Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

We will now vote on the final bill.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1475927

Aye

Before you vote nay, listen to this. I understand there is some concern around the line 'The President, as WA delegate, has the power to sponsor' as there is no such thing in sponsorship in the WA. I highly disagree with the notion that the Constitution is encouraging the President to violate NS rules by plagirising content, something that I will condemn people for bringing about in an attempt to pressure me into ending the vote on the amendment and returning to the debate stage.

The reason I did not return to the debate stage is because the minimum portion of time to vote had already passed and the amendment had clearly reached consensus. The House of Commons Speaker, Snowflame, has already agreed to amend this phrase out of the bill. It would have been a waste of our time for us to revert to the debate stage, especially considering the low turnout of Senators and the complete lack of debate in the actual debate stage.

I encourage Senators to read the bill fully next time, and submit amendments during the time period that you are allotted- typically about 12 to 24 hours, in which we got 21. If you want me to revert to the debate stage, tell me directly, instead of getting ex-Thaecians to do it. Unrelated and more directly to Marvinville, no, this bill would not make it unconstitutional for citizens to propose legislation, instead it would make it constitutional for any non-President to do so.[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

Nay, it removes the Presidents right to propose legislation to the WA

Snowflame the above bill has passed.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1465459

We are now debating the above bill.

To be honest, I don't really see the point in this. It seems like a waste of time and resources to be honest. They had one of these in Enadia's citizenship application form, and it ended up getting nowhere and nobody approached me for the job stuff. I will still propose amendments regardless, but unless the author or any other Senator can change my mind I will probably vote against.[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

I will say that I wrote this before the #adverts channel was made on the Discord, so there probably isn’t much point in passing this. Feel free to do as you please though.

I dont see a need for this in the region. I will likely vote against it

Brototh wrote:Snowflame the above bill has passed.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1465459

We are now debating the above bill.

To be honest, I don't really see the point in this. It seems like a waste of time and resources to be honest. They had one of these in Enadia's citizenship application form, and it ended up getting nowhere and nobody approached me for the job stuff. I will still propose amendments regardless, but unless the author or any other Senator can change my mind I will probably vote against.[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

sorry for the delay. We vote now

Nay

I wrote this. Nay.

It has, obviously, failed. We'll debate this bill now. Big up Hulldom for being man enough to know his bill ain't useful anymore, takes a strong person to vote nay. https://www.nationstates.net/nation=dendrobium/detail=factbook/id=1478149

The bill is in my opinion absolutely stunning. It achieves exactly what we wanted with the SoDf role making it immune to the PRA, but it also clarifies the number one question that people ask about the army; what affect the PRA will have on the SoDf.

[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

Emazia

Re: Civil List. I still think some kind of method for posting government jobs on-site would be good. While the community on NS isn’t necessarily as engaged, it’s still a good idea to advertise what they can do to serve their community if they’d like to.

As for this, I have absolutely no problems with it.

Brototh wrote:It has, obviously, failed. We'll debate this bill now. Big up Hulldom for being man enough to know his bill ain't useful anymore, takes a strong person to vote nay. https://www.nationstates.net/nation=dendrobium/detail=factbook/id=1478149

The bill is in my opinion absolutely stunning. It achieves exactly what we wanted with the SoDf role making it immune to the PRA, but it also clarifies the number one question that people ask about the army; what affect the PRA will have on the SoDf.

[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

we are voting

Aye

The above bill has passed Snowflame

Now we will debate the reduction act https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1450606

[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

Hulldom

I have a small edit to make to this later. I will post it when I have the time. It just makes clarification for the fate of the bill if it fails the referenda

I don't believe we will have time to pass this bill before the midterms

Marvinville wrote:I don't believe we will have time to pass this bill before the midterms

I don't either, but I think we have time to get it done in the Senate so that the new House of Commons can decide on it. I really hope that if we pass this, Snowflame won't debate the bill, due to both time constraints and so that the new House can decide their own stuff, instead of the last thing the House doing be deciding what happens to their Chamber.

I believe that we can all agree this is necessary. It would be wonderful to be able to have the House remain at its current size, but we have seen how this is not the best idea. I will be voting aye, and I encourage my fellow Senators to do the same.

Hulldom, Emazia

World Trade wrote:I believe that we can all agree this is necessary. It would be wonderful to be able to have the House remain at its current size, but we have seen how this is not the best idea. I will be voting aye, and I encourage my fellow Senators to do the same.

Hear, hear!

World Trade

I'd like to propose the following amendment:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Changes Article 1 to say:

"The House of Commons will be reduced by 4 seats, to a total of 11 seats."[/spoiler]

Ashlawn wrote:I'd like to propose the following amendment:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Changes Article 1 to say:

"The House of Commons will be reduced by 4 seats, to a total of 11 seats."[/spoiler]

Although this could further reduce the problems with the House, we've already had a House that big, and considering our population is even bigger than when we decided to expand it to 15 I think it would be a bad idea to reduce it all the way back down.

Emazia, Marvinville, Sevae

First, I'd like to say lots of MPs, included the Speaker themselves, are in support of this reduction. We all agree that the House is far too large to stick around like this, so I'm glad to see so much Senator support for this bill.

Ashlawn wrote:I'd like to propose the following amendment:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Changes Article 1 to say:

"The House of Commons will be reduced by 4 seats, to a total of 11 seats."[/spoiler]

Sorry for the delay on this.

I personally strongly oppose this amendment and I know many people that would vote against the reduction to 13 would agree with me here. I oppose this for two reasons.

We've already had a House at 11 and it's clear that it didn't work out. One of the reasons we chose to expand the House so highly is because it gave the extra chance to newcomers to run for the House. Obviously, we figured out that having it too high is a bad thing, hence why we are debating this here today. We had 20 people run for 15 seats last election, which everyone here can agree is absolute shambles. However, imagine a world where 20 people run for 11 seats. While it does significantly increase the competition, that may not necessarily be a good thing. The Senate clearly suffers from an elitist power complex- while we are often only joking when we say the House is bad, we give off an extreme vibe of elitism. I fear only that, such high competition, would discourage newcomers from running and turn the House into more elitist than it is now-remember part of the reason we expanded so high is because we wanted as many newcomers to run for government as possible. If we had 20 people run for 13 seats, it works much better.

Secondly is for a less personal belief kind of thing. Thinking strategically here, we can all agree that passing this reduction in referendum may be a challenge, thinking especially of Andusre's personal disagreements with the bill, and he is quite vocal and persuasive about it, which I do think can lead to some significant opposition to the referendum. I know for a fact that if he and others do not support a reduction to 13, even less people will support a reduction to 11. The chances, in my opinion, of a reduction to 11 passing referendum are extraordinarily low. If we want to reduce the House, we simply cannot do it to 11 realistically.

Aside that, I have prepared an Amendment B that would explain procedure for the bill's fate if it fails the referendum. If it fails the referendum, at current stage it would still remain in the Law Registry, which may give the impression that it passed even though it did not (looking at 'will be reduced'). It would also remain in the Law Registry, because the law technically does create a legal responsibility for the Electoral Commissioner to hold a referendum on the matter.

[spoiler=Amendment B]To Article III - Application, add:

Section II: Should this bill not receive the sufficient majority in the referendum, it shall be repealed by this section.[/spoiler]PS: I stated 'by this section' just to clarify it does not need a second bill to repeal it.

World Trade

We've spent enough time debating this already. Let's get to voting on the amendments.

Author: Ashlawn

Type: Section Change

[spoiler=Amendment A]Changes Article 1 to say:

"The House of Commons will be reduced by 4 seats, to a total of 11 seats."[/spoiler]

Author: Brototh

Type: Section Addition

[spoiler=Amendment B]To Article III - Application, add:

Section II: Should this bill not receive the sufficient majority in the referendum, it shall be repealed by this section.[/spoiler]

Please style your votes as either 'Aye, Aye' or 'Aye to All'. My votes are:

Nay

Aye

[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

Sorry for the delay. Been so caught up with xmas, IRL stuff, and setting up the military I completely forgot to do this. Deputy Chairs have my automatic permission to end amendment voting and debates in future reference. However I should be available for the next 7d at minimum.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1450606

Aye

[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

Dendrobium

Brototh wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1450606

Aye

[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

I felt uncomfortable ending this on 6, but it is the bare minimum vote and we had 26 hours, so it passes. Snowflame, I would ask not to do this until after the midterms. While it annoys me we will need another 2 months of 15, especially the low election turnout, the bill creates more problems than it's worth. Or do what you want, idk lol

Aye, we absolutely need this today.

Sorry boys, but we're the Senate so we ain't stopping for no election. Hope you enjoyed your government mandated three days five hours off. Back to work now kiddos. /s

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1468552

The House made me aware they amended this and we haven't done it again. So, let's just get this stuff over with.

I can't lie, up until 'In the event' the bill is absolutely needed and neccesary. I personally have some major issues with Sevae's amendments, such as the fact that the President is now a deciding factor on who is the Speaker or Chair of a Chamber of Congress in the event of a runoff tie. But it does solve a little loophole, which I am greatful for. Do I think that needs to be in a Constitutional Amendment? No. But is it harmful if it is, greatly considering the rest of the contents of the bill? Absolutely not.

So, unless anyone has anything to say, I think this will be a quick and easy 16hr debate that we can vote on. Now I've said that, I'm half expecting six amendments and five NWE government officials to be sponsored and walk on the Senate and tell me why this bill ends my political career.

[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

This seems like it’s overdue. Don’t really get why this sort of thing was/is tied to party membership/caucus membership.

I like this const amendment. I feel this closes any loopholes about the process and it’s very necessary especially as Thaecia is moving away from political parties.

While I can see what the follow-up amendment tries to do by including the President in the procedure of (s)electing the Speaker and Chairperson, I think it is also pretty ironic how a bill that tries to limit the role of parties in Thaecian politics leaves so much room for particracy. This way the President would be able to choose freely any of the leftover candidates, and pick one out who they are sure of will follow their own agenda, breaching the devide between the seperation of powers. Exactly for that reason it historically has been the role of the Electoral Commission, a politically independent institution, to organize elections of the Speaker and Chairperson. For those reasons I propose the following amendment:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Changes the second paragraph of the Constitutional Amendment to say:

Parties can only put forward one candidate for the chambers leadership elections. In the event in which no candidate is tied, but at the same time no candidates are tied for first place, but no candidate has received more than 50% of the votes, a run-off is will be held between the two candidate who received the most votes and any candidates who received the second-most votes. In an event of a tie for first place between two or more candidates, a runoff will be held between all candidates that are tied, and the Speaker/Chairperson will be chosen by a plurality of votes. In the event in which no candidate has received a plurality of the votes in the runoff, the President Electoral Commission shall select organize another runoff to elect the Speaker/Chairperson from among the tied candidates. This procedure will be repeated until one candidate has recieved a plurality of the votes.[/spoiler]

(For clarity I have underlined any additions to the already existing added text)

Dendrobium wrote:[spoiler=Amendment A]Changes the second paragraph of the Constitutional Amendment to say:

Parties can only put forward one candidate for the chambers leadership elections. In the event in which no candidate is tied, but at the same time no candidates are tied for first place, but no candidate has received more than 50% of the votes, a run-off is will be held between the two candidate who received the most votes and any candidates who received the second-most votes. In an event of a tie for first place between two or more candidates, a runoff will be held between all candidates that are tied, and the Speaker/Chairperson will be chosen by a plurality of votes. In the event in which no candidate has received a plurality of the votes in the runoff, the President Electoral Commission shall select organize another runoff to elect the Speaker/Chairperson from among the tied candidates. This procedure will be repeated until one candidate has recieved a plurality of the votes.[/spoiler]

(For clarity I have underlined any additions to the already existing added text)

Just to clarify I think this is what the amendment above means

A: 2 votes

B: 2 votes

C: 2 votes

D: 1 vote

E: 1 vote

F: 1 vote

A,B,C runoff

A: 4 votes

B: 4 votes

C: 1 vote

Without the amendment the President picks another. With the amendment

A & B runoff

A: 5 votes

B: 4 votes

A wins, while the President may have picked B which ruins separation of power. Very good amendment.

We are now voting on Dendrobium's amendment

Author : Dendrobium

Type: Section Change

[spoiler=Amendment A]Changes the second paragraph of the Constitutional Amendment to say:

Parties can only put forward one candidate for the chambers leadership elections. In the event in which no candidate is tied, but at the same time no candidates are tied for first place, but no candidate has received more than 50% of the votes, a run-off is will be held between the two candidate who received the most votes and any candidates who received the second-most votes. In an event of a tie for first place between two or more candidates, a runoff will be held between all candidates that are tied, and the Speaker/Chairperson will be chosen by a plurality of votes. In the event in which no candidate has received a plurality of the votes in the runoff, the President Electoral Commission shall select organize another runoff to elect the Speaker/Chairperson from among the tied candidates. This procedure will be repeated until one candidate has recieved a plurality of the votes.[/spoiler]

Aye

[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

Abstain. I don’t particularly like the way it’s being done in the amendment, but I think this is just asking for a forever loop.

Aye

Brototh wrote:[spoiler]Just to clarify I think this is what the amendment above means

A: 2 votes

B: 2 votes

C: 2 votes

D: 1 vote

E: 1 vote

F: 1 vote

A,B,C runoff

A: 4 votes

B: 4 votes

C: 1 vote

Without the amendment the President picks another. With the amendment

A & B runoff

A: 5 votes

B: 4 votes

A wins, while the President may have picked B which ruins separation of power. Very good amendment.[/spoiler]

Yes, that was my point, though you explained it much simpler than I lol

Brototh

Hulldom wrote:Abstain. I don’t particularly like the way it’s being done in the amendment, but I think this is just asking for a forever loop.

[spoiler]This isn't a forever loop, because due to the nature of there being an odd number of seats in both chambers, and the fact you can't exactly abstain from a leadership vote, it eliminates the lower candidates until there's none left. Much better than the Executive violating separation of powers to further their own agenda.[/spoiler]

Dendrobium

Passed. We are now voting on the final bill

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1483309

My vote is Aye

[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

The above bill has passed Snowflame

We are now debating this bill https://www.nationstates.net/nation=speaker_snowflame/detail=factbook/id=1477152

[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

Hulldom

I see no problems with this. If anything, I am curious what “knight based” was referring to before it was struck.

I have nothing to give but my approval, and nothing to say but my vote in favour.

Personally, I am not a great fan of the Order of Thaecia. It easily comes across as slilghtly elitist, for a lack of better words, and only seems to pop up every now and then to distinguish "regular Thaecians" from the people who have been here longer and thus have had more chances to contribute to the region. However it doesn't do any real harm, so how it comes across does not matter all that much I suppose.

But with this Amendment that "elitism" comes forth even more, and stronger than before, stripping everyone but the President from the ability and possibility of commending or nominating someone for the Order of Thaecia. I think this is a crucial part, since until now even people who are not members of it were given the chance to somewhat feel as if they are included in the (process surrounding the) Order of Thaecia. That is why I propose the following Amendment:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Changes Article II - Additions to say:

A new Article II will be added, which will state the following:

Section I - The president reserves the right to unilaterally award any of the three ranks to any resident. They must provide a justification for doing so. Thaecian residents may also nominate any resident of the region to be added to the Order of Thaecia.

Sub-section I - When someone is nominated for the Order of Thaecia, the person nominating them must provide a public justification for doing so.

Sub-Section II - When the President awards any of the three ranks to a resident or denies a nomination, they must provide a public justification for doing so.

[...]

Section III - The president reserves the right to strip a member of the Order of their rank, with the consent of the Prime Minister, for which they must give a public justification.[/spoiler]

Brototh

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Dendrobium wrote:Personally, I am not a great fan of the Order of Thaecia. It easily comes across as slilghtly elitist, for a lack of better words, and only seems to pop up every now and then to distinguish "regular Thaecians" from the people who have been here longer and thus have had more chances to contribute to the region. However it doesn't do any real harm, so how it comes across does not matter all that much I suppose.

But with this Amendment that "elitism" comes forth even more, and stronger than before, stripping everyone but the President from the ability and possibility of commending or nominating someone for the Order of Thaecia. I think this is a crucial part, since until now even people who are not members of it were given the chance to somewhat feel as if they are included in the (process surrounding the) Order of Thaecia. That is why I propose the following Amendment:

Changes Article II - Additions to say:

A new Article II will be added, which will state the following:

Section I - The president reserves the right to unilaterally award any of the three ranks to any resident. They must provide a justification for doing so. Thaecian residents may also nominate any resident of the region to be added to the Order of Thaecia.

Sub-section I - When someone is nominated for the Order of Thaecia, the person nominating them must provide a public justification for doing so.

Sub-Section II - When the President awards any of the three ranks to a resident or denies a nomination, they must provide a public justification for doing so.

[...]

Section III - The president reserves the right to strip a member of the Order of their rank, with the consent of the Prime Minister, for which they must give a public justification.

[/spoiler]

I am in support of this amendment.

Dendrobium

Senators, we are now voting on Amendments

Author: Dendrobium

Type: Section Change

[spoiler=Amendment A]Changes Article II - Additions to say:

A new Article II will be added, which will state the following:

Section I - The president reserves the right to unilaterally award any of the three ranks to any resident. They must provide a justification for doing so. Thaecian residents may also nominate any resident of the region to be added to the Order of Thaecia.

Sub-section I - When someone is nominated for the Order of Thaecia, the person nominating them must provide a public justification for doing so.

Sub-Section II - When the President awards any of the three ranks to a resident or denies a nomination, they must provide a public justification for doing so.

[...]

Section III - The president reserves the right to strip a member of the Order of their rank, with the consent of the Prime Minister, for which they must give a public justification.[/spoiler]

My vote is Aye

[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

Hulldom

Senators I am having some issues publishing factbooks. We will vote on the final bill. Please consider it as having the above amendment.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=speaker_snowflame/detail=factbook/id=1477152

Aye

[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn (IND)

Brototh (TPU)

Cydoni (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (TPU)

Hulldom (LPT)

Marvinville (TFP)

Rayekka (IND)

World Trade (LPT)[/spoiler]

Indian Genius

Aye

Results:

Aye (8) Brototh Emazia Hulldom Dendrobium Rayekka Marvinville World Trade Ashlawn

Nay (0)

Abstain (1) Cydoni

The bill passes as amended Snowflame.

Senators, we have begun the confirmation hearing of Marvinville for Associate Justice.

Hulldom, Emazia

I have a few questions for the nominee and I hope he can answer them.

1. In recent months there has been renewed talk of lower courts being created to hear cases before they reach the High Court. Would you support the creation of these courts? And what relationship would you have them take with the High Court?

2. I personally know that the Court seems to be pretty isolated from Thaecians in its work. This isn’t a negative, per sé, merely a fact of the matter. How would you go about working to ensure that the Court is more visible to your average Thaecian? Would you be willing to disseminate your rulings more widely or perhaps create something akin to a clerkship program so that interested newcomers to the Bar can see what being a justice is like?

3. What do you think is the biggest constitutional issue facing Thaecia today, if you think there are any? Do you think the Court ought to become more proactive in testing the waters of its authority by potentially automatically reviewing all passed laws for constitutionality?

4. In the past, former justice Cerdenia has been extremely quick in doing his part to verify results, would you attempt to emulate his strategy or are you personally not concerned by time between the closing of polls and results?

5. Do you have a solid relationship with the current justices of the Court? Do you think that the smooth sailing during hearings and cases would be able to continue with you occupying one of the seats on the Court?

6. Lastly, why did you take the job of a justice? I know that you have a job here in the Senate currently and while it’s not life-tenured, you’re almost guaranteed re-election owing to your high visibility and popularity...so I am curious, why take a spot on the Court?

I hate Marvinville. Voting nay

In all seriousness, Marv is awesome. Absolute lad, real quality dude. No questions, voting aye.

World Trade, The Bigtopia, Marvinville

Answers to questions from Hulldom

1. It is an interesting idea to create lower courts but it seems like it would be useless bureaucracy to a court system that is only used periodically. Any lower court should respect and follow any past rulings set by the high court, which includes following its precedent and not contradicting any of those rulings. The lower court should act on its own and not be involved with the high court but its rulings can be appealed to the high court if necessary.

2. I believe that the court should have more awareness from Thaecian citizens and ways that we can improve awareness is to publicly promote the court whenever there is a case taking place and when there is a ruling, the ruling should be announced to the region as a whole and not just kept in the high court region rmb. A clerkship program would be interesting but I'm not sure if it could work out well given that the court is the least active branch of government.

3. I do not think we have any big constitutional issues currently facing the region. I believe that the court should be more active reviewing laws that are passed by Congress for constitutionality because that would give the court something to do but I think the court has done a fair job reviewing the constitutionality of laws and constitutional issues.

4. I will work to the best of my ability to verify the results accurately as fast as I can.

5. I do have a solid relationship with both of the current justices of the court. You know I am an active citizen here in the region so I believe that I should have no issues occupying a seat on the court.

6. As you know, I have spent the past 10 months in the Senate, and 5 terms overall. I am ready to do something new in the region, and I was pleased to be offered this position by Biggs.

Brototh, The Bigtopia

I too have some questions, be it only a few:

Firstly, while it has I believe already might have been mentioned at some point in the discord, it is in my opinion that mentioning this in the official Confirmation Hearing is important. The issue I am talking about is of course the political nuetrality of the Court. As of right now, at least as far as is known to me, Marvinville is part of the Thaecian Freedom Party, so my questions is if you think this will in any way affect your position as Justice and wether you will continue your membership of said party?

A second question which is totally unrelated to the last one; in the situation in which you are confirmed as Justice, would you support or oppose a procedure to re-name the Court to "The Van", and what are your reasons for your stance on this theoretical proposal?

Brototh, The Bigtopia

Answers to questions from Dendrobium

1. I already told Snowflame, the Deputy Chair of TFP, that I will be leaving the party once I am confirmed to the High Court. I fully believe in the independence of the court from political organizations and I will continue to abide by that.

2. It is an interesting idea that should be left to Congress to decide, not the court :smirk::eyes:

Brototh, The Bigtopia, Dendrobium

Marvinville wrote:2. It is an interesting idea that should be left to Congress to decide, not the court :smirk::eyes:

And now, reality can be whatever I want.

The Bigtopia, Marvinville

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.