Bill: Rejected Towns Rights Constitutional Amendment Act

[Imza]

A
BILL
To

Amend the Constitution​

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment

(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Towns Rights Constitutional Amendment Act’.

(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

(3) This Act has been authored by Gribble19.

(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Senator Gribble19.

2 - Reasons

(1) The existence of towns should be defined in the Constitution.

(2) Towns should only be able to be dissolved by constitutional amendments. By defining the existence of Oakridge and Aventura in the constitution, they cannot be dissolved unless through an amendment to the constitution.

(3) Further details regarding towns can be in normal legislation. Trying to fit all town-related legislation into the constitution will add an unnecessary amount of information to the Constitution. This amendment is clear and to the point, while still ensuring the basic definitions of towns are enshrined in our constitution.

3 - Amendments

(1) The Constitution shall be amended as follows, with subsequent sections being properly renumbered:

PART I – REDMONT​

1. Redmont
Redmont is an archipelagic nation consisting of the Reveille Isles.


2. The Capital
The capital city of Redmont is the City of Reveille

3. Towns​

Towns are smaller communities outside of the capital of Redmont, Reveille City, which have particular themes or industries. Towns may not grow into cities competing with the capital.​

​

(1) Oakridge. Oakridge is a town of Redmont. Oakridge is known for its logging and lumber industry, and its rustic theme.

(2) Aventura. Aventura is a town of Redmont. Aventura is known for its fishing and tourism industry.

4. By-Laws​

Towns may create by-laws. By-laws may be created in the absence of federal legislation, or as an extension of executive jurisdiction which is expressly delegated to local jurisdictions for the purpose of implementing and enforcing regulations within their local jurisdiction. By-laws cannot contradict the constitution of Redmont, federal legislation, or an Executive Order.

 

[Franciscus]

Nay. Subjugating town bylaws to executive order, and putting that permanently in the constitution does not establish town rights. On the contrary, it permanently subjugates them to the thumb of the executive without any checks or protections - we should not accept a bill that does this.

Towns need legislative control and delegated powers. A previous bill had this, but failed the Senate. This is too far of a reaction in the other direction just for sake of passing something.

 

[girlfailcoded]

I second the concerns of Speaker Multiman155.

 

[Imza]

NAY (for now) - I wasn't aware of the author including Executive Orders within Section 4 of this amendment. I share Multiman's concerns, and until I create and propose a motion to amend, I will be NAYing this bill.

 

[Scassany]

Nay - Very much agree on the issues with executive orders, will aye an amendment to resolve that

 

[Smami]

Nay, when first presented with this bill in private I had identical concerns as presented by multiman and states them as such. Town law should always supersede executive orders