[VOTE] Clarifying the Agnostic Clause

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

I move that FreeDems Constitution XIII:

XIII. The Free Democrats adhere to the notion of 'constitutional agnosticism' which can be understood as a commitment to bridging the gap between the existing debate versus monarchism and republicanism. As such, members shall always be free from adherence to a party line that favours either side of the debate.

be amended to read as follows:

XIII. The Free Democrats adhere to the notion of 'constitutional agnosticism' which can be understood as a commitment to bridging the gap between the existing debate versus monarchism and republicanism. As such, members shall always be free from adherence to a party line that either defends existing Royal powers and prerogatives, including the identity of the Monarch or the hereditary succession, or which promotes a non-monarchical constitution.

REASONING: As Dien has pointed out in another thread, the current reading would make it impossible to have a firm party policy which would suggest any alterations to Royal powers and prerogatives, which - given that the current King is throwing his weight around something awful - would destroy our party commitment to freedom and democracy. The goal of this amendment is to prevent either a fully Republican or a pro-current-monarchy stance being adopted, but allowing anything in between.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Ok I like this. It allows us to find a center ground.

[Dien]

Let me think on this one for a bit.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

I like the look of it!

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

LET'S PUT IT TO A VOTE NOW

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Për

[Dien]

After much reflection, I vote Contra.

We already are increasingly being seen as a divided party, torn apart between monarchist-liberals, republican-liberals, and republicans; I don't believe that this amendment is going to change anything. Even though the only thing which could be accomplished by this amendment to the agnostic clause would be to allow for the possibility of whipped votes against bills keeping the status quo, the specifics of the language may actually lead to future confusion. Which of the multiple Royal powers would not be covered by this amendment? Would the recent proposals to permanently get rid of the monarchy and have the royal powers exercised by a Board of Regents not be considered a non-monarchial constitution?

I understand and recognize the concerns by those who don't want such a broad clause, but I believe that it is only with such a broad clause that the agnostic clause has any kind of measurable effect. I worry that by limiting or including specifics in the clause, we might be headed away from a truly agnostic party.

[Iustì Tíçhern Corneir]

Për

[Françal Ian Lux]

A vote contra on this amendment for the same line of reasoning Dien has pointed out.

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

PËR

That means the vote stands at 3-2 për. I am going to keep this vote going for a while longer - at least until I finish my Convention-closing speech.

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

Well, due to rampant apathy, the vote is closed, the Constitution is amended accordingly.

[Dien]

Jan 24, 2016 13:01:24 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ said:

Well, due to rampant apathy, the vote is closed, the Constitution is amended accordingly.

Was there a 2/3rds majority?

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

... *gulp*

Well, will you look at that. Don't I look stupid.

Due to rampant apathy, then, the amendment is lost.