Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

Senators, if I may, I believe the Secretary of Roleplay Islonia has valuable input on the bill, so I am sponsoring him to speak.

Islonia

Brototh wrote:Senators, if I may, I believe the Secretary of Roleplay Islonia has valuable input on the bill, so I am sponsoring him to speak.

As am I. I think his opinion might sway some of our minds.

Islonia

Thank you Hon. Senator Brototh & Hon.Senator Aexodian for sponsoring me.

Greetings, Senators.

I have been approached by someone saying that this bill was unconstitutional. Fortunately it is not. However the right that it is breaking is the right to free press itself.

As per Article V Section 1.1: « All “NORB Certified” Media Outlets must provide their full “Outlet Rating” on the front page of their Media Outlet. » & Article V Section 2.1 « If a Media Outlet does not display or provides an inaccurate “Outlet Rating” it will be in direct violation of this law and a prosecutable offense, resulting in an immediate Disciplinary Hearing. », medias have to provide the rating NORB gave them at risk of sanctions. This little article manages to remove the Freedom and Independence of Press.

You must amend Article V, or this will open the gates to even more press regulation.

You must amend the constitution to make Freedom of Press a constitutional right.

Thank you.

(And I'm also a justice, Thot.)

Brototh, Catlin, Terentiland, Aexodian

Islonia wrote:Thank you Hon. Senator Brototh & Hon.Senator Aexodian for sponsoring me.

Greetings, Senators.

I have been approached by someone saying that this bill was unconstitutional. Fortunately it is not. However the right that it is breaking is the right to free press itself.

As per Article V Section 1.1: « All “NORB Certified” Media Outlets must provide their full “Outlet Rating” on the front page of their Media Outlet. » & Article V Section 2.1 « If a Media Outlet does not display or provides an inaccurate “Outlet Rating” it will be in direct violation of this law and a prosecutable offense, resulting in an immediate Disciplinary Hearing. », medias have to provide the rating NORB gave them at risk of sanctions. This little article manages to remove the Freedom and Independence of Press from the government.

You must amend Article V, or this will open the gates to even more press regulation.

You must amend the constitution to make Freedom of Press a constitutional right.

Thank you.

(And I'm also a justice, Thot.)

As such, I would like to propose that Outlets are in fact not required to need to show their Outlet Ratings. Regarding them providing an inaccurate rating, I suggest the NORB Board being able to denounce the outlet but they can't prosecute them. Section 1.1 needs to be removed while Section 1.2 amended. Reagrding the Constitution, Zanaana is working on one to close this stupid loophole as we speak.

Islonia wrote:Thank you Hon. Senator Brototh & Hon.Senator Aexodian for sponsoring me.

Greetings, Senators.

I have been approached by someone saying that this bill was unconstitutional. Fortunately it is not. However the right that it is breaking is the right to free press itself.

As per Article V Section 1.1: « All “NORB Certified” Media Outlets must provide their full “Outlet Rating” on the front page of their Media Outlet. » & Article V Section 2.1 « If a Media Outlet does not display or provides an inaccurate “Outlet Rating” it will be in direct violation of this law and a prosecutable offense, resulting in an immediate Disciplinary Hearing. », medias have to provide the rating NORB gave them at risk of sanctions. This little article manages to remove the Freedom and Independence of Press from the government.

You must amend Article V, or this will open the gates to even more press regulation.

You must amend the constitution to make Freedom of Press a constitutional right.

Thank you.

(And I'm also a justice, Thot.)

Thank you for sharing this opinion Your Honour. Expert guidance from the High Court is always welcome on the Senate floor. However, with all due respect, I must ask what law is this bill in violation of in its current form?

There is no law or Constitutional article enumerating a right to total freedom from regulation for the press. There are rights enumerated in Article VII of the Constitution ensuring freedom of expression and freedom of association regarding media organisations. But these are not violated by this bill, as it does not allow for censorship of media nor dictates who may join which media organisation.

So, Your Honour, I ask if this opinion is just that - an opinion - or if there is some legal justification for why this bill must be amended as such.

Fishergate wrote:Thank you for sharing this opinion Your Honour. Expert guidance from the High Court is always welcome on the Senate floor. However, with all due respect, I must ask what law is this bill in violation of in its current form?

There is no law or Constitutional article enumerating a right to total freedom from regulation for the press. There are rights enumerated in Article VII of the Constitution ensuring freedom of expression and freedom of association regarding media organisations. But these are not violated by this bill, as it does not allow for censorship of media nor dictates who may join which media organisation.

So, Your Honour, I ask if this opinion is just that - an opinion - or if there is some legal justification for why this bill must be amended as such.

This is an opinion and a justification that we should find legal and even sovereign, your Honour.

As I've said, this bill isn't unconstitutional or illegal. However, Article V, especially the quoted sections in my first post affects a concept, Freedom, and Independence of Press. While this concept is not a sovereign right, we should not forget that Freedom and Independence of Press is one of the pillars of modern democracy, as opposed to State and Regulated press which is sawed under Authoritarian governments.

Opening the gates of press regulation, even if it only is for such a small thing like this badge is opening the Pandora Box, Senator. There are limits a democracy cannot overstep, otherwise, it becomes a flawed democracy.

Catlin, Terentiland

Islonia wrote:This is an opinion and a justification that we should find legal and even sovereign, your Honour.

As I've said, this bill isn't unconstitutional or illegal. However, Article V, especially the quoted sections in my first post affects a concept, Freedom, and Independence of Press. While this concept is not a sovereign right, we should not forget that Freedom and Independence of Press is one of the pillars of modern democracy, as opposed to State and Regulated press which is sawed under Authoritarian governments.

Opening the gates of press regulation, even if it only is for such a small thing like this badge is opening the Pandora Box, Senator. There are limits a democracy cannot overstep, otherwise, it becomes a flawed democracy.

Thank you for clarifying that your opinion is a personal one and not a legal opinion. I still disagree that NORB will represent any kind of threat to the independence and freedom of the press. I think the implications of this bill are being drastically over exaggerated by people who are well-intentioned but do not appreciate the extents the bill goes to in ensuring these potential negative ramifications are avoided.

If any Senator does wish to propose an amendment to address the Justice’s concerns or any others, please do so now. If no amendments are submitted we will move on to voting on the bill.

Marvinville

Fishergate wrote:Thank you for clarifying that your opinion is a personal one and not a legal opinion. I still disagree that NORB will represent any kind of threat to the independence and freedom of the press. I think the implications of this bill are being drastically over exaggerated by people who are well-intentioned but do not appreciate the extents the bill goes to in ensuring these potential negative ramifications are avoided.

If any Senator does wish to propose an amendment to address the Justice’s concerns or any others, please do so now. If no amendments are submitted we will move on to voting on the bill.

Senator, you forgot that this bill will become law. And I literally gave to you, the Senate and the entirety of the citizens the interpretation of this law. What you think is not what a court ruling would be. This is not an over-exaggeration, this is future law. We are talking of legally attacking News Outlets because of a mere badge, that is press regulation, press regulation for a completely idiotic matter.

Moreover if the "Freedom, and Independence of Press" becomes a sovereign right, this bill will automatically be deemed unconstitutional and either amended or repealed by a court case.

Again, you must amend Article V. Please.

I wish to submit these three amendments to the Media Certification Act

Amendments to Media Certification Act

Written and sponsored by Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Remove Article V - Media Outlet Obligations to NORB

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Remove Article III, sections 6.1 and 6.2

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment C]

Amend Article IV - Complaints and Legal Action to the following:

Section 1.1 - NORB does not have the power to limit or shutdown Media Outlets, however can recommend legal action to the Justice Ministry against a Media Outlet.

Section 2.1 - NORB conducts Complaints hearings. Should a nation residing in Thaecia wish to complain about a Media Outlet, they must contact the NORB Committee Chair who will decide whether to give the Complaint a hearing.

Section 2.2 - If the Chair accepts a hearing of the Complaint, the Committee will hear the Complaint and the defense of the Media Outlet should they decide to provide one.

Section 2.3 - Once the hearing is complete, the Committee will vote whether to reject or accept the Complaint.

Section 2.4 - If the Committee votes to reject the Complaint, the proceedings end.

Section 2.5 - If the Committee votes to accept the Complaint, they must then review the Media Outlets ratings and adjust them as per Article III. Another vote must also be held on whether to hold a Disciplinary Hearing.

Section 3.1 - Disciplinary Hearings are where the Committee decides whether to recommend legal action to the Justice Ministry against a Media Outlet.

Section 3.2 - Disciplinary Hearings can only be held if a Complaint is accepted during a Complaint Hearing or if a Media Outlet has violated Article V of this Act.

Section 3.3 - During the hearing, the Committee will listen to what legal charges shall be provided regarding the complaint and Defence of the Media Outlet should they provide one.

Section 3.4 - Once the hearing is complete, the Committee will vote whether to recommend legal action against the Media Outlet to the Justice Ministry or not.

Section 3.5 - Should the Committee vote in favour of recommending legal action against a Media Outlet, it is the NORB Committee Chairs responsibility to contact the Justice Ministry and submit the recommended charges.

[/spoiler]

Fishergate, Terentiland

Islonia wrote:Senator, you forgot that this bill will become law. And I literally gave to you, the Senate and the entirety of the citizens the interpretation of this law. What you think is not what a court ruling would be. This is not an over-exaggeration, this is future law. We are talking of legally attacking News Outlets because of a mere badge, that is press regulation, press regulation for a completely idiotic matter.

Moreover if the "Freedom, and Independence of Press" becomes a sovereign right, this bill will automatically be deemed unconstitutional and either amended or repealed by a court case.

Again, you must amend Article V. Please.

Again, I respect your input, but again, I do not understand the basis of your argument. I will always respect the rulings of the Court, but I must stress that the Court can only rule on extant law. It cannot rule based on a normative perspective of how the law should be. That is not your role, Your Honour, that is the role of us Members of Congress. So if there is no law which this bill is in contravention of, I cannot see how the Court could overrule.

You say this bill will become unconstitutional if freedom or independence of the press is enshrined as a constitutional right. That’s very well, but we’re debating the bill in the present when those are not guaranteed rights, and not in a hypothetical future where they are.

So I see no justification for preventing the passage of this bill. The justifications you’ve provided are normative and speculative. That is insufficient for me and, I hope, for the rest of my Senate colleagues as well.

Snowflame, Brototh

Fishergate wrote:Again, I respect your input, but again, I do not understand the basis of your argument. I will always respect the rulings of the Court, but I must stress that the Court can only rule on extant law. It cannot rule based on a normative perspective of how the law should be. That is not your role, Your Honour, that is the role of us Members of Congress. So if there is no law which this bill is in contravention of, I cannot see how the Court could overrule.

You say this bill will become unconstitutional if freedom or independence of the press is enshrined as a constitutional right. That’s very well, but we’re debating the bill in the present when those are not guaranteed rights, and not in a hypothetical future where they are.

So I see no justification for preventing the passage of this bill. The justifications you’ve provided are normative and speculative. That is insufficient for me and, I hope, for the rest of my Senate colleagues as well.

I do agree with Fishergate here, the future is completely unpredictable, so we have no clue if there will be another law/amendment to the constitution blocking this bill, the most we can do is vote aye to Marv's amendment.

Snowflame, Fishergate

Fishergate wrote:Again, I respect your input, but again, I do not understand the basis of your argument. I will always respect the rulings of the Court, but I must stress that the Court can only rule on extant law. It cannot rule based on a normative perspective of how the law should be. That is not your role, Your Honour, that is the role of us Members of Congress. So if there is no law which this bill is in contravention of, I cannot see how the Court could overrule.

You say this bill will become unconstitutional if freedom or independence of the press is enshrined as a constitutional right. That’s very well, but we’re debating the bill in the present when those are not guaranteed rights, and not in a hypothetical future where they are.

So I see no justification for preventing the passage of this bill. The justifications you’ve provided are normative and speculative. That is insufficient for me and, I hope, for the rest of my Senate colleagues as well.

Whether or not you think the court should rule the way the legislature does, that's not the way it works. Right now, I'm reading Article V as requiring all news outlets to display their NORB ratings. If they don't, they're breaking the law. That's the regulation of the press. No matter what you call it, no matter what body does it, it's the same.

If you think that interpretation is wrong, then it is YOUR role to make more explicit what Congress wants this bill to be and not my job (as a citizen, because anyone could come here and confront you on this, me being a justice, it doesn't change my input) to come and defend what we thought was right.

Brototh wrote:I do agree with Fishergate here, the future is completely unpredictable, so we have no clue if there will be another law/amendment to the constitution blocking this bill, the most we can do is vote aye to Marv's amendment.

Then the law must be changed before Marvinton's amendment is introduced. I don't see the point of postponing the amendment to Article V if we know it will later be ruled unconstitutional. That's like saying, "What if we build a fire station, but first, we set fire to the nearby forest."

Islonia wrote:Whether or not you think the court should rule the way the legislature does, that's not the way it works. Right now, I'm reading Article V as requiring all news outlets to display their NORB ratings. If they don't, they're breaking the law. That's the regulation of the press. No matter what you call it, no matter what body does it, it's the same.

All news outlets will be required to display their NORB rating. That is a clear aspect of the bill. And yes, that is, to a certain extent, regulation of the press. But again, what law does this violate? What act of Congress or article of the Constitution prevents us from passing this bill, or would be violated if we did? Senators who vote for this bill should know that they are enabling some regulation of the media and they should do so with the belief that this bill does so in a positive way. I’m still confused as to what point you’re trying to make. If the bill is not in violation of any present law, there is no legal reason why we should not pass it. If the law changes later then it will be a different story, but that is not the present issue.

That being said, Senator Marvinville has submitted to me a constitutional amendment which will enshrine a the freedom and independence of the press as a constitutional right. I’m going to suspend debate on the current bill and bring this amendment to the floor shortly. So if Senators have any final comments they would like to make on the current bill, please do so now.

Islonia, Marvinville

Fishergate wrote:All news outlets will be required to display their NORB rating. That is a clear aspect of the bill. And yes, that is, to a certain extent, regulation of the press. But again, what law does this violate? What act of Congress or article of the Constitution prevents us from passing this bill, or would be violated if we did? Senators who vote for this bill should know that they are enabling some regulation of the media and they should do so with the belief that this bill does so in a positive way. I’m still confused as to what point you’re trying to make. If the bill is not in violation of any present law, there is no legal reason why we should not pass it. If the law changes later then it will be a different story, but that is not the present issue.

You're opening the doors to regulation. And while you may think Article V is a good thing, the fact remains that it violates the freedom and independence of the press. I'm not here to say this bill is illegal or unconstitutional because I'm not here as a Justice. I'm a citizen that is disappointed to see Senators I voted for are violating a right we all though established. That's all.

Fishergate wrote:That being said, Senator Marvinville has submitted to me a constitutional amendment which will enshrine a the freedom and independence of the press as a constitutional right. I’m going to suspend debate on the current bill and bring this amendment to the floor shortly. So if Senators have any final comments they would like to make on the current bill, please do so now.

Thank you.

Marvinville

Islonia wrote:You're opening the doors to regulation. And while you may think Article V is a good thing, the fact remains that it violates the freedom and independence of the press. I'm not here to say this bill is illegal or unconstitutional because I'm not here as a Justice. I'm a citizen that is disappointed to see Senators I voted for are violating a right we all though established. That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you for clearing this up. As a Justice, it’s possible that your opinion would be considered a legal one. As a valued member of our society, your opinion will no doubt hold some influence over my fellow Senators, but it is no doubt different to your opinion as a Justice.

Islonia, Marvinville

DEBATE SUSPENDED - MEDIA CERTIFICATION ACT

In light of the concerns raised by Associate Justice Islonia and a constitutional amendment submitted to the Chairman's desk by Senator Marvinville, I hereby declare debate on the current bill to be suspended.

I will now introduce the Senator's amendment to the floor for debate. This amendment holds ramifications that, if it passes and is ratified, will require amendments to be made to the current bill in order for it to be constitutional. Therefore, I will withhold the Media Certification Act bill from the Senate floor until the amendment is either defeated, in which case we will proceed as we were, or is ratified, in which case we will proceed by amending the bill to ensure its constitutionality.

Marvinville

OPENING DEBATE - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION

Amendment to Article VII of the Constitution

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

This is a very simple amendment to Article VII of the Constitution - the section which enumerates the rights and freedoms of Thaecia. It simply adds the "right to freedom and independence of the press".

The implication of this amendment in relation to the Media Certification Act is that NORB would not be able to require media outlets to display their rating on all their publications.

As this is a constitutional amendment, I encourage all Senators to take some time and effort to consider the broader implications it may have and whether or not it could be misinterpreted in a potentially harmful way. It's important to ensure the Constitution is as water-tight as possible so as to prevent its abuse. I cannot stress this enough, so I want to see a good amount of debate on this amendment. Thank you.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Asean Nations, Zon Island, Terentiland, Aexodian, Marvinville, Zanaana

Fishergate wrote:OPENING DEBATE - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION

Amendment to Article VII of the Constitution

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

This is a very simple amendment to Article VII of the Constitution - the section which enumerates the rights and freedoms of Thaecia. It simply adds the "right to freedom and independence of the press".

The implication of this amendment in relation to the Media Certification Act is that NORB would not be able to require media outlets to display their rating on all their publications.

As this is a constitutional amendment, I encourage all Senators to take some time and effort to consider the broader implications it may have and whether or not it could be misinterpreted in a potentially harmful way. It's important to ensure the Constitution is as water-tight as possible so as to prevent its abuse. I cannot stress this enough, so I want to see a good amount of debate on this amendment. Thank you.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

I, at first glance, agree with this amendment for it holds up the ideals of democracy which we believe in. I will look into its implications and make an informed decision. For now, I plan to vote aye.

Zon Island, Marvinville

I will vote aye of the constitutional amendment, I'm super surprised this wasn't part of the original constitution.

Zon Island, Marvinville

The one concern I have with this amendment relates to the reason why the original constitutional article ensuring total freedom of the press was removed – it may not be a good thing to allow the press complete freedom. For example, the press should not have a right to report on classified information that would undermine the security of the region and it should not have a right to report on private conversations without consent.

With these concerns in mind, I hereby submit the following amendment:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend the amendment to Article VII of the Constitution to read as follows:

Hereby adds the following to Article VII of the Thaecian Constitution:

The right to freedom and independence of the press, provided their reporting does not threaten the security of the region nor the personal privacy of its residents.[/spoiler]

With this amendment applied, the constitutional amendment would still ensure the independence of the press, but would place some restrictions on what it can report on. I think these restrictions are reasonable and are in the best interests of Thaecia and the people of Thaecia.

Brototh, Asean Nations, Zon Island, Marvinville

Fishergate wrote:The one concern I have with this amendment relates to the reason why the original constitutional article ensuring total freedom of the press was removed – it may not be a good thing to allow the press complete freedom. For example, the press should not have a right to report on classified information that would undermine the security of the region and it should not have a right to report on private conversations without consent.

With these concerns in mind, I hereby submit the following amendment:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend the amendment to Article VII of the Constitution to read as follows:

Hereby adds the following to Article VII of the Thaecian Constitution:

The right to freedom and independence of the press, provided their reporting does not threaten the security of the region nor the personal privacy of its residents.[/spoiler]

With this amendment applied, the constitutional amendment would still ensure the independence of the press, but would place some restrictions on what it can report on. I think these restrictions are reasonable and are in the best interests of Thaecia and the people of Thaecia.

Yes, I was concerned about that for they could violate a citizen's privacy and get away with it. They are also able to publicly release any classified info that could screw us and despite me knowing our current reporters won't, that doesn't mean that other reporters in the near future would not. I agree with the amendment proposed and feel that it should be in the Constitution. This was an oversight that should be remedied immediately.

Brototh, Fishergate, Asean Nations, Zon Island, Marvinville

I will open the voting on my amendment later this evening (in the next two to three hours), so if any Senators have any further comments or would like to propose an amendment of their own, please submit them now.

Marvinville

Fishergate wrote:I will open the voting on my amendment later this evening (in the next two to three hours), so if any Senators have any further comments or would like to propose an amendment of their own, please submit them now.

I have none to add that can improve this.

Fishergate

VOTING - AMENDMENTS TO THE AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION

We are now voting on the amendment I proposed to Senator Marvinville's constitutional amendment.

The original amendment and the proposed amendment to the amendment can both be viewed below.

Amendment to Article VII of the Constitution

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend the amendment to Article VII of the Constitution to read as follows:

Hereby adds the following to Article VII of the Thaecian Constitution:

The right to freedom and independence of the press, provided their reporting does not threaten the security of the region nor the personal privacy of its residents.[/spoiler]

I hope to be able to move onto voting on the full amendment in the morning, so I ask Senators to cast their votes speedily. Thank you.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

My own vote is 'aye'.

I vote aye as well.

RESULTS - AMENDMENTS TO THE AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION

Amendment to Article VII of the Constitution

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend the amendment to Article VII of the Constitution to read as follows:

Hereby adds the following to Article VII of the Thaecian Constitution:

The right to freedom and independence of the press, provided their reporting does not threaten the security of the region nor the personal privacy of its residents.[/spoiler]

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (7):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):

None[/spoiler]

I hereby declare that the proposed amendment has passed by a unanimous vote of 7-0. We will now move on to voting on the amended version of Senator Marvinville's constitutional amendment.

Asean Nations, Marvinville, Zanaana

VOTING - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION

Amendment to Article VII of the Constitution

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

As amended by: Fishergate

We are now voting on the amended version of Senator Marvinville's constitutional amendment. I remind Senators that, as this is as an amendment to the Thaecian Constitution, a majority of two-thirds is required to vote in favour for the amendment to pass this chamber and advance to the House of Commons.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Marvinville

I vote aye.

Marvinville

I vote aye.

Marvinville

Aye

Marvinville

RESULTS - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION

Amendment to Article VII of the Constitution

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

As amended by: Fishergate

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (5):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):

None

Abstentions (2):

Catlin

Fishergate[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the amendment to Article VII of the Constitution has passed by a vote of 5-0, with two abstentions.

The amendment is now at the attention of Speaker Rayekka, who will add it to the docket for the House of Commons.

Our next business will be introduced shortly.

Asean Nations, Marvinville, Zanaana

OPENING DEBATE - AMENDMENTS TO L.R. 023 (CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS ACT)

Amendments to L.R. 023 (Congressional Investigations Act)

Author: Ilefeb

Sponsor: Ilefeb

L.R. 023 (current form)

On the face of it this seems like a fairly minor amendment to include the judiciary in the Congressional Investigations Act. This will give Congress the power to investigate actions taken by the judiciary and to issue orders for them to remedy any misdemeanours they have made.

Providing a check and balance to the power of the judiciary is not necessarily a bad thing, but when you look harder at this bill you will find that it is fundamentally flawed. The proposed Article Six states that "An investigationon [sic] the Judicial Branch may be enforced if a Justice directly violates the Constitution..." The problem with this is that the meaning of the Constitution is defined by the judicial branch, not by Congress. If Congress interprets the Constitution in a way so that a justice's actions are deemed unconstitutional, but the Court interprets it so that their actions were not unconstitutional, the rule of law states that the Court's interpretation is final.

To put it simply, this bill is completely untenable. For it to be at all legitimate, we would first need to remove the Court's authority as the ultimate judge of Constitutional law (in other words, abolish the high court). Or we would have accept that the Court can determine whether or not a Congressional investigation made against it is legitimate, which would render this amendment rather useless.

Those are my thoughts on this amendment, if any Senators would like to add their own, please do so. The author of the amendment, Ilefeb MP, is welcome to contribute to the debate as well. And I also invite the justices, Chief Justice Rhyssua and Associate Justices Islonia and Lemonadia, to the Senate floor to share their opinions if they would like to.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Snowflame, Asean Nations, Marvinville

I would like to submit this amendment to the Chair of the Senate

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Article Six:

An Investigation of the Judicial Branch may be enforced if a Justice or Deputy Justice directly violates the Constitution or to investigate any appointed Deputy Justice that might or if their actions raises questions on either experience or impartiality.

[/spoiler]

Brototh, Fishergate, Asean Nations

I like the bill.

Marvinville

Ah damn, I'm just about...4 hours too late!

On the serious side, Fishergate has a point, of which I completely agree with.

Fishergate, Asean Nations

I do as well. I think this would cause a lot of problems and also create loopholes to get through which I do not seek.

Fishergate, Asean Nations

Speaker Fishergate wrote:Providing a check and balance to the power of the judiciary is not necessarily a bad thing, but when you look harder at this bill you will find that it is fundamentally flawed. The proposed Article Six states that "An investigationon [sic] the Judicial Branch may be enforced if a Justice directly violates the Constitution..." The problem with this is that the meaning of the Constitution is defined by the judicial branch, not by Congress. If Congress interprets the Constitution in a way so that a justice's actions are deemed unconstitutional, but the Court interprets it so that their actions were not unconstitutional, the rule of law states that the Court's interpretation is final.

To put it simply, this bill is completely untenable. For it to be at all legitimate, we would first need to remove the Court's authority as the ultimate judge of Constitutional law (in other words, abolish the high court). Or we would have accept that the Court can determine whether or not a Congressional investigation made against it is legitimate, which would render this amendment rather useless.

Thank you Speaker Fishergate for allowing me to speak on the floor of the Senate.

I would like to point out to the Senate that nobody, including our Justices are above the Constitution. There are guidlines that even the Justices must follow in order to keep Thaecia a fair and democratic region. That is why Justices can be impeached. This does not undermine the power of the High Court. If you see loopholes that the house has missed. I urge you to make the appropriate ammendments and pass this bill.

Asean Nations, Marvinville

Aexodian wrote:I do as well. I think this would cause a lot of problems and also create loopholes to get through which I do not seek.

I second this statement. We've all seen what happens when a law has loopholes, and the outcome of that is certainly not even close to pretty.

Fishergate, Asean Nations

Ilefeb wrote:Thank you Speaker Fishergate for allowing me to speak on the floor of the Senate.

I would like to point out to the Senate that nobody, including our Justices are above the Constitution. There are guidlines that even the Justices must follow in order to keep Thaecia a fair and democratic region. That is why Justices can be impeached. This does not undermine the power of the High Court. If you see loopholes that the house has missed. I urge you to make the appropriate ammendments and pass this bill.

I agree with this bill and will plan to vote for it

Asean Nations

Ilefeb wrote:Thank you Speaker Fishergate for allowing me to speak on the floor of the Senate.

I would like to point out to the Senate that nobody, including our Justices are above the Constitution. There are guidlines that even the Justices must follow in order to keep Thaecia a fair and democratic region. That is why Justices can be impeached. This does not undermine the power of the High Court. If you see loopholes that the house has missed. I urge you to make the appropriate ammendments and pass this bill.

Actually, justices can't be impeached. The Constitution states that they will hold their seat until "they are impeached or resign", but there is no law setting out any actual procedure to impeach a justice. Perhaps there should be, but I would argue that impeachment of a High Court justice by Congress should only be acceptable in the event of the justice's inactivity. Giving the political body which makes the law undue influence over the apolitical body which interprets the law is not a wise move, so while some level of basic checks and balances to ensure the justices actually do their job would be in order, this bill is not. The power it intends to grant to Congress would threaten the independence of the judiciary and undermine the very nature of Thaecia's Constitution. I strongly encourage Senators to vote with me against this bill.

Asean Nations

Speaker Fishergate wrote:Actually, justices can't be impeached. The Constitution states that they will hold their seat until "they are impeached or resign", but there is no law setting out any actual procedure to impeach a justice. Perhaps there should be, but I would argue that impeachment of a High Court justice by Congress should only be acceptable in the event of the justice's inactivity. Giving the political body which makes the law undue influence over the apolitical body which interprets the law is not a wise move, so while some level of basic checks and balances to ensure the justices actually do their job would be in order, this bill is not. The power it intends to grant to Congress would threaten the independence of the judiciary and undermine the very nature of Thaecia's Constitution. I strongly encourage Senators to vote with me against this bill.

The Judiciary must remain independent but they can not go unchecked because no one is above the law. We must hold those justices accountable if any are not fair or break the law in the future.

Asean Nations, Ilefeb

Marvinville wrote:The Judiciary must remain independent but they can not go unchecked because no one is above the law. We must hold those justices accountable if any are not fair or break the law in the future.

I agree with this statement but also say that there are better ways to do that than through this bill. I do agree with the concept that the Judiciary should not run rampant but I don't believe this amendment is the way to that.

Aexodian wrote:I agree with this statement but also say that there are better ways to do that than through this bill. I do agree with the concept that the Judiciary should not run rampant but I don't believe this amendment is the way to that.

Maybe we can create a separate bill for the Judiciary and reject these amendments here.

Marvinville wrote:Maybe we can create a separate bill for the Judiciary and reject these amendments here.

Yes, that is the point. I will seek a way to not let the Judiciary run around unchecked but what this amendment proposes would cause more problems. I plan to vote Nay to this amendment.

Snowflame, Marvinville

Aexodian wrote:Yes, that is the point. I will seek a way to not let the Judiciary run around unchecked but what this amendment proposes would cause more problems. I plan to vote Nay to this amendment.

If this amendment is rejected, we can work on a bill. Just let me know.

It seems there are a majority of Senators ready to vote against this bill. As a result, I ask Senator Marvinville if he would still like the chamber to vote on his proposed amendment or if he would be willing to withdraw it and allow the Senate to move straight to voting on the original bill. I'll leave this decision up to you and we will begin voting on either the amendment to the bill or the full bill tomorrow morning (GMT).

Marvinville

Fishergate wrote:It seems there are a majority of Senators ready to vote against this bill. As a result, I ask Senator Marvinville if he would still like the chamber to vote on his proposed amendment or if he would be willing to withdraw it and allow the Senate to move straight to voting on the original bill. I'll leave this decision up to you and we will begin voting on either the amendment to the bill or the full bill tomorrow morning (GMT).

I would like to withdraw the amendment to save time for the Senate due to the docket size and since that the bill will most likely not have the votes to pass. I will work on a bill to face this issue separately so we can move on.

Fishergate

VOTING - AMENDMENTS TO L.R. 023 (CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS ACT)

Amendments to L.R. 023 (Congressional Investigations Act)

Author: Ilefeb

Sponsor: Ilefeb

L.R. 023 (current form)

Senator Marvinville has withdrawn his amendment, so we will now move straight to voting on Ilefeb MP's amendments to the Congressional Investigation Act.

My own vote is a resounding 'nay'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

It is a Nay from me.

(Abstain) - I'll be changing my vote to a 'Nay'

RESULTS - AMENDMENTS TO L.R. 023 (CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS ACT)

Amendments to L.R. 023 (Congressional Investigations Act)

Author: Ilefeb

Sponsor: Ilefeb

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (1):

Marvinville

Nays (6):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Snowflame[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the amendments to the Congressional Investigation Act have been rejected by the Senate by a vote of 6-1.

Our next business will be on the floor shortly.

Brototh

OPENING DEBATE - MILITARY DEFENCE FORCE ABOLISHMENT ACT

Military Defence Force Abolishment Act

Authors: Snowflame & Fishergate

Sponsors: Snowflame & Fishergate

L.R. 011 - Thaecia Military Defence Force Creation Act

This bill recognises the failure of Thaecian government to effectively carry out the law as proscribed by LR 011 by creating a military defence force for the region. Myself and Senator Snowflame recognise that this is largely due to a lack of interest and enthusiasm for the endeavour so we have, as two members of Congress who formerly supported LR 011, written this bill to repeal it. The executive will retain the right to establish a military if they wish and the Prime Minister may still nominate a Minister of Defence to be confirmed by the House of Commons. This bill simply removes the law which makes it a legal requirement for them to do so.

I hope Congress will be able to pass this bill quickly so the Prime Minister does not have to concern himself with finding a nominee for the position of Defence Minister.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Snowflame, Brototh, Asean Nations, Marvinville, Zanaana

As Fishergate already stated, I originally supported LR. 011; however, as the last few months have shown, there is no interest in the military nor are there many experienced people who can run it. That's why we need to repeal this law.

Brototh, Fishergate, Asean Nations, Marvinville

I agree with this bill as I have supported abolishing the military for a long time now.

Brototh, Fishergate, Asean Nations

I support this bill, and agree on what my fellow Senators Snowflame and Chairman Fishergate has prior stated.

Brototh, Fishergate

Indeed, I have been against the military since the very start so I openly support this bill.

Marvinville

I think we should still have military just in case.

Catlin wrote:I think we should still have military just in case.

Senator, you never cease to surprise me.

Cerdenia, Asean Nations, Marvinville

Fishergate wrote:Senator, you never cease to surprise me.

Well you never know when a military might be necessary, we could be in a big interregional conflict in a couple of months, it might be unlikely but we never now and I think we should have a military just in case if an appropriate situation for one accours.

Edit: I changed all of the "regional" to interregional", sorry I'm terrible at grammar.

Catlin wrote:Well you never know when a military might be necessary, we could be in a big regional conflict in a couple of months, it might be unlikely but we never now and I think we should have a military just in case if an appropriate situation for one accours.

There are no regional conflicts that Thaecia can have that will require the use of a military. For starters, we have an active founder so that blocks out any raid attempts or sleeper operations. If a citizen is close to surpassing the president in term of WA endorsements, then there is an easy solution for that. There are no situations that would require the use of a military so...

Cerdenia, Fishergate, Asean Nations, Marvinville

Why exactly? We have a active founder account and even if we did, I doubt anyone would really be interested, defeating its purpose.

Asean Nations, Marvinville, Zanaana

VOTING - MILITARY DEFENCE FORCE ABOLISHMENT ACT

Military Defence Force Abolishment Act

Authors: Snowflame & Fishergate

Sponsors: Snowflame & Fishergate[/B]

Everyone has contributed to the debate and it seems clear that there is a strong majority in support of the bill, so voting will commence now.

I vote 'aye' in favour of abolishing the military.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

I vote Aye.

Fishergate

RESULTS - MILITARY DEFENCE FORCE ABOLISHMENT ACT

Military Defence Force Abolishment Act

Authors: Snowflame & Fishergate

Sponsors: Snowflame & Fishergate[/B]

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (6):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (1):

Catlin[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the Military Defence Force Abolishment Act has passed the Senate by a vote of 6-1. The bill will now pass to Speaker Rayekka and the House of Commons.

Marvinville

OPENING DEBATE - AMENDMENT TO L.R. 024 (PARLIAMENT PROCEDURES REFORM ACT)

Amendment to L.R. 024 (Parliament Procedures Reform Act)

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: Rayekka

L.R. 024 (current form)

This bill comes to us after having recently been passed by the House of Commons. It makes a minor change to the new Parliament Procedures Act (the law which sets the rules and regulations for the House of Commons, but not the Senate) to clarify that the new law replaces the original Parliament Procedures Act. This is necessary as the two bills are contradictory and cannot exist mutually.

It is conventional for the chambers of Congress to exercise restraint regarding the procedures of their opposite body and this is an urgent piece of legislation. I therefore encourage Senators to not submit any amendments to this bill so we can get this bill passed quickly.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Marvinville

Fishergate wrote:OPENING DEBATE - AMENDMENT TO L.R. 024 (PARLIAMENT PROCEDURES REFORM ACT)

Amendment to L.R. 024 (Parliament Procedures Reform Act)

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: Rayekka

L.R. 024 (current form)

This bill comes to us after having recently been passed by the House of Commons. It makes a minor change to the new Parliament Procedures Act (the law which sets the rules and regulations for the House of Commons, but not the Senate) to clarify that the new law replaces the original Parliament Procedures Act. This is necessary as the two bills are contradictory and cannot exist mutually.

It is conventional for the chambers of Congress to exercise restraint regarding the procedures of their opposite body and this is an urgent piece of legislation. I therefore encourage Senators to not submit any amendments to this bill so we can get this bill passed quickly.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

I have nothing really to say. We need to pass this as soon as possible so the House of Representatives has a clear guideline to follow.

Fishergate

I agree with the Senator and Chairman, but we can't invoke cloture.

Fishergate wrote:OPENING DEBATE - AMENDMENT TO L.R. 024 (PARLIAMENT PROCEDURES REFORM ACT)

Amendment to L.R. 024 (Parliament Procedures Reform Act)

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: Rayekka

L.R. 024 (current form)

This bill comes to us after having recently been passed by the House of Commons. It makes a minor change to the new Parliament Procedures Act (the law which sets the rules and regulations for the House of Commons, but not the Senate) to clarify that the new law replaces the original Parliament Procedures Act. This is necessary as the two bills are contradictory and cannot exist mutually.

It is conventional for the chambers of Congress to exercise restraint regarding the procedures of their opposite body and this is an urgent piece of legislation. I therefore encourage Senators to not submit any amendments to this bill so we can get this bill passed quickly.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Marvinville wrote:I have nothing really to say. We need to pass this as soon as possible so the House of Representatives has a clear guideline to follow.

Fishergate

I agree with my fellow senators, we should pass this as soon as possible.

Fishergate, Marvinville

VOTING - AMENDMENT TO L.R. 024 (PARLIAMENT PROCEDURES REFORM ACT)

Amendment to L.R. 024 (Parliament Procedures Reform Act)

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: Rayekka

Thank you to those who took the opportunity to contribute their thoughts on this bill. It's clear that a majority of Senators support the bill and appreciate the urgency with which we ought to pass it. Therefore, without any further delay, we move on to voting.

My own vote is 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

RESULTS - AMENDMENT TO L.R. 024 (PARLIAMENT PROCEDURES REFORM ACT)

Amendment to L.R. 024 (Parliament Procedures Reform Act)

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: Rayekka

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (6):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):

Abstentions (1):

Brototh[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the amendments to the Parliament Procedures Reform Act have passed the Senate by a vote of 6-0. This bill has been approved by both chambers of Congress and will now pass to Prime Minister Korsinia's desk to be signed into law.

Korsinia, Rayekka, Asean Nations

OPENING DEBATE - HOUSE COMMITTEES ACT

House Committees Act

Authors: Marvinville & Snowflame

Sponsors: Marvinville & Snowflame

This is a significant bill in terms both of its volume and the scale of its effect should it become law. It introduces a system of legislative committees for the House of Commons - something I have voiced my support for in the past and continue to support today. I encourage Senators to read the bill carefully and contribute your ideas and amendments. I hope for and expect a thorough debate on this significant piece of legislation.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Brototh

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Snowflame, Asean Nations, Zon Island, Marvinville

I don't see any logical purpose in House Committees

As I've stated before, being a congressional official should be more than just voting and debating a bill and its respective amendments, and this bill gives us the opportunity to show that. By adding committees to a chamber of Congress, we are exploring a new format that is going to work well when it comes to the future of Congress. I am pretty happy with the bill Marv and I have written and I'm looking forward to future debate.

Asean Nations, Zon Island, Marvinville

I feel like the idea of committees is something quite innovative that could shake up the HoC in a good way. I feel like the purpose of the bill is something I agree with greatly. I will look closer to see any problems but I think this is a great idea that makes our government more efficient.

Snowflame, Asean Nations, Zon Island, Marvinville

I support this bill and as of now I don't see any problem with the bill and the bill's effect on Congress. It is indeed a new format that will shake-up or change the way Congress will work but, I think it would work well with the right management and execution.

Snowflame, Zon Island, Marvinville

Ladies and gentlemen and anyone else, I don't judge,

I'm going to save you all a long and gruelling court case, or the use of the Recall of Elected Representatives Act, hell, even save you all from arguments in the Discord or on the RMB, because I'm resigning as Senator. I'm sure you all saw this coming, however my behaviour with the NSGP has now culminated into the point that I feel it's gone way too far, and people are still discussing it 4 days on.

So to hopefully put the final nail in the coffin for this debacle, I've decided that I shall resign as Senator-- please do not use this as an example why "unicameralism is better" or anything like that, because bicameralism has not failed today, the only thing that has failed is my representation of Thaecia to the rest of NationStates.

I admit, I found the controversy with NSGP funny at the time, but 4 days on I've realised that I should have stopped when told to stop, so now I shall indeed be stopping. I will focus on the RP which should hopefully build some sort of a bridge between Thaecia and other regions that participate in it.

Thank you, goodbye.

Snowflame, Indian Genius, Titanne, Fishergate, The Bigtopia, Asean Nations, Aexodian, Marvinville, Zanaana

Senators, I encourage the debate to continue. If anyone would like to submit some amendments to the bill, please do so now. Otherwise we will begin voting this evening (GMT).

Marvinville

VOTING - HOUSE COMMITTEES ACT

House Committees Act

Authors: Marvinville & Snowflame

Sponsors: Marvinville & Snowflame

I had hoped to instigate some more debate on this bill but unfortunately I have not been able to get online much over the last couple of days. Nonetheless, Senators have had ample time to contribute their thoughts on the bill and most of those who have done so have expressed their support. The bill is thorough and well-written and does not require amendment to close potential loopholes or ambiguities, as far as I can tell. Therefore I am content to advance to the voting stage.

My own vote will be 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Asean Nations, Zon Island, Marvinville

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