Amendments to Art. III (proposed by Giuseppe Martinico and Cristina Fasone)

[Giuseppe Martinico]

Instead of “Way of proceeding to make laws” put “Legislative procedure”
Instead of “tax law” put “legislation affecting the federal budget”

Instead of “law initiatives” put “legislative proposals”
Instead of “amendments in order to adjust federal tax laws” put “replace with on any legislative proposal
move this sentence at the beginning of para 1 “2. Both Houses have the power to initiate laws”

“If he/she approves the draft he/she will sign it and forward it to the other House. If the President does not approve the draft he/she will return it, with his/her objections, to the House initiating the draft” COMMENT: We would not advise to let the President participate in the bicameral dynamic of the legislative process. S/he should not act as a veto player within the legislative process, but, in case, at the end sending the bill back to the Congress.Is there not mechanism of cooperation/compensation between the two Houses in case of disagreement, like a conciliation committee. With two houses having such a diverse composition, it can be useful

“Section 2 – Substantive powers of the Houses of the European Congress
The European Congress has the power:” COMMENT: this is de facto also a competence list. Are you sure you wanna build a dual federal system? Not even in the US the system is perfectly dual.

1. Add after point 14: “15. to have at their disposal and make all necessary regulations with respect to the territory or other possessions belonging to the United States of Europe/FEDERATION/the official name of the entity.

Section III

“Section 3 – Guaranteed rights of individuals“

COMMENT: if the federation joins both the Charter and the European Convention we think that this section is useless.

“1. The immigration of people, by States considered to be permissible” COMMENT: “To coordinate with the article above which aspires to create uniform migration and integration rules”

“3. The European Congress is not allowed to pass a retroactive law nor a law on civil death. Nor pass a law impairing contractual obligations or judicial verdicts of whatever court” Comment: instead of “is not allowed to pass a law on civil death” put “is not allowed to restore capital punishment”

[Lars Næsbye Christensen]

I agree with Giuseppe. I think that by ‘civil death’ is meant the removal of all of a person’s rights, which some states have done with ethnic minorities.

Enumeration of rights is an interesting discussion in Denmark (where I live). The constitution of Denmark itself provides a very outdated set of rights, as most of them are based on the state of political science in 1849, 1915 and 1953. But through accession to conventions and treaties the de facto protection is quite good. If we directly write the “European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” and the “Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” into the constitution I think we are good too.

[Herbert Tombeur]

A president’s veto or binding observation in legislative affairs seems too ambitious when constituting a European Federation. This Federation will count at least 300 million people. Moreover, old nation States in Europe will not disappear through it, on the contrary, they will survive in this world of global players as Members of the EF. Hence, I share Martinico’s opinion that the President of such a large and diverse unit should only have executive power, reporting the use of it to the European Congress (although he or she would be elected directly by the citizens in the EF, I presume).

However, the President could be a mediator between the two Houses when having a legislative conflict, i.e. a persistent disagreement. In such cases, he or she could be the chairman/-woman of the Mediation Committee, mentioned above by Martinico, without having a vote in it. the Committee members would be a number of delegated members of each House, looking for a compromise.

[Autor]

Príspevky