Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Post self-deleted by Muh Roads.
Are you kidding me -_-
Uh, what?
I noticed the Nations with Socialized Healthcare seem to have longer life spans on this game..
In addition to longer waiting times
Well that's not good...
Their founder moved here.
We need to strike first.
Yea maybe. I believe it's Zondaland. He makes multiple WA accounts. Surprisingly not IP banned.. (if that's a thing on NS).
The fascists seem to be better at defending and protecting their regions than the communists. Just an observation.
We have pretty solid evidence that Intel 1 is indeed Zondaland, and even if he isn't, he is clearly a raider from The Federal Islands 2.
In light of this, I have obtained a warrant from the Attorney-General to banject Intel 1, so I will do so now.
I've taken a few looks at the Constitution lately, and I've seen a few extremely vague clauses that have not been defined at all. So in the next few weeks starting today I'll be crafting a new legislative agenda to 'define' parts of the Constitution and flesh out our government.
Expect the first draft of a new bill to be posted soon.
I'm not putting this to vote yet, I just want y'all to take a look and give suggestions right now, if need be.
The VETO Act
The Verification of Executive Temperance Options Act
Section I
Purpose of the act
To clearly define the veto powers of the President.
Section II
Addressing legislation
If a bill has been passed with majorities in both legislative chambers, it will be sent to the President for his signature for a maximum of one day.
The President has four options:
sign the bill,
veto the bill,
exercise a line-item veto,
let the bill become law without the President's signature.
Section III
The veto
To veto a bill, the President may simply send the bill back to the legislature with a veto message describing why they rejected it.
The bill is then considered further by the legislature.
A veto may be overridden with a 75% majority in both legislative chambers.
When a veto is overridden, it passes into law without the President's signature.
Section IV
The line-item veto
The President may exercise a line-item veto, and veto individual provisions of a bill.
The legislature may override a specific line-item veto with a simple majority in both chambers.
Drafted by Pevvania.
I like it. I don't like the idea of executive vetoes in any form (NS or real world). I understand the purpose, checks and balances, but I just think giving one (wo)man power to just say no to something that has been debated and voted on by the People just because he doesn't like it. I like the line-item veto though. Perhaps make it so that a veto can be issued by a vote amongst the President and Cabinet, as to not give one too much power.
75% majority??? What? Why? A vote of 51% shows that the majority is in favor of something. Just sayin.
But the President can dissolve the Cabinet at any time, so would this not be futile?
It would be an important chcl on veto power.
Check*
If you say so. I just fear that a clear majority will vote in favor of a veto but two or three knuckleheads in the house/board will vote against just to spite the majority.. maybe a similar scenario.
Right now we have 11 capable voters. That would mean 8 out of 11 would have to vote in favor. If there were 7 in favor and 4 opposed I see a problem with that.
Isn't that a problem with every legislative system?
well yeah, then make it 51% like Muh suggested earlier. That makes way more sense than 75%, that is just too close of a margin.
Well sure, but typically majority rules. That's all my point is. I'm not against the legislature but i do find that bit of it of concern.
I support the Bill.
Second Largest Public Sector in Libertatem is me!
All I'm saying is that I don't like one person having the power to stop potentially important legislation just because he doesn't approve of it. It leaves to much to chance and gives him to much power. I think that there should be some sort of process that involves more than one person throwing a tantrum. I'm not saying you would do this, Pev. I just don't want one to be able to do this if they want to. It doesn't work in the US, it won't work here.
Here. Let's not set a majority percent.
Let's just go with "Tyranny by the Majority! "
If it ends 6-5 then it passes.
I concur that a large percentage would be ideal for an override
But that's exactly what I'm saying. Obviously with 6-5 the majority won. If its at 75% the poll could be 7-4 and the majority would lose.
Again, I'm not exactly opposed to the idea..
Obviously the bill would be sent to the president under the same conditions I explained. Majority passes bill, bill sent to president.. then if vetoed.. 75% of the board/house has to vote yes? I guess I don't understand the need.
Can we just get rid of the voting thing all together
Wrong.
Actually, that's not true.
I've based this piece of legislation on the US system of vetoes. Congress needs a 2/3 majority to override a veto. Presidents have actually used the 'pocket veto', an innocent name for a dangerous power - rejecting legislation entirely.
I think the VETO Act provides a very fair adaption of US veto powers and appropriately balances Presidential and legislatorial power.
The point of the 75% override level is to allow for bills strongly supported by the legislature to pass against a Presidential veto, and that controversial bills that only just get passed can be rejected by the President.
As much as that would be an interesting idea, the structure of the game is biased towards the state. So private companies would not spring up in defense of the region against raiders.
I'm second. I checked. It just hasn't registered me because I was in a different region
Unless someone wanted to call his/her nation a Private Company.
But - to use the erroneous statist term - the Delegacy is a 'natural monopoly' in this game.
.... It's a game based on Nations. Not Private Companies. What do you expect? In my opinion Private Militaries are untrustworthy.
I have 2 military operations in session. Please TG me if y'all want to join.
Against whom Fascism, Socialism, State Socialism or "Communist"
Liberal socialists, right?
Socialists/Commies.
A communist is a socialist in the higher stage of insanity and reality denial, so yes.
Communism is the Leftist Equality of Anarchy. No government, No wars and No inequality. Perfect Worker run state.
..... two different things.
That's not THAT bad.
In the words of our Great Founder, "Karl Marx was right. He just got the species wrong."
In other words, pony magic land.
......... Exactly! That is exactly it. In other words. ALMOST impossible(At the current time.) but the PERFECT FORM of Government.
He was right. It's just the time period and the people whom came after him were wrong.
Well no. They more so have a Libertarian Diarchy.
Triarchy. My bad.
The perfect form of government is voluntaryism. Voluntary, coercion-free interactions sound pretty nice to me.
Excuse me?
It's a good form but in all essences Communism is basically Equal, Peaceful, Left Wing, Volunteerism.
Triarchy. They have Three Princesses that run the state. Though they don't seem to have many laws thus being Libertarian Triarchy.
Are we seriously gonna argue about a perfect form of government? If thats the case im gonna walk away slowly and come back when there's less of this talk. Lol
Who has three princesses?
The Country of Equestria in MLP:FiM
Under true communism, the human race would quickly die out. If all land and industry was collectively owned by everyone then every individual would need unconditional permission from every other human being to use anything. If this rule was broken for convenience, then the human race would exist in a permanent state of aggression as individuals would be constantly violating the property rights of everyone else. So communism is neither peaceful, nor equal and obviously not voluntary.
I believe the 75% veto level is good; a simple majority should not have the power to overturn a veto because it takes a simple majority to make laws in the first place, and the executive branch has every right to turn those laws away.
Given that our population isn't tremendously large, however, perhaps it would be better to make it a 2/3s veto level rather than 3/4s.
All in all, I approve of the VETO Act.
I would settle for 2/3, but most bills are passed with strong majorities.
I agree with the original number of 75%. The region elects the prez to be a filter and a veto should be thought of as a serious statement against legislation
24 minutes ago: The Libertatem President of Pevvania proposed constructing embassies with Psychotic Dictatorships.
>>> EMBASSY REQUESTS WILL BE REJECTED BECAUSE I DO NOT DEAL WITH INFERIOR REGIONS - THAT MEANS YOU, IDIOT!! <<<
-WFB
:
Lol :p
Two excellent defenses of the current legislative proposition. I completely agree.
I believe now would be a good time to bring the VETO Act to a vote. It is a strong piece of legislation that would benefit the region when it comes to future legislation.
First I want the support of [nation=short]Muh Roads[/nation] and [nation=short]Humpheria[/nation].
I'm sorry, I hate to be that guy, but I won't be able to vote for until there is some way to alleviate the power of one person to hold up the region progress. Yes, there has to be something along the lines of a veto. But until the bill is presented with some form of a tweak to this issue, I cannot support it. Afterward I would be more than happy to.
Explain. What power does any one nation have to impede progress?
Let me make a list now.
1. That's State Socialism. Not Communism. Everyone has equal rights that's communism.
2. Communism works on the idea of Community, Unity and "A collective Union of Peace and Love." That's why I said IN THIS ERA AND TIME the world isn't ready for Communism.
3. Communism is the basis Everyone works to their own ability.
4. The abolishment of Social Classes and Racism.
5. Taxes to be abolished.
6. Corporations arenon- existant. People produce for their and others current needs.
7. Government will not be needed. Disputes shall be decided between citizens.
Again. We need a better world. But if Humans became better and less 'Human' it would work. Unfortunately human instincts are greed, Pride and Gluttony of Wealth.
The WAD.
Do we have an Impeachment bill?
Firstly, I don't agree with the current real-life veto system. The idea of a veto is that one may say no to legislation that they don't agree with. One person. One nation. Can stop something that was passed by majority. I won't get involved in the Simple Majority debate. I just want something added that makes it so that the President can't stop something because he doesn't like it. A Cabinet vote, Board vote (even better), a House overturn vote. Anything. To answer your question ("What power does any one nation have to impede progress?"), that's kind of the definition of vetoing.
It's in the Constitution.
Okay. Well. If one does hold up Progress. That's solution 1.
I'm talking about the ability to stop progress in the form of stopping a bill due to personal preference.
I know.
Impeachment is one solution.
This promotion of egalitarianism is something I'd expect from Time Alliance, but you, Humpheria?
That form of argument...I can't...that is so divorced from rational thought and common principle that I simply cannot form a response.
Wait you don't believe in egalitarianism? I thought Libertarians stood for favoring equality for all people.
Is this not what the 75% over ride is regarding?
Equal liberty.
Sorry for the bad quote editing, disregard the first line
But I believe that's too much. I think It should be Majority Override or no VETO at all.
Freedom comes first.
Besides, equality is one thing, but egalitarianism takes it way too far. I understand that all people are entitled to the same natural rights, and that the law should apply to everyone. But there are many natural and contrived instances in which equality is simply not possible, or at least not effective.
Considering veto power, Libertatem's President can and should be able to have and exercise it, provided that there is a reasonable check (which there is; it has just been proposed). After all, this nation is popularly elected by the people and can be impeached. If he has to be the region's shield from light and transient causes, then that's just what he has to be.
But not equality?
I personally prefer a 3/4ths vote to a 2/3rds one. We got to ensure a majority otherwise we'll have 51% of the region taking the other 49% hostage.
This is an important point to make. A simple majority can pass legislation, but there are circumstances in which passed legislation need not be signed legislation.
If such equality can come a way without using the state apparatus to reduce negative rights, than sure.
Equality and Freedom can be hand and hand if the Government got out of our personal rights. Only to be there to handle Defense, Economics, Helping The Lower and Working Class and of course protecting from murder, fires and disease.
President Pev, VETO does have my support.
I am not going to like everything about any bill, as before you cant please everyone :)
Exactly. I'm for the Bill. We have an impeachment process in the constitution if needed.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I am simply saying that there should be a way for to overrule a president's decision. I am in favor of some sort of majority vote to make sure that the President doesn't have too much power. I am not talking about equality in any form. I do not appreciate the hostile sarcasm. And I am not strictly avowed against the legislation. I simply do not agree with putting too much power into one office. He should be able to veto, there's no other viable alternative. But there should e some way to repeal said action.
If I'm missing something, please correct me.
He has a point. None of this is equality. This is defense from a corruption of the Government.
Again, I raise the point of the 3/4 override
Most of this is, quite frankly, utopian nonsense, but on the first point you misunderstand me. Communism's fundamental principle is the collective ownership of everything, so if an individual wanted to use something, they would need permission from every other human in existence to use anything. This would be an impossible task, and would lead to either the extinction of humanity or the abandonment of collectivism.
But it CAN be repealed by an override.
And you do realise that the Constitution's vagueness on the matter could effectively give me legal power to exercise an absolute veto? According to the Constitution, I can refuse any bill I please without my vetoes being overridden. Surely, clearly defined veto power allowing for appropriate checks and balances is more compatible with the rule of law than unconditional power?
Not a communist, Pev, but I think the collective ownership of everything stops at personal property.
Communism: a classless, moneyless, andstateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, political and economic ideology and movement that aims at the establishment of this social order
I know. I meant nearly everything, then.
Common ownership... Meaning that everyone must give permission for one to use it.
Indeed. I believe the current legislation helps fix the problem, not intensifies it as Humpheria is suggesting.
And to those of you who are crying "corruption"...you have not been in Libertatem long enough to know exactly how we take care of that. ;)
*proposed legislation
I'm so libertarian I call corruption at the slightest action.
Communism belief in Common Ownership is not describing land. It is describing wealth and power.
Land is owned by all. All are free to use it in accordance to their needs.
Again, I'm am not against the entire bill. I don't know why all of a sudden I'm being burned at the stake. I merely ask that Lack's majority idea, or some form of repeal is actually put in the bill, not just talked about. I'm not talking about renaming the region, burning an effigy of Reagan. I simply want some clarification. And sir, I would kindly ask you to refrain from insulting character and falling to reductio ad absurdum arguments.
And to end the argument. I withdraw my reservations. These arguments aren't worth something as minor as I request. It wasn't that much of a big deal regardless of what it's been blown out to be. So, Mr. President, as I have no serious reservations besides the repeal issue, which is a lot less than some of you think apparently, the bill has my support. Something this small isn't worth tearing up the region.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.