Well I understand what in general makes a motion a constitutional amendment, I don't understand what was in 2012-P that triggered that decision.

It really should have been posted that it was a constitutional amendment. The others were obvious as they stated what exactly they were modifying. It seems to me that 2012-P is modifying Section 7 of the bylaws which would not be constitutional.

If you want to quibble over the discounted membership fees, I cite By-Law #1, Section 10, which states that any modification to the membership fees is done by Ordinary Resolution of the Assembly of Governors.

So I see nothing in 2012-P that would make it a constitutional amendment, and therefore it should carry.