Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

RESULTS - CONGRESSIONAL EXPANSION ACT OF MAY 2020

Congressional Expansion Act of May 2020

Authors: Pap Sculgief & Indian Genius

Sponsors: Fishergate, Pap Sculgief, Indian Genius & Zon Island

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (0):

Nays (6):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Abstentions (1):

Andusre[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the Congressional Expansion Act of May 2020 has failed the Senate by a vote of 6-0. We will move on to the next bill shortly.

OPENING DEBATE - THAECIAN POLLING DATA PROTECTION ACT

Thaecian Polling Data Protection Act

Author: Andusre

Sponsor: Andusre

This bill aims to add legal protections to the data provided by poll respondents in Thaecia, to ensure that polls are continued to be used effectively and responsibly.

Personally, I approve of this bill. It simply enshrines in law a practice that has so far been respected by Thaecian pollsters anyway.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Catlin, Asean Nations, Marvinville

I agree with the Chairman on what this bill is going to ensure and personally support the bill.

Andusre

I see nothing wrong with the bill

Andusre

I support the bill.

Andusre

I agree with the chairman

Andusre

Yup, have nothing against the bill. Plan to vote Aye unless a solid argument against it is given.

Andusre

VOTING - THAECIAN POLLING DATA PROTECTION ACT

Thaecian Polling Data Protection Act

Author: Andusre

Sponsor: Andusre

Everyone seems to like this bill, so let's get to voting.

My own vote is 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

RESULTS - THAECIAN POLLING DATA PROTECTION ACT

Thaecian Polling Data Protection Act

Author: Andusre

Sponsor: Andusre

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (7):

Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the Thaecian Polling Data Protection Act has passed the Senate by a unanimous vote of 7-0. It will now pass to the House of Commons for further deliberation.

[spoiler=Speaker]Zanaana[/spoiler]

Catlin, Zanaana

OPENING DEBATE - PROTECTION OF THE PRESS ACT

Protection of the Press Act

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

This bill is a second attempt by Senator Marvinville to protect the freedom of the press after his constitutional amendment was rejected by the House last term.

At first glance, it seems a very straightforward bill, but I encourage Senators to think hard about the potential implications of this bill and consider if there could be any unintended consequences of flatly outlawing government regulation of the media.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Asean Nations, Marvinville

This bill will make sure that the freedom of the press in Thaecia will be protected, when I vote I will vote "aye"

Asean Nations, Marvinville

The bill unnecessarily ties the hands of any future Congress or government which is challenged by dishonest actors who spread disinformation. Our current system of ensuring appropriate media freedom is adequate enough I feel, so it's gonna be a Nay from me.

Fishergate, Asean Nations

Andusre wrote:The bill unnecessarily ties the hands of any future Congress or government which is challenged by dishonest actors who spread disinformation. Our current system of ensuring appropriate media freedom is adequate enough I feel, so it's gonna be a Nay from me.

Freedom of the Press is important and we have to make sure it's enshrined in law. Also, a government body to regulate media outlets is a tyrannical policy. Something you would see in fake democracy like Hungary.

Asean Nations, Marvinville

Catlin wrote:Freedom of the Press is important and we have to make sure it's enshrined in law. Also, a government body to regulate media outlets is a tyrannical policy. Something you would see in fake democracy like Hungary.

Freedom of speech and freedom to be part of regional media are already enshrined in the Constitution, so any regulations the government does try to enact would be limited by those.

I agree that freedom of the press is important, but we have to be very careful with how we enshrine it in law. My concern with this bill is that it is too blunt and restrictive and does not allow any room for the government to sanction a media organisation that may be breaking the law or acting improperly. There's a fine line to tread with state/media relations and I am concerned that this bill steps over that line too far in favour of unrestricted media.

Andusre, Asean Nations

I'm wondering if Andusre and Fishergate support the Protection of the Press Act if article 2 is removed?

Catlin wrote: I'm wondering if Andusre and Fishergate support the Protection of the Press Act if article 2 is removed?

Article I on its own doesn't mean anything, with no definitions for 'freedom', 'independence', and 'government interference'.

Catlin

I agree with both Fishergate and Andusre. The bill, in my opinion, is not defined well, is quite limited, blunt and restrictive in a way. This bill doesn't do much to change the freedom of the press as our current system already takes good care of that. There is no point in passing a useless bill that could possibly be harmful. I shall be voting Nay.

Asean Nations

Aexodian wrote:I agree with both Fishergate and Andusre. The bill, in my opinion, is not defined well, is quite limited, blunt and restrictive in a way. This bill doesn't do much to change the freedom of the press as our current system already takes good care of that. There is no point in passing a useless bill that could possibly be harmful. I shall be voting Nay.

I'm not sure how this can be not defined well because it is pretty straight forward as it says "freedom and independence without any government interference". This says that Press, which is known as the actual organizations, must not have regulations restricting them nor having governmental organizations determining on their rating or oversight. I would also like to point out that our system does not take "good care of that" because there is no law or constitutional right that protects the freedom and independence of the Press. Yes, Citizens have the right to join media organizations and the right to speak their minds but no where in the Constitution does it state that the press has protection and independence from the government. I believe that this bill is extremely important to protect the rights of the Press and I hope my fellow Senators will vote Aye.

Catlin, Asean Nations

VOTING - PROTECTION OF THE PRESS ACT

Protection of the Press Act

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

With most Senators having expressed their views on the bill and no amendments having been proposed, we will now move onto the voting stage.

My own vote is 'nay'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Aye

Snowflame, Catlin

aye

Snowflame, Marvinville

Aye

Catlin, Marvinville

Aye

Catlin, Marvinville

The bill has passed 4-3

Marvinville

RESULTS - PROTECTION OF THE PRESS ACT

Protection of the Press Act

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (4):

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (3):

Aexodian

Andusre

Fishergate[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the Protection of the Press Act has passed the Senate by a narrow vote of 4-3. It now advances to the House.

Please bear with me while I prepare the next bill to be brought to the floor.

[spoiler=Speaker]Zanaana[/spoiler]

Marvinville

OPENING DEBATE - IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES ACT

Impeachable Offences Act

Author: The Islamic Country Of Honour

Sponsors: Fishergate & Pap Sculgief

As amended by: Marvinville, Zanaana & Brototh

Original bill (as passed by the Senate)

House amendments

This bill returns to us after the House passed several amendments to it. Most of the amendments are fairly superficial and don't change the meaning or implications of the bill. However, the House has also passed an amendment to remove Article VI. The argument given by the MP responsible for this amendment is that inactivity deserves to be addressed by a bill of it's own. I'm not sure I understand this, as I think we're better off keeping all the impeachable offences in the same bill.

I'm interested to hear Senators' opinions on these amendments, especially the removal of Article VI, and I will sponsor Brototh MP to join us and justify this amendment if they would like to do so.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Andusre

Catlin

Snowflame

[/spoiler]

Asean Nations, Marvinville

I think this bill is useful as it gives a clear definition of what is impeachable, I will be voting "aye"

I am still concerned that the bill should include the inactivity clause. Therefore, I am submitting this amendment to the Senate:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Add Article-10: Inactivity to read as follows:

It will be deemed an impeachable offence if the Prime Minister or President is inactive for period of seven consecutive days or more.

Inactivity will hereby be defined as the period starting from the individual's last recorded public interaction - whether that be a message on any of Thaecia's RMBs, a regional telegram, or a message on the Thaecian discord server - during which the individual has made no public interaction and has not been responsive to direct messages, telegrams, or mentions.[/spoiler]

I have no good reasons to not include an inactivity clause in this bill, so I hope the Senate will either support this amendment or present me with a compelling reason not to.

Pap Sculgief, Brototh, Asean Nations, Marvinville

Fishergate wrote:I am still concerned that the bill should include the inactivity clause. Therefore, I am submitting this amendment to the Senate:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Add Article-10: Inactivity to read as follows:

It will be deemed an impeachable offence if the Prime Minister or President is inactive for period of seven consecutive days or more.

Inactivity will hereby de defined as the period starting from the individual's last recorded public interaction - whether that be a message on any of Thaecia's RMBs, a regional telegram, or a message on the Thaecian discord server - during which the individual has made no public interaction and has not been responsive to direct messages, telegrams, or mentions.[/spoiler]

I have no good reasons to not include an inactivity clause in this bill, so I hope the Senate will either support this amendment or present me with a compelling reason not to.

I support the Amendment. I don't understand why it was removed when the bill was in the house

Asean Nations

I support the Amendment

I also support the Amendment

Frankly I feel like inactivity is better as a seperate bill, but I can get behind this amendment, seems that the Senate is adamant on having an inactivity clause which I respect, Fishergate’s amendment is also worded nicer, will vote aye if this comes down to the House within the rest of the term.

Fishergate, Asean Nations

I would like to add an amendment to the amendment

It will be deemed an impeachable offence if the Prime Minister or President is inactive for period of seven consecutive days or more.

Inactivity will hereby de defined as the period starting from the individual's last recorded public interaction - whether that be a message on any of Thaecia's RMBs, a regional telegram, or a message on the Thaecian discord server - during which the individual has made no public interaction and has not been responsive to direct messages, telegrams, or mentions. Inactivity is only an impeachable offense if the President or Prime Minister doesn't notify Thaecians about them going inactive via Telegram or an RMB post

FYI: The bolden part is the amendment

Catlin wrote:I would like to add an amendment to the amendment

It will be deemed an impeachable offence if the Prime Minister or President is inactive for period of seven consecutive days or more.

Inactivity will hereby de defined as the period starting from the individual's last recorded public interaction - whether that be a message on any of Thaecia's RMBs, a regional telegram, or a message on the Thaecian discord server - during which the individual has made no public interaction and has not been responsive to direct messages, telegrams, or mentions. Inactivity is only an impeachable offense if the President or Prime Minister doesn't notify Thaecians about them going inactive via Telegram or an RMB post

FYI: The bolden part is the amendment

I agree with this idea, though I think it can be worded better, so I will modify my amendment accordingly. Amendment A will now read as follows:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Add Article-10: Inactivity to read as follows:

It will be deemed an impeachable offence if the Prime Minister or President is inactive for period of seven consecutive days or more without giving prior notice to the region and providing an expected time-frame for their return.

Inactivity will hereby be defined as the period starting from the individual's last recorded public interaction - whether that be a message on any of Thaecia's RMBs, a regional telegram, or a message on the Thaecian discord server - during which the individual has made no public interaction and has not been responsive to direct messages, telegrams, or mentions.[/spoiler]

Pap Sculgief, Catlin, Asean Nations, Marvinville

Fishergate wrote:I agree with this idea, though I think it can be worded better, so I will modify my amendment accordingly. Amendment A will now read as follows:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Add Article-10: Inactivity to read as follows:

It will be deemed an impeachable offence if the Prime Minister or President is inactive for period of seven consecutive days or more without giving prior notice to the region and providing an expected time-frame for their return.

Inactivity will hereby be defined as the period starting from the individual's last recorded public interaction - whether that be a message on any of Thaecia's RMBs, a regional telegram, or a message on the Thaecian discord server - during which the individual has made no public interaction and has not been responsive to direct messages, telegrams, or mentions.[/spoiler]

Thanks

AMENDMENT VOTING - IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURES ACT

Impeachment Procedures Act

Author: The Islamic Country Of Honour

Sponsors: Fishergate & Pap Sculgief

As amended by: Marvinville, Zanaana & Brototh

Amendment A

Fishergate

[spoiler=Amendment A]Add Article-10: Inactivity to read as follows:

It will be deemed an impeachable offence if the Prime Minister or President is inactive for period of seven consecutive days or more without giving prior notice to the region and providing an expected time-frame for their return.

Inactivity will hereby be defined as the period starting from the individual's last recorded public interaction - whether that be a message on any of Thaecia's RMBs, a regional telegram, or a message on the Thaecian discord server - during which the individual has made no public interaction and has not been responsive to direct messages, telegrams, or mentions.[/spoiler]

We will now vote on the amendment I have proposed. My own vote is 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Catlin, The Islamic Country Of Honour

aye

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Aye

Catlin, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Aye!

Catlin, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Aye

Catlin, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Aye

Catlin, The Islamic Country Of Honour

AMENDMENT RESULTS - IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES ACT

Amendment A

Fishergate

[spoiler=Amendment A]Add Article-10: Inactivity to read as follows:

It will be deemed an impeachable offence if the Prime Minister or President is inactive for period of seven consecutive days or more without giving prior notice to the region and providing an expected time-frame for their return..

Inactivity will hereby be defined as the period starting from the individual's last recorded public interaction - whether that be a message on any of Thaecia's RMBs, a regional telegram, or a message on the Thaecian discord server - during which the individual has made no public interaction and has not been responsive to direct messages, telegrams, or mentions.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (6):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):

Abstentions (1):

Andusre[/spoiler]

The amendment has passed by a vote of 6-0 and will be added to the bill. We will begin voting on the amended bill shortly.

Snowflame, Zanaana

VOTING - IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES ACT

Impeachable Offences Act

Author: The Islamic Country Of Honour

Sponsors: Fishergate & Pap Sculgief

As amended by: Marvinville, Zanaana, Brototh & Fishergate

Please now cast your votes for or against the bill. My own vote is 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Catlin, Zanaana

Aye!

Catlin, The Islamic Country Of Honour

'ello senators

I'm here to explain why my vote is Nay, against this bill.

Let's first get out of the way the parts of this bill which are just repetitions of our Legal Code (LR 8):

--------

"Obstruction of Justice" is already covered by the current legal code. Obstruction of Justice, as defined by this bill, is:

[spoiler=Quotation of Bill about Obstruction of Justice]“the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process”[/spoiler]

Our current Legal Code states:

[spoiler=Quotation of Legal Code about Perverting The Course Of Justice]

"Perverting the course of justice will be defined as any action made by a group or individual that aims to prevent Justice from being served unto themselves or another party under the laws of the region.

Example: fabricating or destroying evidence or threatening a witness, judge, or juror."[/spoiler]

--------

The bill also defines Perjury as:

[spoiler=Quotation of Bill about Perjury]“the giving of false testimony under oath on an issue or point of inquiry regarded as material.”[/spoiler]

Again, I feel this is already covered by our current legal code. A testimony given to the court is evidence, and if that testimony contains lies, that is falsification of evidence, and thus covered already by the legal code under perverting the course of justice.

--------

The bill defines "Conspiracy with Foreign Powers" as the following:

[spoiler=Quotation of Bill about Conspiracy with Foreign Powers]"This shall include incidents where the President or Prime Minister is found to be conspiring with a foreign region to undermine Thaecia's state institutions or the region itself by leaking secret information or helping them with the power vested in them resulting in a scenario where Thaecia's security and sovereignty may be compromised."[/spoiler]

Again, I think this is already adequately covered by the Legal Code's definition of Treason:

[spoiler=Quotation of Legal Code about Treason]Treason will be defined as acting in anyway that undermines regional interests or safety. In addition, leaking classified government information will count as treason.[/spoiler]

--------

I'm not even gonna touch the "Violation of the Legal Code" article

--------

The bill defines Abuse of Power:

[spoiler=Quotation of Bill about Abuse of Power]

""the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties for individual gains. Individual gains shall be defined as personal benefits which the executive officer derives from the usage of any power vested in them in a scenario where his official duties aren't involved."[/spoiler]

Again, I feel the Treason section of the Legal Code cover this fairly well, albeit not entirely completely. Even still, I think that if a President or PM were to do such an action, they would be impeached anyway without needing this bill.

--------

The same applies to "Electoral Intervention":

[spoiler=Quotation of Bill about Electoral Intervention]Attempts by the President or Prime Minister to influence elections in the region by using inter-regional assistance to disrupt and intervene in the electoral process that would benefit them politically.[/spoiler]

Again, this is already covered by Treason.

------------------------

So that's it for what is already covered by the Legal Code, but the bill has an array of other problems. Allow me to elaborate:

The definition of the Withholding of Vital Information is vague and dangerously open to abuse.

[spoiler=Definition of Withholding of Vital Information]"If the President or Prime Minister is found to be withholding or confiding any information so that the region's security or sovereignty is in danger, without informing relevant authorities or Congress, it shall be deemed impeachable." [/spoiler]

Where is the line drawn between vital and non-vital information? Why is it up to Congress (which could easily impeach a PM/President using this baselessly) to draw this line? Who are the "relevant authorities"? Why is it limited to security/sovereignty?

--------

The definition of Collusion is problematic too:

[spoiler=Definition of Collusion]"secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others."[/spoiler]

Again, dangerously vague and open to abuse. Consider a political party. Its internal co-operations, more often than not, are in secret from the other parties. If a PM/President of Party X is involved in internal plans to "deceive" (whatever that means) Party Y, Party Y could attempt to impeach the PM/President because their feelings got a bit hurt, which is not fair on the president or on this region. The odd and vague wording of this section leaves it open to a torrent of abuse from irresponsible Congresses.

--------

Yes, I even take issue with the Activity article.

[spoiler=Definition of Inactivity]It will be deemed an impeachable offence if the Prime Minister or President is inactive for period of seven consecutive days or more.

Inactivity will hereby be defined as the period starting from the individual's last recorded public interaction - whether that be a message on any of Thaecia's RMBs, a regional telegram, or a message on the Thaecian discord server - during which the individual has made no public interaction and has not been responsive to direct messages, telegrams, or mentions.[/spoiler]

This, to me, seems to impose a blanket ban on being inactive, which ignores the complexity of our real lives. If a PM decides they need to take a break from the region for real life complications, they could deputise and delegate to keep the executive running in their absence, knowing they would return soon after. This bill would mean that official, who had no control over their real life complications, would be faced with a choice of giving time and energy to Thaecia when it is already in low supply, or be impeached and thrown out of office in disgrace and dishonour.

------------------------

So anyway, that's my rational for voting Nay on the bill. I am aware this is going to sound quite rude, but I feel it is important to note here in Congress that there appears to be a growing discontent within our general population as this chamber and the House have been passing bills left, right and centre without giving appropriate considerations to each bill, like the specificity of wording, necessity, precedence and future implications. I'd appeal to everyone in Congress, please stop writing and proposing bills for the sake of getting Congress to do something or, if you're a bit more narcissistic, to get your name on the law registry a few more times.

Tldr the bill repeats itself and has sections which can easily be abused, also @senator @mp please stop writing trash bills

The Marconian State, Xernon, Broustan, The Bigtopia, Asean Nations, Marvinville

I see the bill has passed anyway, so I guess that was pointless unless someone switches their vote. My vote is still Nay.

Marvinville

I would like to change my vote to Nay

Post by The Islamic Country Of Honour suppressed by Speaker Fishergate.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Andusre I agree with your points on the Collusion part of the bill, it was not in the original bill and it’s pretty vague tbh, this amendment was proposed by one of the Senators(Marvinville) and honestly I didn’t also get much time to debate on it because of personal commitments. It leaves the PM and President highly vulnerable to abuse of this section. And the Inactivity clause does call for a review. the House had rejected my original proposal, which states that a President or Prime Minister could be impeached only if they remain inactive for a period of 14 days without informing anyone or deputising anyone to do their job. But if they had informed and deputised someone, they shall be allowed to continue. This new Inactivity clause was proposed by Catlin. And Andusre, you should agree with this, the definition of “treason” in the Legal code is extremely vague.

Post by The Islamic Country Of Honour suppressed by Speaker Fishergate.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

And Marvinville, the “Collusion” part was covered by one of the sections “Conspiracy with Foreign Powers”

The Islamic Country Of Honour the debate stage has finished. Please do not disrupt the voting by speaking during this period.

Senator Andusre, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the bill, though I would have preferred you to have done this during the two days this bill was on the floor prior to the voting being opened.

Regarding your comments on the inactivity section, I would like to apologise for the confusion I have caused here. I accidentally forgot to apply the correct version of my amendment to the version of the bill linked in the vote-opening post. This has now been rectified, so you should see that the bill states that a PM or President may only be impeached for inactivity if they have not given prior notice.

Andusre, Catlin, Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour

I would like to change my vote to nay, I like the concept of this bill but Andusre pointed out many flaws that we can't fix via amendment now because we are voting.

Marvinville

Catlin wrote:I would like to change my vote to nay, I like the concept of this bill but Andusre pointed out many flaws that we can't fix via amendment now because we are voting.

Thank you Senator, I appreciate your open-mindedness about my concerns (this also goes to Marv)

Catlin, Marvinville

I change my vote to Nay in light of this argument.

I'm withdrawing my vote and will be Abstaining.

RESULTS - IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES ACT

Impeachable Offences Act

Author: The Islamic Country Of Honour

Sponsors: Fishergate & Pap Sculgief

As amended by: Marvinville, Zanaana, Brototh & Fishergate

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (2):

Fishergate

Snowflame

Nays (4):

Aexodian

Andusre

Catlin

Marvinville

Abstention (1):

Asean Nations[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the Impeachable Offences Act has failed by a vote of 4-2.

OPENING DEBATE - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION

Amendment to Article III of the Constitution

Author: Pap Sculgief

Sponsors: Pap Sculgief & Marvinville

As amended by: Indian Genius

This is an amendment to the constitution to require the High Court to provide reasoning after rejecting any case filed to them.

This is a very minor and largely insignificant amendment which will have little effect on life in Thaecia, certainly in the short term. This, combined with the fact that it will require a public referendum to be ratified, and the fact that there is already an amendment referendum due to begin later today, leaves us with two options in my opinion:

1. Reject this bill now and encourage the author to resubmit it at a later date alongside or as part of a more significant amendment, so they can be voted on simultaneously.

2. Request that the Electoral Commissioner delays the referendum due to begin today long enough for us to pass this amendment and for it to be included on the ballot alongside the amendment to Article I.

Therefore, I encourage Electoral Commissioner Rhyssua to join us and share his own thoughts on this issue.

I would also like to hear what the author has to say, so Pap Sculgief MP may also take part in this debate.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Pap Sculgief, Asean Nations

not a big fan of this amendment, I fell like it could be misused to get rid of cases the court politically disagrees with.

I support this amendment and I agree with option 2 that Fishergate has said

Catlin wrote:not a big fan of this amendment, I fell like it could be misused to get rid of cases the court politically disagrees with.

Not really. The Court already has the right to accept or reject any case it wishes. This amendment just means they have to provide a reason why. If anything it makes it harder for the Court to dismiss cases on a political basis as currently they would be required to explain why they rejected the case. It would be difficult for them to say "we rejected this case for political reasons". At the very least the amendment would require a corrupt court to make up a reason why they rejected a case and try to make it sound convincing.

Pap Sculgief, Snowflame, Catlin, Asean Nations

Fishergate Since the Constitutional amendment vote has just started. I would like you to table this amendment as pushing it through right now would be not useful. Of course we can debate it and maybe pass it later on this term

Pap Sculgief

I'd rather we voted it down at the moment, especially now the referendum has been started.

I also think the court already does this anyway, so I guess it couldn't hurt to add it but at the same time eh. Perhaps it might be more appropriate as a regular law rather than as a constitutional amendment

Or since there is going to be a Special election to fill USE's MP spot, maybe Rhyssua could include this amendment in with the election if we do pass it

Snowflame, Brototh, Asean Nations

Marvinville wrote:Or since there is going to be a Special election to fill USE's MP spot, maybe Rhyssua could include this amendment in with the election if we do pass it

This could be a sensible solution.

Unfortunately the EC is not being responsive. His input here would be valued.

Catlin, Asean Nations, Marvinville, Zanaana

VOTING - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION

Amendment to Article III of the Constitution

Author: Pap Sculgief

Sponsors: Pap Sculgief & Marvinville

As amended by: Indian Genius

Alright Senators, let's vote on this. I don't know what each of you think is the best course to take now, but I support the amendment and will therefore be voting 'aye'. If the amendment passes with the requisite 2/3 majority, the Electoral Commissioner will have to decide what action to take regarding the ratification referendum.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Pap Sculgief, Snowflame, Asean Nations, Zon Island, Marvinville

RESULTS - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION

Amendment to Article III of the Constitution

Author: Pap Sculgief

Sponsors: Pap Sculgief & Marvinville

As amended by: Indian Genius

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (6)

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Fishergate

Snowflame

Nays (0):

Abstentions (1):

Andusre[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the amendment to Article III of the Constitution has passed the Senate by a vote of 6-0. It is now in the remit of the Electoral Commissioner Rhyssua to organise the ratification referendum.

Pap Sculgief

OPENING DEBATE - EXECUTIVE BRANCH IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES ACT

Executive Branch Impeachable Offences Act

Author: Fishergate

Sponsors: Fishergate & Pap Sculgief

I have rewritten the Impeachable Offences Act to address the concerns raised by Senators and MPs regarding the crossovers with the Legal Code. I hope this new, simpler bill will be acceptable to Congress as I believe it is important to properly establish the offences for which a Prime Minister or President may be impeached.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Brototh, Asean Nations, Marvinville

I like how this bill takes all the good from the act of the Impeachable Offenses Act and gets rid of all of the bad.

I support this bill because It does not contradict the legal codes like the other one did

Catlin

I support the bill and as my colleagues has already stated it provide a much clearer 'distinction' and solves the contradiction with the legal codes.

Zanaana

It's definitely much better than the previous Impeachable Offences Act. My one problem is that a violation of NS rules is (usually) not a big deal, and impeaching someone because mods intervened would seem a bit harsh. Perhaps the bill could be amended to include repeated violations of NS rules, rather than leaving it to just one awkward violation.

Fishergate, Asean Nations, Zanaana

Andusre wrote:It's definitely much better than the previous Impeachable Offences Act. My one problem is that a violation of NS rules is (usually) not a big deal, and impeaching someone because mods intervened would seem a bit harsh. Perhaps the bill could be amended to include repeated violations of NS rules, rather than leaving it to just one awkward violation.

Or possibly 'serious violation of NS rules'. This obviously necessitates some subjectivity, but we can probably rely on future Congresses to be reasonable with it. Especially considering a supermajority is needed for impeachment.

Andusre, Asean Nations, Marvinville, Zanaana

I have no issues with this new bill and wholly support it.

Senators, please note that I have made an amendment to Article II of the bill. We will begin voting soon.

Asean Nations

VOTING - EXECUTIVE BRANCH IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES ACT

Executive Branch Impeachable Offences Act

Author: Fishergate

Sponsors: Fishergate & Pap Sculgief

We will now vote on this bill. Please note the changes made to Article II since the bill was first brought to the floor.

My own vote is of course 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

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