Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

Results - Amendments to L.R. 008

Amendments to L.R. 008

Authors: Andusre & Broustan

Sponsor: Andusre

As amended by: Andusre, Marvinville & Zanaana

Ayes (6) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, World Trade

Nays (0)

Abstentions (0)

Amendments to L.R. 008 has passed the Senate, as amended. It will now move back to the House of Commons for further action.

[spoiler=Speaker of the House]

Zanaana

[/spoiler]

Pap Sculgief

Opening Debate - The Safety Net Act

The Safety Net Act

Authors: Korsinia, Broustan & Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

We have now begun debating The Safety Net Act. Authors Korsinia and Broustan have permission to participate in our debate. I urge Senators to post your thoughts on this bill and to submit any amendments you have as you see fit.

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Pap Sculgief

Very big problem with this bill is that the PM can no longer threaten a minister with being fired if they don't do their job. Can't support this. Would propose an amendment but I think it would be more appropriate for Marvinville / Senate Chair Marvinville to do so considering he is a co-author and sponsor. If there's no amendment for it I'll make one later on

World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Islonia

I think that the bill is very good and well thought out. I definitely think this is something we ought to pass (besides what Brototh said)

However, I do think there are other threats an employer could make besides threating to fire their employee.

I therefore propose Amendment A.

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Subsection I: Threatening employees will be defined as coercion, whether successfully or not, against the employee in question into doing something against their will by threatening them with being fired until demands are met.

[/spoiler]

I understand that other threats may be covered by Thaecian law already, but I feel that this definition is too restricting.

Islonia

[spoiler=Amendment B]Subsection II: If the Prime Minister or President are is found to threaten employees or, ministers, or the Secretary of Roleplay, they will be subject to a court audit and the court may request impeachment if they deem it fit.

Subsection IIa: The Prime Minister reserves the right to threaten a Minister or the Secretary of Roleplay with being fired and/or replaced, if that Minister/the SoRP is not fulfilling the requirements of their job.

Subsection IIb: If the Minister/SoRP believes that the Prime Minister is wrong and they are fulfilling the requirements of their job, or that they believe the Prime Minister is defining the 'requirements of their job' to be something illegal, they reserve the right to request a court audit of the Prime Minister.[/spoiler]

I am open to suggestions to improve this Amendment, however, I really cannot vote aye to this bill if the PM does not have the right to threaten a minister with being fired if they do not carry out their job. This is an issue we had in the Roleplay -- very temporarily mind -- and when the Prime Minister Korsinia brought up the possibility of removing Islonia from his position, the problem was quickly sorted out with no issues. This is something I heavily opposed in the Amendments to LR 008 with the blackmail clause, and I do the same here.

Two things:

I first invite the SoRP & Hon. Sen Islonia to tell me whether or not he believes that the Safety Net Act should further extend to the SoRP, as I have put in my bill. If he does not believe so, I am more than happy to remove the statements about the SoRP from the amendment. The only reason I wrote it in is because the SoRP is practically a Minister in all ways except from name.

Second, of which I believe might cause people to consider voting Nay to Amend. B as it might be confusing, the passage 'or that they believe the Prime Minister is defining 'requirements of their job' to be something illegal is in there for the explicit reason of this:

The Prime Minister should not reserve the right to threaten a Minister/SoRP if they are extending the 'requirements of their job' to be something that could be deemed illegal under LR 008 or any other law in our region. Without this clause, it could be rather simple for the PM to say "Doxx someone or be fired" (An exaggeration, perhaps a poor example, but it gets the point across). While I'm sure most people would go to the Court regardless, resign, or be fired, it helps to put it in there for clarity.

Islonia

Brototh wrote:snip

I don't see why the SoRP shouldn't be included here so it's fine by me. 😋

Brototh

Islonia wrote:I don't see why the SoRP shouldn't be included here so it's fine by me. 😋

Oh no we're regulating the RP!!!

Islonia

Korsinia wrote:Oh no we're regulating the RP!!!

Amendment B destroyed, go home kids

Islonia

I think the Safety Net Act will be a very important addition, and am honestly a lilttle surprised until now something alike hasn't been in action already. However, I also think that, because it is so important, this Act must be made as good as it can possibly be. That is why I would like to propose another Amendement:

[spoiler=Amendement C] Section I: For an employee to be properly dismissed, the employer must forewarn the employee in question by 24 hours and must give a clear reason as to why this decision has been reached.

Subsection I: If a dismissal occurs before the 24-hour period passes or a forewarning has not been issued the employee reserves the right to sue their employer. If the employee is found to have been dismissed in a way that is not compliant with this act, the employee must be returned to their previous position if they want this to happen. [/spoiler]

After having been the victim of such a lowly act like abuse of power or unjust dismission, I don't think it would be unreasonable that the victim would no longer wish to work in the same, possibly toxic, environment, so forcing them back would have nothing but a contrary result.

Besides that I also think that Article III has perhaps some unfortunate choice of words, where Section I almost sounds as if abuse of powers/positions is allowed; I don't think this really needs an Amendement to be changed, rather I ask the authors' and my fellow Senators' input as I might just be mistaken in this perception.

Islonia, Brototh

Voting - Amendments

The Safety Net Act

Authors: Korsinia, Broustan & Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

Amendment A

Author: World Trade

[spoiler=Amendment A]

To amend Article III, Section I, Sub-section I

Subsection I: Threatening employees will be defined as coercion, whether successfully or not, against the employee in question into doing something against their will by threatening them with being fired until demands are met.

[/spoiler]

Amendment B

Author: Brototh

[spoiler=Amendment B]

To amend Article III, Section I, Sub-section II

Subsection II: If the Prime Minister or President are is found to threaten employees or, ministers, or the Secretary of Roleplay, they will be subject to a court audit and the court may request impeachment if they deem it fit.

Subsection IIa: The Prime Minister reserves the right to threaten a Minister or the Secretary of Roleplay with being fired and/or replaced, if that Minister/the SoRP is not fulfilling the requirements of their job.

Subsection IIb: If the Minister/SoRP believes that the Prime Minister is wrong and they are fulfilling the requirements of their job, or that they believe the Prime Minister is defining the 'requirements of their job' to be something illegal, they reserve the right to request a court audit of the Prime Minister.

[/spoiler]

Amendment C

Author: Dendrobium

[spoiler=Amendment C]

To amend Article II

Section I: For an employee to be properly dismissed, the employer must forewarn the employee in question by 24 hours and must give a clear reason as to why this decision has been reached.

Subsection I: If a dismissal occurs before the 24-hour period passes or a forewarning has not been issued the employee reserves the right to sue their employer. If the employee is found to have been dismissed in a way that is not compliant with this act, the employee must be returned to their previous position if they want this to happen.

[/spoiler]

We have now begun voting on the three proposed amendments to The Safety Net Act.

My votes are as follows:

A - Aye

B - Nay

C - Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

aye to all

World Trade

A- Aye

B- Aye

C- Aye

Aye to all

World Trade

A. Aye

B. Aye

C. Aye

World Trade

Results - Amendments

The Safety Net Act

Authors: Korsinia, Broustan & Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

Amendment A (PASSED)

Author: World Trade

[spoiler=Amendment A]

To amend Article III, Section I, Sub-section I

Subsection I: Threatening employees will be defined as coercion, whether successfully or not, against the employee in question into doing something against their will by threatening them with being fired until demands are met.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Vote Results]

Ayes (6) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, World Trade

Nays (0)

Abstentions (0)

[/spoiler]

Amendment B (PASSED)

Author: Brototh

[spoiler=Amendment B]

To amend Article III, Section I, Sub-section II

Subsection II: If the Prime Minister or President are is found to threaten employees or, ministers, or the Secretary of Roleplay, they will be subject to a court audit and the court may request impeachment if they deem it fit.

Subsection IIa: The Prime Minister reserves the right to threaten a Minister or the Secretary of Roleplay with being fired and/or replaced, if that Minister/the SoRP is not fulfilling the requirements of their job.

Subsection IIb: If the Minister/SoRP believes that the Prime Minister is wrong and they are fulfilling the requirements of their job, or that they believe the Prime Minister is defining the 'requirements of their job' to be something illegal, they reserve the right to request a court audit of the Prime Minister.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Vote Results]

Ayes (5) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, World Trade

Nays (1) - Marvinville

Abstentions (0)

[/spoiler]

Amendment C (PASSED)

Author: Dendrobium

[spoiler=Amendment C]

To amend Article II

Section I: For an employee to be properly dismissed, the employer must forewarn the employee in question by 24 hours and must give a clear reason as to why this decision has been reached.

Subsection I: If a dismissal occurs before the 24-hour period passes or a forewarning has not been issued the employee reserves the right to sue their employer. If the employee is found to have been dismissed in a way that is not compliant with this act, the employee must be returned to their previous position if they want this to happen.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Vote Results]

Ayes (6) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, World Trade

Nays (0)

Abstentions (0)

[/spoiler]

All three proposed amendments have passed the Senate and will now be added into The Safety Net Act.

Voting - The Safety Net Act

The Safety Net Act

Authors: Korsinia, Broustan & Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

As amended by: World Trade, Brototh & Dendrobium

We have now begun voting on The Safety Net Act, as amended by the Senate.

My vote is Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Results - The Safety Net Act

The Safety Net Act

Authors: Korsinia, Broustan & Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

As amended by: World Trade, Brototh & Dendrobium

Ayes (6) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, World Trade

Nays (0)

Abstentions (0)

The Safety Net Act, as amended, has passed the Senate. It will now move to the House for further action.

[Spoiler=Speaker of the House]

Zanaana

[/spoiler]

Opening Debate - Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment

Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment

Author: Cerdenia

Sponsor: Zanaana

As amended by: Marvinville, Andusre, Rhyssua & Indian Genius

We have now begun debating the Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment, as amended, that has recently passes the House of Commons.

[Spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

[Spoiler=Quick note]

I would like to apologize to the Senate for the recent inactivity that has slightly slowed the chambers business. I have had work the past few days and in the future, Andy will help me out if needed to keep the chamber running quicker. We all have real lives to attend to and that is much more important than NS. Thank you for this wonderful Senate term so far!

[/spoiler]

Islonia, Indian Genius

I'm perfectly fine with what the House amended, especially on the DPM part since the court ruled a DPM cannot be the PM's successor. Aye from me in the incoming vote.

World Trade, Indian Genius, Marvinville

Also I forget to mention this in the post but Cerdenia has permission to participate in this debate.

Indian Genius

it's a bill, i like bills, except when they mean i have to pay money. this one doesn't, and instead does good things, so i support

World Trade, Indian Genius, Marvinville

It seems perfectly fine, and I will likely be voting aye.

Indian Genius, Marvinville

Voting - Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment

Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment

Author: Cerdenia

Sponsor: Zanaana

As amended by: Marvinville, Andusre, Rhyssua & Indian Genius

We have now begun voting on the Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment, as amended by Congress.

My vote is Aye

[Spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Indian Genius

Aye

Indian Genius

Aye

Indian Genius

I agree with most contents and the idea behind the bill, but I have two questions:

1. In all scenario's the House of Commons is able to select onoe of it's members as a representative in the court, but why is this a privilege reserved only for the House of Commons and not the Senate? As far as I know there are still two houses so why would one of the two be given more power in such an important topic as impeachment?

2. Concerning the section on impeachment of a Justice it is stated they will be brought before the Court. Won't this leave room for an unfair trial where for example a (previous) fellow justice can handle in their own favor with the cost of that of their, in their eyes in this hypothetical scenario, rival?

EDIT: This post was being writen before the voting process had started but posted right after.

Indian Genius, Marvinville

I’ll change my vote to Abstain until we can get a response from Cerdenia

Indian Genius

I would like to ask Senate Chair Marvinville to temporarily suspend the vote until all questions in the debate concerning the current Constitutional Amendement are answered.

Marvinville

The vote is now suspended, we have reentered the debating stage. All votes cast are invalid and the voting process will restart later today.

[Spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Indian Genius, Dendrobium

Thank you, Senate Chair Marvinville. I wish to repeat my questions aimed at the author, Cerdenia, so the revival of the debating stage was not for nothing.

[spoiler=my questions from a previous message]I agree with most contents and the idea behind the bill, but I have two questions:

1. In all scenario's the House of Commons is able to select one of it's members as a representative in the court, but why is this a privilege reserved only for the House of Commons and not the Senate? As far as I know there are still two houses so why would one of the two be given more power in such an important topic as impeachment?

2. Concerning the section on impeachment of a Justice it is stated they will be brought before the Court. Won't this leave room for an unfair trial where for example a (previous) fellow justice can handle in their own favor with the cost of that of their, in their eyes in this hypothetical scenario, rival?[/spoiler]

Indian Genius

Dendrobium wrote:I agree with most contents and the idea behind the bill, but I have two questions:

1. In all scenario's the House of Commons is able to select onoe of it's members as a representative in the court, but why is this a privilege reserved only for the House of Commons and not the Senate? As far as I know there are still two houses so why would one of the two be given more power in such an important topic as impeachment?

2. Concerning the section on impeachment of a Justice it is stated they will be brought before the Court. Won't this leave room for an unfair trial where for example a (previous) fellow justice can handle in their own favor with the cost of that of their, in their eyes in this hypothetical scenario, rival?

EDIT: This post was being writen before the voting process had started but posted right after.

Good questions, so to answer them:

1. The original bill made the Senate the one who sent a representative to argue for impeachment, that was amended in the House for unknown reasons so I can't tell you what the idea was, but personally I was thinking this made more sense when it was on the hands of the Senate, seeing as the Senate already deals with Judicial appointments. Either way there is a mistake in your assumption of how this system works, the House of Commons isn't able to send "one of it's members" as representative, like you described. Let's look at the wording again:

"The 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 MP themselves."

The House can send a representative of it's own, but this just means they are sending their own representative, not that the representative has to be one of their own. The thought process behind this was that, while MPs/Senators can be "good" at legislating, that doesn't mean all of them have good judicial knowledge, as such if in a specific scenario the House believes that someone else is more qualified, they can vote to send the individual as representative, that of course also means even a Senator could theoretically be the representative for the case.

2. While I get the point you are making there, I will have to respectfully disagree. Currently being an Associate Justice myself I haven't seen any situation within the court which proves a desire of one justice to defend another, specially because one Justice has absolutely no say in who their fellow Justices are, Chief Justice Lemonadia for example would never have expected to eventually serve in the court by my side when he was originally nominated almost a year ago I believe, if the Senate trusted a Justice to be impartial, such trust has to extend to every single case. Additionally as is clear in the Judicial section for impeachment, the Deputy Justice will take over temporarily the spot of the Justice undergoing impeachment during the trial, so not sure if this was a concern, but the Justice undergoing impeachment obviously would have no say over his own trial.

Indian Genius

[spoiler=Cerdinia's response]

Cerdenia wrote:Good questions, so to answer them:

1. The original bill made the Senate the one who sent a representative to argue for impeachment, that was amended in the House for unknown reasons so I can't tell you what the idea was, but personally I was thinking this made more sense when it was on the hands of the Senate, seeing as the Senate already deals with Judicial appointments. Either way there is a mistake in your assumption of how this system works, the House of Commons isn't able to send "one of it's members" as representative, like you described. Let's look at the wording again:

"The 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 MP themselves."

The House can send a representative of it's own, but this just means they are sending their own representative, not that the representative has to be one of their own. The thought process behind this was that, while MPs/Senators can be "good" at legislating, that doesn't mean all of them have good judicial knowledge, as such if in a specific scenario the House believes that someone else is more qualified, they can vote to send the individual as representative, that of course also means even a Senator could theoretically be the representative for the case.

2. While I get the point you are making there, I will have to respectfully disagree. Currently being an Associate Justice myself I haven't seen any situation within the court which proves a desire of one justice to defend another, specially because one Justice has absolutely no say in who their fellow Justices are, Chief Justice Lemonadia for example would never have expected to eventually serve in the court by my side when he was originally nominated almost a year ago I believe, if the Senate trusted a Justice to be impartial, such trust has to extend to every single case. Additionally as is clear in the Judicial section for impeachment, the Deputy Justice will take over temporarily the spot of the Justice undergoing impeachment during the trial, so not sure if this was a concern, but the Justice undergoing impeachment obviously would have no say over his own trial.

[/spoiler]

Thank you for your answers, they did in fact bring clarification. There is however one part in the second bit which directly corelates with my concerns (which I think maybe weren't worded in the best possible way in my original message):

"...the Deputy Justice will take over temporarily the spot of the Justice undergoing impeachment during the trial..."

What I originally meant to bring up as a concern was the fear that the Deputy Justice would take this oppurtunity as a chance for personal gain. Of course impartial justices are the key goal when appointing justices, but the temptation for some might still be there; so while they are supposed to be the most educated citizens on Thaecian law, I wondered if the Deputy Justice would indeed be the best option in a scenario of impeachment of the Chief Justice or if someone else should take that role upon themself.

Indian Genius

Dendrobium wrote:[spoiler=Cerdinia's response][/spoiler]

Thank you for your answers, they did in fact bring clarification. There is however one part in the second bit which directly corelates with my concerns (which I think maybe weren't worded in the best possible way in my original message):

"...the Deputy Justice will take over temporarily the spot of the Justice undergoing impeachment during the trial..."

What I originally meant to bring up as a concern was the fear that the Deputy Justice would take this oppurtunity as a chance for personal gain. Of course impartial justices are the key goal when appointing justices, but the temptation for some might still be there; so while they are supposed to be the most educated citizens on Thaecian law, I wondered if the Deputy Justice would indeed be the best option in a scenario of impeachment of the Chief Justice or if someone else should take that role upon themself.

Honestly, I personally can't see anyone better qualified than the Deputy Justice, who is also confirmed by the Senate like other Justices.

Indian Genius

Cerdenia wrote:Honestly, I personally can't see anyone better qualified than the Deputy Justice, who is also confirmed by the Senate like other Justices.

I suppose that is fair enough, I had come to the same conclusion as you. Perhaps another option could be the Justice Minister or even President: either way the impeachment of a Chief Justice, while highly important, will be a dillemma of impartiality or legitimity as justice. Maybe you, Cerdinia, or someone else in the Senate has thoughts on solving this issue? Perhaps both the Deputy Justice and Justice Minister should have a role in this situation or simply one of them?

Indian Genius

Dendrobium wrote:I suppose that is fair enough, I had come to the same conclusion as you. Perhaps another option could be the Justice Minister or even President: either way the impeachment of a Chief Justice, while highly important, will be a dillemma of impartiality or legitimity as justice. Maybe you, Cerdinia, or someone else in the Senate has thoughts on solving this issue? Perhaps both the Deputy Justice and Justice Minister should have a role in this situation or simply one of them?

The position of Justice Minister is selected not seeking impartiality, while the President is elected and not impartial either. In my view both of these positions can't take over for a Justice in the High Court, both work for the government and as such serve the government's interests when it comes to the impeachment process. I still tend to think that keeping this for the Deputy Justice makes more sense.

Indian Genius

Cerdenia wrote:The position of Justice Minister is selected not seeking impartiality, while the President is elected and not impartial either. In my view both of these positions can't take over for a Justice in the High Court, both work for the government and as such serve the government's interests when it comes to the impeachment process. I still tend to think that keeping this for the Deputy Justice makes more sense.

Yes, it remains a dillemma as I said, but in the end maybe the Deputy Justice remains the best possible option. If the Deputy Justice cannot be impartial when tbeir own gain is a possible outcome, then the Senate has chosen a wrong Deputy Justice.

Thank you for answering my questions and explaining the reasoning behind your bill; I have no more questions.

Cerdenia, Indian Genius

Voting - Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment

Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment

Author: Cerdenia

Sponsor: Zanaana

As amended by: Marvinville, Andusre, Rhyssua & Indian Genius

We have now begun voting on the Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment, as amended by Congress. All members of the Senate must recast their vote.

My vote is Aye

[Spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Indian Genius

Results - Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment

Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment

Author: Cerdenia

Sponsor: Zanaana

As amended by: Marvinville, Andusre, Rhyssua & Indian Genius

Ayes (6) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, World Trade

Nays (0)

Abstentions (0)

The Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment, as amended by Congress, has passed reaching a 2/3rds majority needed. It will now go to a regional referendum.

[spoiler=EC]

Hulldom

[/spoiler]

Hulldom, Zanaana

Opening Debate: The East Pacific - Thaecia Treaty

The East Pacific - Thaecia Treaty

Proposed by: Korsinia & The Marconian State

It is the sole duty of the Senate to ratify treaties proposed by the Executive Branch. We have now begun consideration of this treaty between The East Pacific and Thaecia. President The Marconian State and Prime Minister Korsinia have permission to participate in this debate.

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Korsinia, Indian Genius

seems legit

now we can inform the east pacific whenever we hold that fireman sam movie night

i support, voting aye

World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Andusre, Indian Genius, Marvinville

As our ambassador to TEP, I'm very glad this treaty has been agreed to by both us and the GCR. It's a major step to consolidating an already close relationship with a friendly and influential ally, and has a poem written about it which (as far as I know) is unprecedented. It has all my support

Korsinia, World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Islonia, The Marconian State, Indian Genius, Brototh, Marvinville

Brototh wrote:seems legit

Even super legit, I'd say.

Aye from me.

Andusre, Brototh, Marvinville

It strengthens our relationship our most powerful ally. What more could you want? It will be an aye from me.

Andusre, Brototh, Marvinville

Esteemed Senators,

Alongside the actual text and terms of the treaty, The East Pacific and Thaecia have written a poem to go alongside the treaty, as a testament to how truly special this treaty is for both of our regions. While this poem requires no updates to the actual treaty, I will post it here for your consideration.

[Spoiler=Poem of the Greats]At the island, known as Christie,

The awaited dawn appeared.

As the golden rays covered the land,

Two brothers, known as the Greats, met.

The older, who lived past a catastrophe,

The younger, who was still so young.

Far from sight, of the filthy world,

They came together,

Stretching their arms.

The songs of their sons,

They want to share.

From what they want to abandon,

The endless pain, loneliness and darkness,

And to protect the gold of their people,

They agree to create a bond.

Thus, a spell, together, they cast:

Calling Seraphim, the Angel of Diplomacy.

They look at one another,

They see a brother.

Bond, created together,

Shall be never forgotten!

And to memorize this event,

Seraphim looks from above,

Inking joyfully his papyrus,

Seraphim writes the poem,

Poem of the Greats.

[/spoiler]

Regards,

The Marconian State

President

Dizgovzy, Korsinia, World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Islonia, Andusre, Brototh, Marvinville, The Peoples Caribbean Union

The Treaty as a whole seems fine but there is one part that might cause problems, being Article 5 on military obligations.

While it states that nor The East Pacific nor Thaecia will hold military actions against eachother, it also reads that both "shall provide military aid (if requested)". As of right now Thaecia does not have a military, yet the Treaty speaks of "obligations". Does this mean some sort of militia or army will (need to) be created, be it temporarily, in Thaecia or will this result in volunteers being asked if support from our region is called upon? Also, since it speaks of "obligations", will either of the signatories have the option to refuse military aid if the other asks for it, because of, for example, the non-existance of a military or a siple lack of will to comply? And in case of such a refusal, will negotiations be commenced immediately even if the refusal was the only option because of reasons stated above?

Dizgovzy, Brototh

Dendrobium wrote:The Treaty as a whole seems fine but there is one part that might cause problems, being Article 5 on military obligations.

While it states that nor The East Pacific nor Thaecia will hold military actions against eachother, it also reads that both "shall provide military aid (if requested)". As of right now Thaecia does not have a military, yet the Treaty speaks of "obligations". Does this mean some sort of militia or army will (need to) be created, be it temporarily, in Thaecia or will this result in volunteers being asked if support from our region is called upon? Also, since it speaks of "obligations", will either of the signatories have the option to refuse military aid if the other asks for it, because of, for example, the non-existance of a military or a siple lack of will to comply? And in case of such a refusal, will negotiations be commenced immediately even if the refusal was the only option because of reasons stated above?

I think it does mean a militia, for example something like we had when Libertanny took over The East Pacific. Because Thaecia has a Founder, and The East Pacific is very large and has many endorsements, it is practically impossible for a feasible coup to take place in either region. When Libertanny took over the East Pacific, we gathered some volunteers to endorse Libertanny until he had a safe amount of endorsements that we could leave again.

There's a difference between military aid--such as volunteers-- and professional military aid-- such as a formal Thaecian military. This treaty does not specify which one and only relies on 'military aid', and it is up to presumably the future Minister of Defence's leisure, or the President, or the PM, if they wish to use a future created formal military or do what we did previously and gather some volunteers.

I think you raise a valid concern about the obligations, though, I don't think it's exactly in good taste for us to refuse to send needed military aid to another region, especially if they ask for it. We have seen the will to create a private milita-style organisation before, it could simply be sanctioned by the government instead of having to spend valuable time writing up a law, by which time the attack would've failed or passed. We would never refuse to give the other party military aid if they were in genuine danger, and vice versa for the East Pacific as well. Just because we don't have a formal military doesn't mean we can't provide military aid.

Dizgovzy, Islonia, Dendrobium

Voting: The East Pacific - Thaecia Treaty

The East Pacific - Thaecia Treaty

Proposed by: Korsinia & The Marconian State

We have now begun voting on The East Pacific - Thaecia Treaty.

My vote is Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Dizgovzy, Korsinia

Aye

Dizgovzy, World Trade

Aye

Dizgovzy, World Trade

Brototh has informed me that their vote is Aye

Dizgovzy, World Trade

Aye

Dizgovzy, World Trade

Results: The East Pacific - Thaecia Treaty

The East Pacific - Thaecia Treaty

Proposed by: Korsinia & The Marconian State

Ayes (6) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, World Trade

Nays (0)

Abstentions (0)

The East Pacific - Thaecia Treaty has been ratified by the Senate.

Korsinia, World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Islonia

Opening Debate - Citizenship Reform Constitutional Amendment

Citizenship Reform Constitutional Amendment

Author: Rhyssua

Sponsors: Rhyssua & Marvinville

We have now begun debating the Citizenship Reform Constitutional Amendment. Rhyssua has permission to participate in this Senate debate since he is the author of the bill.

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

I'm normally opposed to measures like this, but this is a practice we've adopted for a very very long time and I see no issue with implementing it into the law. I support.

Senate Chair Marvinville

This is something that I suggested in the debates when I was elected, and I thoroughly support it. However, I would think it far more likely that a puppet nation would join before the election, and I therefore propose Amendment A

[spoiler=Ammemdment A]

-To be a citizen, residents must be in the World Assembly (WA). This requirement may be bypassed by sending the Prime Minister, President or Home Affairs Minister a telegram from a nation in the WA confirming the non-WA resident is a puppet of the WA nation elsewhere. The waiver may also be revoked by the Justice Ministry, which can be challenged in court if the person whose waiver was revoked feels it was wrong or unjust. One person may have no more than 1 nation as a citizen in this region. If a nation gains their citizenship three days or less before a voting period of an election or referendum, said nation may not vote in said election or referendum.

[/spoiler]

Dendrobium

This is something I had been planning on writing an Amendement on myself for a while now too but simply haven't gotten the chance to do so yet. The only thing I would change would be to make it so people who joined just moments before the election also won't be able to vote. Originally the time period I had had in mind was one week or from the moment the election/referendum schedule was anounced. That might however be too long or inconsistent, so I am in great favor of Amendement A.

World Trade

I should mention I am willing to change the time, but I thought this would likely be a good baseline.

Dendrobium

World Trade wrote:[spoiler=Amendment A]

-To be a citizen, residents must be in the World Assembly (WA). This requirement may be bypassed by sending the Prime Minister, President or Home Affairs Minister a telegram from a nation in the WA confirming the non-WA resident is a puppet of the WA nation elsewhere. The waiver may also be revoked by the Justice Ministry, which can be challenged in court if the person whose waiver was revoked feels it was wrong or unjust. One person may have no more than 1 nation as a citizen in this region. If a nation gains their citizenship three days or less before a voting period of an election or referendum, said nation may not vote in said election or referendum.

[/spoiler]

I am heavily against Amendment A, and I will vote nay to it & the bill should it pass. I cannot support restrictions on voting such as these, we receive a very large amount of genuine voters at this time looking to be part of the election and vote on it, thus we end up purging voters and reducing our member count, I also simply just do not support doing such a thing-- not really much else to say there, it's simply not something I agree with. While I am not overly keen on the original bill for the same reason I cannot even think about supporting. I recommend World Trade and any other Senators write their own bill to do with this '3 day' limit.

The argument of 'puppet nation' in my opinion is invalid, because we could catch foreign infiltrators when looking at their main nation in the WA Registry. If a nation switches their main to this region, it'll take more work and probably less likely, however, we aren't stupid. We've caught people doing things similar to this before, and NS Mods have visibly caught people WA multiling before, we can and will catch them again.

In the previous term the Senate voted on something very similar to this and failed it. I highly doubt it could pass again.

Marvinville

Brototh wrote:[spoiler]I am heavily against Amendment A, and I will vote nay to it & the bill should it pass. I cannot support restrictions on voting such as these, we receive a very large amount of genuine voters at this time looking to be part of the election and vote on it, thus we end up purging voters and reducing our member count, I also simply just do not support doing such a thing-- not really much else to say there, it's simply not something I agree with. While I am not overly keen on the original bill for the same reason I cannot even think about supporting. I recommend World Trade and any other Senators write their own bill to do with this '3 day' limit.

The argument of 'puppet nation' in my opinion is invalid, because we could catch foreign infiltrators when looking at their main nation in the WA Registry. If a nation switches their main to this region, it'll take more work and probably less likely, however, we aren't stupid. We've caught people doing things similar to this before, and NS Mods have visibly caught people WA multiling before, we can and will catch them again.

In the previous term the Senate voted on something very similar to this and failed it. I highly doubt it could pass again.[/spoiler]

First of all, when I say puppet I do mean a WA nation. I understand that we do often catch people, but, even looking at the recent elections, it is possible, even if the person responsible is not certain.

I would also like to say that this is certainly not to impose voter restrictions. I believe in voter freedom as much as you, but this helps to stop voter fraud from being committed.

However, if the Senate does not pass my amendment I can understand,even though it is my belief it will help the region.

World Trade wrote:[spoiler]First of all, when I say puppet I do mean a WA nation. I understand that we do often catch people, but, even looking at the recent elections, it is possible, even if the person responsible is not certain.

I would also like to say that this is certainly not to impose voter restrictions. I believe in voter freedom as much as you, but this helps to stop voter fraud from being committed.

However, if the Senate does not pass my amendment I can understand,even though it is my belief it will help the region.[/spoiler]

I know for a fact that NS mods will catch any WA Multiers, as we've seen before, and we will catch anyone who has tried something. Anyone dedicated enough to go to such lengths that we couldn't catch them would join weeks before the election anyway, we'd probably still nail them but still. That's my main argument against this bill tbh, but imo having it during the election is better than before the election. Which I strongly oppose and is frankly a completely different bill.

This won't impose voter restrictions on its own but I think people will be a lot less encouraged to join if they see they can't vote because they joined a bit late. It'll be very annoying imo, and really unneeded. So is the bill, but the bill is better than this.

Your Amendment A is also contradictory of the rest of the bill, it amends either the preamble or another part of the Constitution while leaving in what Rhyssua actually amended. It solves nothing, even from your point of view it doesn't do anything, and makes more confusion, which this bill is trying to do the opposite of.

Post self-deleted by World Trade.

I would like to give my thoughts one some things Brototh has said.

You speak of things such as "restrictions on voting" ad "less encouragement to join" because new citizens wouldn't be able to vote, but if anything Amendement A (just like the original Amendement) advocates for quite the opposite. Instead of voter restriction and destruction of elections it not only promotes but also defends our electoral system and elections/referenda. We would not "purge" our voters or membercount simply because people who just joined have in most if not all cases no idea of what is going on, let alone in an election or referendum period. Giving people immediate access to voting right after joining would not only give the EC even more work in busy and stressful times, but could also cause general confusion both for the new citizen and the EC. Legislating a short minimum period one must be a citizen so they could learn how the region works, who people are and what their vote means in certain votes would thus give every party involved time to prevent any possible confusion and prevent people from casting votes they would later learn might have been against their own good/interest.

You have also spoken on puppet nations, sliding the argument away as "invalid" and just as the Amendement on it's own "anoying". I must say I agree with you in a certain way: not letting this go through would indeed be very anoying, just because of what I stated above and because allowing possible puppet nations to vote right away would add to that completely. Their votes would be illegitimate be at the cause of even more work and confusion for the EC and everyone involved. Giving the argument that the NS mod team is able to select and take care of such puppet nations immediately is strong faith I wish I could follow you with, but experience shows this is not always the case, no matter how much respect we all have for them. So giving them too some more time to take care of this, as well as our own RMB and discord mods, will only result in a stronger, safer and most importantly a fairer Thaecia.

Lastly you mention that Amendement A would be contradictory to the original Amendement, a thought process I can understand, but must say I disagree with. The preamble itself reads: "Noting that nations can join Thaecia, get citizenship and immediately vote in any elections happening at the time, conscious of the security risk it creates, and further noting CR. 005, which recommends that this issue be fixed through legislation..." which is directly in line with Amendement A for the reasons I gave and others you might come up with as well. With a little time for new citizens to integrate properly and for the mods to find out if they indeed are not puppet nations or nations that joined for the purpose of swinging elections/referenda.

To round up this already long enough response I can only ask you and any other doubting Senators to reconsider both Amendement A and the original Amendement, and to come to the conclusion we need them and voting "Aye" is the right way to go.

World Trade

Big congratulations to Pap Sculgief for winning in the Senate by-election!

Pap, I need you to swear this oath and you’re official a Senator!

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of Thaecia against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Zon Island, Dendrobium, Marvinville

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of Thaecia against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

World Trade, Zon Island, Dendrobium, Marvinville

Voting - Amendment A

Citizenship Reform Constitutional Amendment

Author: Rhyssua

Sponsors: Rhyssua & Marvinville

Amendment A

Author: World Trade

[spoiler=Amendment A]

To amend the Constitutional Amendment

To be a citizen, residents must be in the World Assembly (WA). This requirement may be bypassed by sending the Prime Minister, President or Home Affairs Minister a telegram from a nation in the WA confirming the non-WA resident is a puppet of the WA nation elsewhere. The waiver may also be revoked by the Justice Ministry, which can be challenged in court if the person whose waiver was revoked feels it was wrong or unjust. One person may have no more than 1 nation as a citizen in this region. If a nation gains their citizenship three days or less before a voting period of an election or referendum, said nation may not vote in said election or referendum.

[/spoiler]

We have now begun voting on this Amendment to the Citizenship Reform Constitutional Amendment.

My vote is Nay

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Pap Sculgief

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Welcome to the Senate Pap Sculgief!!! Congratulations on your election win! We all are looking forward to working with you in the Senate for the remainder of the term.

Pap Sculgief, Brototh, Zon Island

Nay

Hey, Pap Sculgief!

Pap Sculgief, Brototh

Tbh, it was more a spur of the moment thing, and although I think it should still be implemented in some way in another bill, my vote is

Abstain

Just noting, the amendment does nothing. It amends a completely different part of the constitution, and leaves in what Rhyssua amended. The amendment is unironically useless

I’m going to vote nay of this amendment. I was planning on abstaining having not taken part in the the debate, however I have read the debate and feel that this is the best way to vote

Results - Amendment A (FAILED)

Citizenship Reform Constitutional Amendment

Author: Rhyssua

Sponsors: Rhyssua & Marvinville

Amendment A

Author: World Trade

[spoiler=Amendment A]

To amend the Constitutional Amendment

To be a citizen, residents must be in the World Assembly (WA). This requirement may be bypassed by sending the Prime Minister, President or Home Affairs Minister a telegram from a nation in the WA confirming the non-WA resident is a puppet of the WA nation elsewhere. The waiver may also be revoked by the Justice Ministry, which can be challenged in court if the person whose waiver was revoked feels it was wrong or unjust. One person may have no more than 1 nation as a citizen in this region. If a nation gains their citizenship three days or less before a voting period of an election or referendum, said nation may not vote in said election or referendum.

[/spoiler]

[Spoiler=Vote Results]

Ayes (1) - Dendrobium

Nays (5) - Andusre, Brototh, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief

Abstentions (1) - World Trade

[/spoiler]

Amendment A has failed to pass.

Pap Sculgief

Voting - Citizenship Reform Constitutional Amendment

Citizenship Reform Constitutional Amendment

Author: Rhyssua

Sponsors: Rhyssua & Marvinville

We have now begun voting on the Citizenship Reform Constitutional Amendment.

My vote is Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Pap Sculgief

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Pap Sculgief

Aye

Pap Sculgief

Ауе

Pap Sculgief

Aye

Pap Sculgief

Results - Citizenship Reform Constitutional Amendment

Citizenship Reform Constitutional Amendment

Author: Rhyssua

Sponsors: Rhyssua & Marvinville

Ayes (6) - Andusre, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief, World Trade

Nays (0)

Abstentions (1) - Brototh

The Citizenship Reform Constitutional Amendment has passed the Senate and will now move to the House for further action.

[Spoiler=House Speaker]

Dizgovzy

[/spoiler]

Dizgovzy, Pap Sculgief

[B]Opening Debate - Snap Election Constitutional Amendment

Snap Election Constitutional Amendment

Authors: Brototh & Andusre

Sponsors: Brototh & Andusre

As amended by: Dizgovzy

We have now begun debating the Snap Election Constitutional Amendment, as amended by the House.

[Spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Pap Sculgief

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Pap Sculgief

I have no problem with bill and I plan on voting aye when voting begins

Let's get this over with and to a referendum

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