twice in a few weeks.
For this reason I suggest that we wait until we have the report from the Commission to discuss the article. And since the Commission cannot ammend the Constitution by itself, it wouldn't, in my opinion, hurt, to see what they have to say.
Sincerely,
hard_right - January 12, 2007 08:40 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Pete James @ Jan 10 2007, 11:14 AM) |
| we have a constitutional commission at present. I think this shoud be sent there. |
Are you serious?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! <_<
Have you been keeping track of the commissionat all? I thought the same exact thing, and I brought the bill to the Commission and I got this big lecture from the Chief Justice about how it was completely wrong and how it was an effort at politicizing the Commission. Since then I have not shown up at the Commission I refuse to work with someone who has obviously has shown a bias against my work and against anything drafted by Conservative citizens of Alexandria i will not allow myself to be treated like that when I'm only trying to integrate constitutional reforms together, killing two birds with one shot!
Pete James - January 16, 2007 05:09 PM (GMT)
Jacques de Beaufort - January 16, 2007 11:54 PM (GMT)
Actually the Comission is getting nowhere. So maybe if the comission was created by law, it can be shut down by law. Maybe if we where to create a Parliamentary Commitee to replace the Commission, things could work better. Because articles could voted one by one, or whatever, action could be faster... much faster.
What do you think of replacing the Commission with a Parliamentary Commitee?
Sincerely,
Pete James - January 17, 2007 12:01 AM (GMT)
That is a desicion for the next parliament I believe. There shall be no new motions intorduced (Except perhaps a parliamentry medal) We can sent this to the commision which will forward it to any comittiee.
Matthieu Poiters - January 19, 2007 10:05 PM (GMT)
i would like to state that the commission is like a UN body, it merely recommennds but we choose wether to take action or not. remember that we were voted into office by citizens while the commission was estalished and people were appointed to it, they dont have the power we do. i motion to vote.
Pete James - January 19, 2007 10:55 PM (GMT)
ok I second the voting.
OUI (why not?)
Jacques de Beaufort - January 21, 2007 04:45 PM (GMT)
hard_right - January 21, 2007 06:26 PM (GMT)
Jon - January 21, 2007 08:15 PM (GMT)
Pete James - January 21, 2007 11:30 PM (GMT)