Post Archive
Region: The Thaecian Senate
RESULTS - EXECUTIVE BRANCH IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES ACT
Executive Branch Impeachable Offences Act
Author: Fishergate
Sponsors: Fishergate & Pap Sculgief
RESULTS
[spoiler=Results]Ayes (7):
Nays (0):[/spoiler]
I hereby declare the Executive Branch Impeachable Offences Act has passed the Senate by a vote of 7-0. It will now head over to the House of Commons.
[spoiler=Speaker]Zanaana[/spoiler]
United Faith Kingdom, The Islamic Country Of Honour
OPENING DEBATE - REPEAL OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEES ACT
Repeal of L.R. 028 - The House Committees Act
This bill repeals the House Committees Act, a law which has only been in place for a matter of days and which has only been put into effect one time. I believe it is quite destructive to repeal this law so soon after it was passed and although I agree that the House Committees system is not flawless, I do not agree that it should be abolished so soon. We have not yet given the system a chance to prove its value and repealing the law now would set a negative precedent of not allowing these kinds of systems to mature and settle into a productive aspect of our democratic system. In short: it's too soon to repeal this law so I encourage Senators to reject this bill now and resubmit it at a later date if they believe the House committees are still proving impractical after they have been given time to properly establish themselves.
[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian
Snowflame[/spoiler]
United Cascadian Peoples, Snowflame, Asean Nations, United Faith Kingdom, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville
As we saw the House Committees are a useless waste of space and time only used to score political points. Most of the stuff the House Committees can do the House can do without committees, like hearings.
You can't judge the utility of House Committees solely from the one time they have been utilised so far. If we always gave up on things that didn't work out perfectly straight away we wouldn't get very far as a species.
As for your political points scoring comment, this is not the sort of argument the Senate should stoop to, but in this case the claim is so absurd I feel obliged to refute it. The House Committees Act was passed by a multi-partisan majority of MPs and Senators who thought it would bring benefit to Thaecia's political system. What we see now is a minority group of Senators and MPs who opposed the bill in the first place attempting to repeal the Act very soon after it was passed and without any convincing reasons as to why. This is a very negative example to set: if members of Congress are to move to repeal successful bills they voted against not even a term after they became law. It is destructive and obstructive and I'm disappointed in Senator Andusre and Brototh MP because I expect them to know better. Senator Catlin, I'm just surprised by your audacity to claim that passing the House Committees Act was political points scoring, when it appears your motion to repeal it is in fact much more so.
Snowflame, Asean Nations, United Faith Kingdom, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville
I'll make an RMB post about this soon, I need to properly wake up first though.
Zanaana
I share the same opinion as Chairman Fishergate. The House Committees Act, aside from being passed by both chambers multiple times, has barely had the time to show off it's full capabilities.
Everyone who argues to repeal the act always mention that one scenario that happened without taking into account that
1. This bill has not been a law for too long
2. Committee chairs run the committees differently.
I don't think one specific situation should be used as the underlying argument for repealing. Maybe this topic can be brought back up at a later date, but as of right now it is unfair to call the law ineffective or useless when it has barely had time to show off its efficiency and use.
Fishergate, United Faith Kingdom
VOTING - REPEAL OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEES ACT
Repeal of L.R. 028 - The House Committees Act
We will vote on this bill now. I am voting 'nay'.
[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian
Snowflame[/spoiler]
United Faith Kingdom, Marvinville
Nay
United Faith Kingdom
I'm voting Aye because I think House Committees were a bad idea which didn't really get enough thought put into them. I don't think this will pass, but yeah. I can elaborate on the "bad idea part" if any senator wants me to, but for now I'll hold my tongue.
Catlin
Nay
Marvinville
aye
Can Senators Aexodian and Asean Nations please cast their votes on this bill.
Nay
Marvinville
I'm sorry for my inactivity. I'm voting Nay I think we should give it a chance and more time to be fully integrated to our present system.
United Faith Kingdom, Marvinville
RESULTS - REPEAL OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEES ACT
Repeal of L.R. 028 - The House Committees Act
RESULTS
[spoiler=Results]Ayes (2):
Nays (5):
Snowflame[/spoiler]
I hereby declare the Repeal of the House Committees Act has been rejected by the Senate by a vote of 5-2.
United Faith Kingdom, Zanaana
OPENING DEBATE - REPEAL OF THE THAECIA GOVERNMENT PETITIONING SYSTEM
Repeal of L.R. 012 - Thaecia Government Petitioning System
Author: Marvinville
Sponsor: Marvinville
This bill finds issue with and aims to repeal the current petitioning system in Thaecia. While the system may not be perfect, a flat repeal is not helpful or productive so I encourage Senators to instead consider amendments to improve the bill.
[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian
Snowflame[/spoiler]
Snowflame, Asean Nations, United Faith Kingdom, Zanaana
If Senators would like to comment on the bill, I request that they do so soon. If not, we will move on to voting.
Zanaana
I like it. Petitions have been in law for about a year now and haven't been used once.
Snowflame, Catlin, Asean Nations, United Faith Kingdom, Marvinville, Zanaana
I agree. They have been barely used and are ineffective.
Marvinville, Zanaana
VOTING - REPEAL OF THE THAECIA GOVERNMENT PETITIONING SYSTEM
Repeal of L.R. 012 - Thaecia Government Petitioning System
Author: Marvinville
Sponsor: Marvinville
It seems most Senators don't have much to input regarding this bill, so let's move to the voting.
I am voting nay because I believe it is essential for Thaecian residents to be able to petition their representatives and political leaders and this bill takes away the system which in place to facilitate that. Without providing an alternative system, repealing the law outright is highly destructive.
[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian
Snowflame[/spoiler]
Asean Nations, United Faith Kingdom
Despite previous thought, I have decided to vote Nay alongside Fishergate.
United Faith Kingdom
Aye
Zanaana
Nay, it would strip a direct line of citizens to its representative/leaders and without a proper plan to replace the system, it would highly be ineffective. In my honest oppinion, we shouldnt take the fact that the system hasnt been used as a bad sign rather take it as a good sign as it shows that citizens hasnt come to the 'last resort' if you'll excuse the term to be heard by one of the three branches of government and its Leaders, it just serves as a safety bracket.
Fishergate, United Faith Kingdom
Aye
Marvinville, Zanaana
Aye
Marvinville, Zanaana
aye,
sorry for the delay, complicated story
Marvinville, Zanaana
RESULTS - REPEAL OF THE THAECIA GOVERNMENT PETITIONING SYSTEM
Repeal of L.R. 012 - Thaecia Government Petitioning System
Author: Marvinville
Sponsor: Marvinville
RESULTS
[spoiler=Results]Ayes (4):
Nays (3):
Fishergate[/spoiler]
I hereby declare the Repeal of L.R. 012 (Thaecia Government Petitioning System) has passed the Senate by a vote of 4-3. It now advances to the House of Commons.
[spoiler=Speaker]Zanaana[/spoiler]
Marvinville, Zanaana
OPENING DEBATE - AMENDMENT TO THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION & REFORM ACT
Amendment to L.R. 022 (Electoral Commission & Reform Act)
Author: Cerdenia
Sponsor: Zanaana
This is a very straightforward and effective bill to establish a legal principle for election and referendum results in Thaecia to be verified and validated by the High Court. This seems like a sensible procedure to add to the electoral process, so I am all in favour of this bill.
[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian
Snowflame[/spoiler]
Snowflame, Cerdenia, Asean Nations, Zon Island, Marvinville, Zanaana
Me too. It is something I fully put my support behind.
Asean Nations, Marvinville, Zanaana
Looks good.
Asean Nations, Marvinville
The bill definitely has my support.
Asean Nations, Marvinville
VOTING - AMENDMENT TO THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION & REFORM ACT
Amendment to L.R. 022 (Electoral Commission & Reform Act)
Author: Cerdenia
Sponsor: Zanaana
It seems Senators are happy with this bill as it is. So let's now vote. I am voting 'aye'.
[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian
Snowflame[/spoiler]
Zanaana
Aye
Zanaana
Aye
Zanaana
Aye
Zanaana
aye
Zanaana
Aye.
Zanaana
Aye
Zanaana
RESULTS - AMENDMENT TO THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION & REFORM ACT
Amendment to L.R. 022 (Electoral Commission & Reform Act)
Author: Cerdenia
Sponsor: Zanaana
RESULTS
[spoiler=Results]Ayes (7):
Nays (0):[/spoiler]
I hereby declare this amendment to the Electoral Commission & Reform Act has passed the Senate by a vote of 7-0. The bill has now been approved by both chambers of Congress and will advance to the Prime Minister's office to be signed into law.
[spoiler=Prime Minister]Korsinia[/spoiler]
Zanaana
OPENING DEBATE - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION
Amendments to Article VI of the Constitution
Author: Aexodian
Sponsor: Aexodian
This bill deals with the unresolved issue of what should happen to elected officials who lose their Thaecian citizenship while in office. The solution provided by this amendment allows a seven day buffer during which they may maintain their position and reclaim citizenship. I encourage Senators to read this bill carefully and share their thoughts.
[spoiler=Senators]Andusre
Snowflame[/spoiler]
Asean Nations
I support the Bill, it do resolve and provide guidelines
when this things happens. At this moment I don't have any concern about it.
I disagree with this bill and I will state my reasons against it.
We do not have an "unresolved issue of what should happen to elected officials who lose their citizenship while in office". The High Court has ruled in C.R. 004 that "elected officials can maintain their citizenship if they leave the region, as long as they return before the next WA update" with their reasoning as "The WA update is used to change a persons endorsement status if they change regions, or to update their status as a WA member should it change due to rule violations or otherwise. If a nation leaves its home region, but returns before the update, it will still retain any endorsements from its home region. Therefore, the game still considers the nation to be a resident of its home region. This precedent will solve problems of accidentally leaving the region, leaving the region to speak to other regions not connected to Thaecia, or otherwise." I don't think that this solution that is proposed by the bill would be useful since the system we have now works fine.
Another reason that I am against this is due to Article 2. If a WA member has been banned or ejected from the WA, then they shall wait to be eligible to rejoin the WA to run for elections again in the region instead of the 4 election cycle ban that this bill proposes. I will likely write an amendment to fix this if the bill is favored to pass the Senate.
Cerdenia, Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour
[quote=marvinville;39111946]I disagree with this bill and I will state my reasons against it.
We do not have an "unresolved issue of what should happen to elected officials who lose their citizenship while in office". The High Court has ruled in C.R. 004 that "elected officials can maintain their citizenship if they leave the region, as long as they return before the next WA update" with their reasoning as "The WA update is used to change a persons endorsement status if they change regions, or to update their status as a WA member should it change due to rule violations or otherwise. If a nation leaves its home region, but returns before the update, it will still retain any endorsements from its home region. Therefore, the game still considers the nation to be a resident of its home region. This precedent will solve problems of accidentally leaving the region, leaving the region to speak to other regions not connected to Thaecia, or otherwise." I don't think that this solution that is proposed by the bill would be useful since the system we have now works fine.
Another reason that I am against this is due to Article 2. If a WA member has been banned or ejected from the WA, then they shall wait to be eligible to rejoin the WA to run for elections again in the region instead of the 4 election cycle ban that this bill proposes. I will likely write an amendment to fix this if the bill is favored to pass the Senate. [/quote]
Another reason that I am against this is due to Article 2. If a WA member has been banned or ejected from the WA, then they shall wait to be eligible to rejoin the WA to run for elections again in the region instead of the 4 election cycle ban that this bill proposes. I will likely write an amendment to fix this if the bill is favored to pass the Senate. [/quote]
I do agree with your second point about someone only being able to run once they are eligible to join the WA back but most bans are for one year, which is about 4 election cycles. Furthermore, people who have been permanently banned from the WA would not have this luxury. Despite what they have done on the world stage, we can't deny their rights to run in an election, albeit with a suspension. Every nation should be able to run in the elections and as such, I put 4 election cycles as the limit.
Secondly, if you had read the bill, you would notice that I address both citizens and officials. Furthermore, this addresses what happens when you resign from the WA in the region, not leaving the region. You can still hold citizenship with a WA-waiver with is what this addresses. However, I would be in support of giving citizens a 7 day limit while giving elected officials a 12-hour limit due to their rank.
Asean Nations
I would like to hear some more from the Senators before we move to the voting stage. This is a complicated issue and I do not think we should allow ourselves to vote on it ill-informed.
Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville
VOTING - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION
Amendments to Article VI of the Constitution
Author: Aexodian
Sponsor: Aexodian
Ok, let's vote. Personally, I'm not sure that the problem this bill sets out to solve is a genuine problem, and I'm also not sure that this bill sets out the best system for solving said problem. As a result, I intend to abstain from voting.
[spoiler=Senators]Andusre
Snowflame[/spoiler]
Nay
nay
Marvinville
I put much thought on my vote regarding this Amendment.
'I Abstain'
Abstain
Aye
Abstain
RESULTS - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION
Amendments to Article VI of the Constitution
Author: Aexodian
Sponsor: Aexodian
[spoiler=Results]Ayes (1):
Nays (2):
Abstain (4):
Snowflame[/spoiler]
I hereby declare this amendment to Article VI of the Constitution has failed by a vote of 2-1 with four Senators abstaining.
Zanaana
OPENING DEBATE - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION
Amendment to Article VII of the Constitution
Author: Indian Genius
Sponsors: Fishergate & Indian Genius
This is a fairly straightforward amendment designed to help prevent electoral fraud by requiring a 5-day naturalisation period for residents before they can be eligible to vote in regional elections. This means nations who join the region during or shortly before an election will not be eligible to vote.
I encourage Senators to vote for this amendment as it helps ensure the security of our elections. I do however have a minor amendment to enhance the clarity of Article II:
[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend Article II to read as folllows:
The new clause that shall be put into effect instead of Article VII Section I Sub-Section VII is as follows: "The right to run and vote in elections, provided that they are a citizen and have been resident in the region for at least five days prior to the start of the election voting period."[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian
Snowflame[/spoiler]
Pap Sculgief, Indian Genius, Catlin, Asean Nations, Zanaana
I disagree with this Constitutional Amendment due to the fact that a citizen can join the region 3 days prior to an election, for example, has all the other rights of a citizen but not the right to vote in the election. I don't believe that is fair or right in any way. This doesn't need reform so I will vote Nay
Catlin
Why not? It is very easy for someone to join a bunch of their friends in to sway the vote. This amendment effectively takes away that fact and limits the amount of electoral fraud that can be done. By having a cooldown period, we would know that someone is in fact, dedicated to the region instead of joining it merely to sway the vote in a candidate's favour. As for the amendment proposed, I fully agree with it in as it makes the Article more clear.
Fishergate
Technically it would not be electoral fraud and you know that. Also 5 days prior to the start of the election is not a large amount of time and I doubt it would be effective. The campaigns usually last longer than 5 days so if you want to have friends come to the region to influence the election, you could simply do that a week before the region and that can still be legal. This amendment simply does nothing effective.
Catlin
In that case, why not extend the said time to 1 week? We can't keep on going with that idea of "Maybe they will come two weeks earlier". This would lessen the amount of cheating a candidate can do. Furthermore, we can also look at this in the fact that someone may only run for election after a set period of time. This shows their dedication to the region. Correct, they could join 2 weeks earlier but this ensures the security of elections a bit more and we should take that opportunity.
Fishergate
With permission from the Hon. Chairman, I am here to mention some points. First, to Hon. Senator Marvinville, during my early times in NationStates (before I joined Thaecia), I mistakenly made two nations and both of them were a part of the WA. Just after the day, I made my second nation, the NS Moderators sent me a Telegram asking me to remove any of my nations from the WA. You see, the NS Moderators are very efficient. That is why I have said 5 days, not 7 days. 5 days is enough for a moderator to ban a cheating nation. I hope you understand my point.
Senator Marvinville's point was that legitimate WA nations can move into the region more than 5 days before an election, wait to cast their votes, and then leave again, in order to rig the election in favour of their friend. It's nothing to do with people setting up multiple WA nations to all vote in Thaecia - that is already illegal, under Thaecian law and under the NationStates rules.
However, I agree with the argument put forward by Senator Aexodian: a five-day naturalisation period cannot prevent all such election rigging, but it is a lot better than nothing. Under current law, a candidate could ask their friends in other regions to move into Thaecia for just one day during the voting period, cast their votes, and then leave again, and those votes would be legitimate. Some sort of naturalisation period is needed to prevent such blatant fraud, but we have to find a balance. The period needs to be long enough to disincentivise this kind of behaviour, but not so long that genuine new nations feel left out of the election process. I think five days is enough for this, as most foreign nations would not want to leave their region for a whole five days in order to vote in a Thaecian election, but if Senators have concerns, I would not be opposed to lengthening the period to seven days.
I think we could also make a law granting powers to an investigatory body, perhaps as part of the EC, to look out for voters arriving in the region shortly before an election and leaving shortly after. If the EC notices a lot of this happening, they may wish to investigate further, present their findings to the High Court, and possibly re-run the election with guilty parties excluded. However, I feel this ought to be addressed by a separate piece of legislation.
Indian Genius, Asean Nations
AMENDMENT VOTING - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION
Amendment to Article VII of the Constitution
Author: Indian Genius
Sponsors: Fishergate & Indian Genius
Amendment A
[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend Article II to read as folllows:
The new clause that shall be put into effect instead of Article VII Section I Sub-Section VII is as follows: "The right to run and vote in elections, provided that they are a citizen and have been resident in the region for at least five days prior to the start of the election voting period."[/spoiler]
It seems Senators have nothing further to add to the debate on this bill, so lets move to the voting stage. First we will vote on my proposed amendment. My own vote is 'aye'.
[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian
Snowflame[/spoiler]
Zanaana
Post self-deleted by Marvinville.
nay
Aye
Aye
Zanaana
Greeting fellow Senators, I have an announcement to make and I hope that the Senate Chair will listen to this. An agreement has been made between myself, Catlin, and a Senator that wishes to remain Anonymous to not pass any additional constitutional amendments for the remainder of this Senate Term. We have came to this conclusion due to the fact that the General election is right around the corner and that the EC has released the General election schedule earlier today. This decision was made to lessen the workload and stress of the EC due to the upcoming general election. We are just soo close to the general election and it worries us with the many constitutional amendments that are on the docket of both chambers of Congress. We urge the Senate Chair to either table or not bring any constitutional amendments that are on the docket to the Senate floor for the remainder of the Senate term. If any constitutional amendments that are voted on between now and the end of the term, us three Senators will vote them down. Thank you Senators and have a good day/night.
Dizgovzy, Catlin
Aye
Zanaana
Aye
Nay, I've long opposed caps like these on voting rights.
AMENDMENT RESULTS - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION
Amendment to Article VII of the Constitution
Author: Indian Genius
Sponsors: Fishergate & Indian Genius
Amendment A
[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend Article II to read as folllows:
The new clause that shall be put into effect instead of Article VII Section I Sub-Section VII is as follows: "The right to run and vote in elections, provided that they are a citizen and have been resident in the region for at least five days prior to the start of the election voting period."[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Results]Ayes (5):
Nays (2):
Catlin[/spoiler]
The amendment to the constitutional amendment has passed. The constitutional amendment will now be amended as required by the amendment to the constitutional amendment. However, before we vote on the amended constitutional amendment, we have some other business to settle. So for now, this constitutional amendment is being tabled. See the next post for more details.
Senator Marvinville has approached me with information that himself and two other Senators intend to prevent any further amendments being made to the Constitution in this congressional term. He cites an excessive workload for the Electoral Commissioner and the impending general election as reasons for this. I acknowledge the Senators' concerns, but I believe we can find a more productive solution. So I would like to invite the Electoral Commissioner Dizgovzy to the Senate to discuss this issue with us and help us find a solution.
Catlin
Let me start by thanking you for inviting me to speak here. I greatly admire Marv's solution but I think that I have a better idea. I would suggest that the senate continue with amendments, with the main note being that I can combine the referendums into one and hold a vote after the genelec is completed. This way the senate can still do their work and I am not overworked.
Thank you for having me.
Cerdenia, Andusre, Catlin, Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour
Thank you very much Mr Electoral Commissioner. I would like to now ask the Senators if they are happy with this proposal and are willing to continue working on constitutional amendments as normal, with the proviso that they will not be brought to referendum until after the general election.
Dizgovzy, Andusre, Asean Nations
Sounds good.
Dizgovzy
I agree with the new solution
Dizgovzy
great idea
Dizgovzy
It's a good idea😁
Dizgovzy
Fine by me.
Dizgovzy
VOTING - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION
Amendment to Article VII of the Constitution
Author: Indian Genius
Sponsors: Fishergate & Indian Genius
As amended by: Fishergate
I'm glad we have a consensus behind the EC's proposal. Now we can continue to work on constitutional amendments.
Please now cast your votes for or against this amendment. My own vote is 'aye'.
[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian
Snowflame[/spoiler]
Asean Nations, United Faith Kingdom
'Aye"
United Faith Kingdom
Nay
Snowflame
Aye
United Faith Kingdom
nay
Snowflame, Marvinville
Nay
Snowflame, Marvinville
Nay
Marvinville
RESULTS - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION
Amendment to Article VII of the Constitution
Author: Indian Genius
Sponsors: Fishergate & Indian Genius
As amended by: Fishergate
RESULTS
[spoiler=Results]Ayes (3):
Nays (4):
Snowflame[/spoiler]
I hereby declare this amendment to Article VII of the Constitution has been rejected by the Senate by a vote of 4-3.
OPENING DEBATE - MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE REFORM AMENDMENT
Motion of No Confidence Reform Amendment
Authors: Levantx, Cerdenia & Andusre
As amended by: Zanaana
Here we have another constitutional amendment. This one addresses the issue of no-confidence motions and aims to close the loopholes that allow the system to be exploited, as well as generally streamlining the system. The amendment also removes the power of the Senate to call snap elections.
Personally, I am in support of this amendment. Senators, please share your own thoughts and opinions.
[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian
Snowflame[/spoiler]
Cerdenia, Zanaana
Hello fellow senators, this amendment will fix a loophole which has been present within our Constitution for far too long. The following section is present under Article II of the Thaecian Constitution:
"Section IV - The Leadership of one of the Chambers of Congress can be changed by a 'constructive vote of no confidence' in the Speaker or Chairperson. The constructive motion can be initiated with the support of at least one third of members of a chamber. The debate and voting on the motion shall be presided by the electoral commissioner. The motion must receive a simple majority of the chamber's support, and at least two third of members must have cast a vote. A constructive vote of no-confidence shall be capped at one every 60 days for the Senate, and one every 30 days for the House of Commons."
I highlighted the two main problems with the constitution which my amendment will fix. Starting on the first one, the constitution requires all motions of no-confidence to have received votes of two-thirds of the chamber's members to pass. What does this mean in practice? Well, it means that, if a government loses it's majority and the opposition tries to no-confidence said governement, the government can simply keep power by simply refusing to vote on the motion of no-confidence.
Imagine the following scenario:
A by election just happened after one of the MPs in coalition with the government resigned, the by-election was won by an MP of an opposition party and as such the opposition now has a majority. The opposition gets together to try to no-confidence the government which, the motion goes to vote, and it obtains a total of 6 ayes in favour of no-confidence, however it doesn't pass, as all of the government's MPs refuse to vote, and as such the government keeps power despite not having a support of the majority.
My amendment will finally fix said scenario from being possible, as such preventing rule by the minority.
Now the second problem which is more of a minor one. Under the current constitution motions of no-confidence are capped at 60 days for the Senate, and 30 days for the House of Commons, this means that, if say a Senate majority gets no-confidence, which did happen already in the past, as historically Senate majorities haven't been very stable, the next elected Senate Chair will not be able to be removed from office unless he voluntarily resigns. This means a long period in which, even if the new Chair proves incompetent, Senators won't be able to do anything about it, it's a restriction of checks and balances which benefits the incompetent.
The House of Commons already unanimously approved of this amendment, and I hope all senators will unite behind it as well.
Snowflame, Fishergate, Asean Nations, Zanaana
I am in support of this amendment and will be voting Aye for it.
Cerdenia, Zanaana
I will allow some more time for Senators to raise any concerns they may have regarding this amendment. Then, if there is no debate underway, we will begin voting in a few hours.
VOTING - MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE REFORM AMENDMENT
Motion of No Confidence Reform Amendment
Authors: Levantx, Cerdenia & Andusre
As amended by: Zanaana
Ok, let's vote on this bill. I remind Senators that this is a constitutional amendment and therefore requires a 2/3 majority to pass.
My own vote is 'aye'.
[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian
Snowflame[/spoiler]
Zanaana
Aye
Zanaana
Aye
Zanaana
aye
Zanaana
Aye
Zanaana
Aye
RESULTS - MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE REFORM AMENDMENT
Motion of No Confidence Reform Amendment
Authors: Levantx, Cerdenia & Andusre
As amended by: Zanaana
RESULTS
[spoiler=Results]Ayes (6):
Abstentions (1):
Andusre[/spoiler]
I hereby declare this amendment has passed the Senate by a vote of 6-0. It has now received the approval of both chambers of Congress and must be put to the public to be ratified by a referendum.
[spoiler=Electoral Commissioner]Dizgovzy[/spoiler]
Dizgovzy, Zanaana
OPENING DEBATE - IMPEACHMENT REFORM CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment
Author: Cerdenia
Sponsor: Zanaana
Here we have another constitutional amendment penned by Cerdenia. This bill reforms the Constitution's impeachment articles to involve the High Court as an independent arbiter of the law. The three-stage impeachment process this bill sets out (Senate - House of Commons - High Court) is unorthodox, but I think it can be effective.
Senators, please share your own thoughts and opinions regarding this constitutional amendment.
[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian
Snowflame[/spoiler]
Cerdenia
Honourable Senators, I come before this chamber once again to explain the reasons behind this constitutional amendment, and why I believe the passage of it is urgent for our political system. Currently, unlike most developed nations, Thaecia has an impeachment system which is entirely political, as the High Court has no say over the impeachment motion. What this does is that it allows Congress to impeach a President or Prime Minister without any actual reason.
So let's say Thaecia elected a new President, however the coalitions governing the House of Commons and Senate despise this President. What they can do is invent a vague or even completely false motive for impeachment, and provided it obtains two thirds in both chambers, the President who was elected by the people of Thaecia will have been removed by his political opponents with no reason at all.
What my constitutional amendment does it two things:
1. It reforms the impeachment system by allowing the individual undergoing impeachment to receive a "fair and free trial", as guaranteed as one of his rights in the Thaecian Constitution, meaning the individual's impeachment will still by analysed by the High Court after it passes both chambers of congress, allowing the Prime Minister or President to only be impeached by actual violations of law rather than political decisions.
2. This amendment also creates impeachment procedures for Justices of the High Court. Currently the constitution already allows for Justices to be impeached, however it has no formal procedure, meaning that currently the High Court is exempt from the checks and balances of our political system.
The amendment also passed unanimously by the House of Commons, and I am hope the honourable Senators of this chamber will realise the urgent need to fix this constitutional issue.
Fishergate, Zanaana
I would like to submit these two amendments to the Senate Chair.
[spoiler=Amendment A]
Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section I with the following:
The President can be impeached when the Senate House of Commons acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate House of Commons, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons Senate. Following the votes in Congress, the President shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court. The Senate House of Commons may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court, with the representative not needing to be a Senator Member of Parliament himself. If the Senate House of Commons does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court. If the court rules in favour of the impeachment, a snap election is to be held for the Presidency, while there is no official President in office the Prime Minister shall observe the duties of the President.
Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section II with the following:
The Prime Minister can be impeached when the Senate House of Commons acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate House of Commons, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons Senate. Following the votes in Congress, the Prime Minister shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court. The Senate House of Commons may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court, with the representative not needing to be a Senator Member of Parliament himself. If the Senate House of Commons does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court. If the court rules in favour of the impeachment, the appointed Deputy Prime Minister is to take over the duties of the Prime Minister for the remainder of the term. If there is no Deputy Prime Minister a snap election is to be held, while there is no official Prime Minister in office the President shall observe the duties of the Prime Minister.
Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section III with the following:
A Justice can be impeached when the Senate House of Commons acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate House of Commons, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons Senate. Following the votes in Congress, the Justice shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court, in which the Deputy Justice shall take his place as a Justice during his trial. The Senate House of Commons may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court, with the representative not needing to be a Senator Member of Parliament himself. If the Senate House of Commons does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court. If the court rules in favour of the impeachment, the Justice shall be removed from office and won't be allowed to be appointed to the court again in the future.
Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section IV with the following:
The Vice President can be impeached when the Senate House of Commons acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate House of Commons, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons Senate. Following the votes in Congress, the Vice President shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court. The Senate House of Commons may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court, with the representative not needing to be a Senator Member of Parliament himself. If the Senate House of Commons does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court. If the court rules in favour of the impeachment, the President shall be required to either join the World Assembly and become the new WA Delegate, or to nominate a new Vice President to serve as WA Delegate.
[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment B]
Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section I with the following:
The President can be impeached when the Senate acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons. Following the votes in Congress, the President shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court. The Senate may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court, with the representative not needing to be a Senator himself. If the Senate does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court. If the court rules If Congress votes in favour of the impeachment, a snap election is to be held for the Presidency, while there is no official President in office the Prime Minister shall observe the duties of the President.
Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section II with the following:
The Prime Minister can be impeached when the Senate acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons. Following the votes in Congress, the Prime Minister shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court. The Senate may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court, with the representative not needing to be a Senator himself. If the Senate does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court. If the court rules If Congress votes in favour of the impeachment, the appointed Deputy Prime Minister is to take over the duties of the Prime Minister for the remainder of the term. If there is no Deputy Prime Minister a snap election is to be held, while there is no official Prime Minister in office the President shall observe the duties of the Prime Minister.
Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section III with the following:
A Justice can be impeached when the Senate acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons. Following the votes in Congress, the Justice shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court, in which the Deputy Justice shall take his place as a Justice during his trial. The Senate may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court, with the representative not needing to be a Senator himself. If the Senate does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court. If the court rules If Congress votes in favour of the impeachment, the Justice shall be removed from office and won't be allowed to be appointed to the court again in the future.
Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section IV with the following:
The Vice President can be impeached when the Senate acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons. Following the votes in Congress, the Vice President shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court. The Senate may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court, with the representative not needing to be a Senator himself. If the Senate does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court. If the court rules If Congress votes in favour of the impeachment, the President shall be required to either join the World Assembly and become the new WA Delegate, or to nominate a new Vice President to serve as WA Delegate.
[/spoiler]
Senate Chair, I would like to submit these two additional minor (small) amendments to the Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment.
Given that the constitutionality has been raised about the Deputies Minister Act on whether it is constitutional or not, I submit this amendment to fix this issue to avoid any future problems we may have.
[spoiler=Amendment C]
Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section III with the following:
A Justice can be impeached when the Senate acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons. Following the votes in Congress, the Justice shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court, in which the Deputy Justice shall take his place as a Justice during his trial. The Senate may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court, with the representative not needing to be a Senator himself. If the Senate does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court. If the court rules in favour of the impeachment, the Justice shall be removed from office and won't be allowed to be appointed to the court again in the future.
[/spoiler]
The purpose of amendment D is to restructure the Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment. This does no change ANY of the wording within the bill, but reorganizes the sections. Here is what the bill as amended would look like: Subsection I - President, Subsection II - Vice President, Subsection III - Prime Minister, and Subsection IV - Justice.
[spoiler=Amendment D]
Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section IV II with the following:
Vice President Reform section as found in Sub-section IV
Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section II III with the following:
Prime Minister Reform section as found in Sub-section II
Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section III IV with the following:
Justice Impeachment Reform section as found in Sub-section III
[/spoiler]
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.