Constitutional Amendment Referendum Amendment (C.A.R.A.)

Proposition for Council r/TeenGovernment u/Then_Train8542 posted 2026-06-05 20:05 UTC ↑2 · 100% 4 comments

Article I: All amendments which repeal or replace at least one section of the Constitution in its entirety and/or a previous amendment in its entirety must be approved by both a Council vote and a referendum.

Article II: In order for the amendment to pass, it must obtain all of the following, and if it does not obtain the following it shall be rejected:

a. At least 2/3 of non-abstain votes in Council being ayes.

b. At least 50% + 1 of non-abstain votes in the referendum being ayes.

Article III: The referendum shall not have a turnout requirement.

Article IV: The referendum shall last between 24 and 72 hours and shall be held by the Referendum Minister.

Article V: This amendment shall only apply to amendments proposed after its passage and shall not apply to any amendments proposed during an emergency state.

2 comments

Zeedith- 2026-06-05 20:08 UTC ↑1

Why? It doesn't help with anything. In that case they could just repeal all but one clause of a section and not trigger it. It seems in good faith, but for 1 replacing an entire section of the constitution has only happened once to my knowledge with Z2CCA, and for 2 the new constitution which will be proposed in (quite) a while has an entirely different system for amendments that will override this.

Then_Train8542 2026-06-05 20:13 UTC ↑2 OP

To make it so that the people have more power over the fundamentals of our system.

I believe that the Judiciary Mass Amendments have replaced entire sections of the constitution, although I may be wrong.

Fine, but this is mainly to ensure that at the very least that constitution actually needs support from the people in order to pass.

Sorry if this is rude.

Trickster-123 2026-06-05 20:20 UTC ↑2

Judiciary mass replaced the courts entirely, yeah

SrijitDas2010 2026-06-05 20:28 UTC ↑2

Sorry if this is rude, but I oppose this amendment.

First, even if this only applies to amendments that replace or repeal entire constitutional sections, those are often the amendments that become necessary when significant reforms are needed. During periods of growth or institutional reform, TeenGov may need to rewrite outdated sections of the constitution. Requiring both a Council supermajority and a referendum creates an additional hurdle precisely when major changes are most needed.

Second, this weakens the purpose of a representative government. Citizens elect Council members to review proposals, debate them, and make informed decisions. If the Council approves a constitutional reform by a two thirds supermajority, that already demonstrates a consensus among elected representatives. Requiring another vote afterward raises the question of why the Council's judgment is not sufficient.

Third, constitutional questions are often complex. Not every citizen has the time, interest, or opportunity to carefully read and understand large constitutional rewrites before voting. Council members are elected specifically because they are expected to spend time reviewing proposals in detail. Referendums risk reducing complicated constitutional questions to popularity contests where people vote based on who proposed the amendment or personal biases, grudges, rather than what the amendment actually does.

I am also concerned about majoritarianism. A reform that receives overwhelming support in Council could still fail because of a temporary majority in a referendum. 

Finally, citizens already possess numerous ways to influence constitutional changes. They can use petitions, protest for or against amendments, contact Council members, vote in elections, and run for office themselves. Democratic accountability already exists within the current system.

Post ID: t3_1txvvlw · Subreddit: r/TeenGovernment · Created: 2026-06-05 20:05 UTC · Cached: 2026-06-05 23:56 UTC · Versions: 1