Post Archive
Region: The Thaecian Senate
So after looking in depth at the bill again, I cant seem to find where it, and I quote Honourable Senator Brototh, formalises the law registry on the NS site. Of course I might not be looking hard enough, and so Im asking where it is in the bill, however if it isnt, I will definitely consider submitting an amendment about formalising a permanent onsite Registry, while allowing the ones offsite to continue. So, can a Senator here tell me where it states that there needs to be an on-site Law Registry?
Article I Section I, and repeated in Article II Section I, 'will be obligated to create, maintain, and publicly display, a factbook, dispatch, or set of factbooks or dispatches' -- factbooks and dispatches by definition being on the NS site.
Pap Sculgief
Ah yes. Well after that being cleared up, I have no more concerns with this bill and will be voting aye
Brototh
Senators, with permission from the Chairman I have immediately tabled the bill. We will be making path for more important business.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1422646
This is an Article I Section V constitutional amendment. The bill would give powers to the PM to ban with consent of the cabinet during a regional emergency, instead of just the President holding the power..
Debate:
The reason I have proposed this is because The Marconian State was offline/inactive/etc. during the Chive/Senota issue. Korsinia was online, and the Cabinet had consented. If he was removed from the region, we'd have ended this issue at least 24hrs ago. I see no reason why only one nation should have this power, so I think we should give the power to the PM as well to prevent issues like this that we've had before this as well--when that one fascist joined the region.
[spoiler=Senators]Andusre
World Trade[/spoiler]
World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Dendrobium
Too right. I totally agree with this bill, as it means that theres a higher chance that someone will be active and able to deal with the situation. Good bill and I want all Senators to vote. Tbh, Im surprised it wasnt in the constitution already
[CONCERNING THE LAW REGISTRY ACT]
This seems to be a good bill, though it might end up being a very hard and time-consuming task/position, I am sure the right people will be selected to take it upon themselves. I do however not agree with a certain something.
The choice of words for the "RP Legislation/Registry/..." makes it sound as if these Bills and Acts are "just for fun" and not to be taken seriously. While understandable, I request the author, Brototh, to change this to something more fitting (like Non-IC or something else alike).
Topics and issues like climate change or LGBTQIA+ rights (and protection of those) may not directly affect NS or Thaecia, but shouldn't be ignored or be seen as something one can only "RP" they care about. As arguments and debates over this have been brought up before, I will keep this short; the goal of so called "RP Legislation" is not to "limit emission gasses in Thaecia" or to "legalize marriage for certain people", but to spread awareness of certain topics and to give information on how Thaecians can set themselves to take action on these topics.
As said, this is a request for the author as it is a minor change that can be applied easily, but if not can cause misinterpretation on, for example, the interpretation and implementation of these Bills and Acts. Though, if the author wishes to not change this themself I will likely propose an Amendement.
Dendrobium when (if) we move back to the LR act I shall respond
Dendrobium
Seeing as there's no debate for this bill and we still have some time left-- would the term 'OOC Legislation' work better? Dendrobium
Edit: Have posted an update to the bill, please read. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1420694
Pap Sculgief, Dendrobium
We have begun voting on the Constitutional Amendment.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1422646
My vote is Aye
[spoiler=Senators]Andusre
World Trade[/spoiler]
Aye
aye
Aye
Ауе
Aye
[spoiler=note for Brototh]Yes, I realized afterwards "OOC" is probably a better way of saying "non-IC", so this is certainly better, thank you.[/spoiler]
Brototh
Aye
The Constitutional Amendment has passed unaminously. It will move to the House Docket (probably for debate next house term).
Aye (7) - Andusre Brototh Dendrobium Islonia Marvinville Pap Sculgief World Trade
Nay (0) - N/A
[spoiler=House Speaker]Dizgovzy[/spoiler]
Senators, we are re-opening debate on the Law Registry Act. As the bill was tabled, the debate time will reset.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1420694
[spoiler=Senators]Andusre
World Trade[/spoiler]
Marvinville
I strongly oppose the fact that "OOC" is mentioned and defined in this bill (even if only for the purpose of the bill). OOC in itself means something that is outside our government roleplay. It's like if in season 6 of rp, Islonia IRP openly spoke about the roleplay administration. It makes no sense. You cannot define OOC in an IC manner.
I also don't get why we should have two law registries. Whether a law is a RP legislation or not, just store it in the same factbook. It's easier for everyone.
Yes, you can define what OOC is. We have IC laws, that directly affect the running of our region, such as laws that create new restrictions, laws that make new ministries, laws that expand Congress, laws that change how the region works, etc. Then you have OOC legislation, that works such as climate legislation or LGBTQ+ marriage legislation, etc. The reason I changed it from RP to OOC legislation is because of the point raised by Dendrobium. If you have a problem, please take it up with them.
Also the fact that it is for the purposes of this bill gives me free reign to practically call it what I like--for example I could say 'Islonia for the purposes of this bill means treason'. For the purposes of this bill, committing Islonia would be treason--but outside of that law Islonia would not be treason. So, if in this bill I define OOC Legislation as XYZ, in a future bill we can define it as something else that does not affect this bill. I can call it whatever I want, from non-IC, to OOC, to RP--the name doesn't matter.
The reason we would have two law registries is to separate IC and OOC/RP legislation. I doubt people will want to go looking for say LR 75, but halfway through they stumble on OC 12 or something. You know? It makes it much easier if we sort everything into two different categories, that way it is easier for everyone, because the people looking for OOC legislation can find it, and those looking for RP legislation can find it.
You can still have the same table of contents factbook perhaps--this bill makes no mention of that, for a good reason. I imagine a table of contents factbook with on one side links to say LR 001 to LR 020 and LR 021 to LR 040, and on the other side OC 001 to OC 020. It's not easier for everyone if we make two separate table of contents factbooks.
Again just to reiterate my point, separate factbooks allow for people to find the specific type of legislation they're looking for. I'd rather not have 'LR 039 OC 001 LR 040 LR 041 OC 002' etc, instead 'LR 039 LR 040 LR 041' and separately 'OC 001 OC 002 OC 003'. Due to factbook size limitations, we can't just put the OOC stuff at the end of the IC legislation. The only way you could do that is if you had 10 IC laws in one factbook, and 10 OOC laws, but I highly doubt we will have more than 10 OOC laws in the first place.
World Trade
When the name is a word used to describe everything outside the Government RP, it matters. It's misleading.
Ah well, that sums up. But I still prefer RP legislation.
I don't get Dendrobium's point though. RP simply means it's a legislation that has no practical effect on the region. Raising awareness or regulating Yoghurt does not affect any governmental mechanic, yes, but that does not mean it's useless. RP is a universal term, and only if you attribute it to this downgrading image, it will have it.
IC & OOC are terms used to describe way bigger things and are both OOC terms that should not exist in IC laws regulating an IC environment.
The point I made earlier was that, wether you want to call it RP or OOC, certain parts of legislation don't directly affect the way our region or government functions. However, that does not mean these parts are unimportant; and that was exactly what I tried to get across. When speaking of "RP legislation" then that can refer to either the RP itself, or Bills/Acts that are just for fun and have no importance at all. But, as I said previously, topics like informing and encouraging people to get involved in climate change or LGBTQIA+ rights/struggles are not "just for fun" or "unimportant". That is why I advocated for the use of OOC, a term that comes across more serious, instead of RP, which easily comes across as something you can only pretend to care about but really just do so for fun.
Recently there has been a growing wish to see more of these OOC bills, or at least debate over them, so giving them a seperate (section of a) factbook could provide a clear overview of which parts of legislation directly affect the working of Thaecia and which parts do not. If it turns out there only ends up being a bare minimum of usage of this seperate registry, then this Act can always be repealed, though I personally believe the passing of this Act could potentially open up for such future OOC legislation.
Indian Genius, Brototh
I'm back botchez
Pap Sculgief, Islonia, Indian Genius, Brototh, Dendrobium
OOC legislation cannot be made by IC legislators.
Those bills, even if practically ineffective on the region's structure, are IC due to the nature of their creation. And it already is tradition to call RP Legislation bills that have no effect on Thaecia's political structure. You're the only one saying such bills would be "just for fun".
Thaecia in itself is just for fun, it's a game after all. So yeah, our practical bills also are for fun and are unimportant. Just look at the Yoghurt bill, no one came and said "OK GUISE IT'S JUST FOR FUN AND UNIMPORTANT". it holds the same level of importance as any other bill.
Hell, the idea itself of dividing the law registry between practical/non-practical bills is stupid. Because a bill about the climate emergency, even if not affecting Thaecia's politics, can perfectly mandate the creation of resources or groups. Practical/non-practical is a grey area, you don't have one red line separating them.
Simply have one law registry. Having two separate ones is just another headache given to the government.
World Trade, Marvinville
No, it's not a headache. If you think creating 2 factbooks is a headache, then you've gone wrong somewhere. Making factbooks is exceptionally easy, even more so considering we have a format. That's literally what I do when updating the LR, copy and paste the format. Making factbooks, once you have a format, is very easy, copy and paste over and over. Having one extra factbook is nothing short of child's play.
And I don't understand what you're talking about--the yoghurt viscosity bill was undoubtedly for fun and arguably unimportant (as much as we joke that it's serious--let's be honest, it's for fun), people literally said that it was those two things. Bills like the legal code are not necessarily for fun, and they are certainly important. I don't understand at all what you're talking about to be honest, because making factbooks is easy, and bills can be unimportant and just for fun just as much as they can be the opposite.
The idea of dividing them between practical and non-practical is not stupid. People won't want to start reading through the LRs, then stumble upon an RP legislation then just to find the thing they want they have to scroll halfway down the page, or they have to go to, guess what, another factbook. Factbooks have size limitations. We would have to create MORE factbooks if we kept LRs and RP legislation on the same page, you've contradicted yourself here Islonia.
Yes-- I see your concern that there is no one red line separating IC and OOC. That's true, but it also doesn't take someone with a genius level of IQ to figure out if a climate bill is RP or LR. If it created a ministry of climate, it would be IC, that directly affects how the region works. If all it did was say "we gotta do something, the world is ending, make a list of climate pages", then it's obviously RP. I also gave the power to the High Court if the line gets too blurry with one bill-- and let's be real, it won't. We won't see more than 10 RP bills. If you want to stick all laws on the same page, you end up making too many factbooks, and that does create a headache for the government having to create factbooks every 10 minutes.
It upsets me that you say our practical bills are just for fun and unimportant. Nobody wants to actually pass a law on making doxxing illegal, in an ideal world that shouldn't happen in the first place. It's not fun to write that, but it is important, because then it allows us to punish people that actually do such horrible things. And many other bills. Such as expanding congress. That's just a copied bill over and over with a number changed--not fun. It changes how we work within our region for months to come.
Yes, this is a videogame, this is an online website, but that doesn't mean our bills can't be important. Saying that is a slap in the face to everyone who's worked on an LR. OOC legislation can be important too. Right now we only have IC legislation, so RP legislation or not, saying that is just downright wrong. Our Senate would be nothing the same if all our bills were "unimportant". The bills we made to set up how the Senate works literally defines how we debate right now. That is, undoubtedly, important.
PS: By unimportant--important would mean bills that are important in an IC sense. Of course bills that declare a climate emergency and otherwise are important to some people, like those in SPT especially, but we can all agree that they are not important to the actual function of the region (most of the time).
Dendrobium
Senators, due to time constraints mainly, the debate ends now. We are now voting on the Law Registry Act, and once the vote is concluded we will go into recess. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1420694
My vote is aye
[spoiler=Senators]Andusre
World Trade[/spoiler]
World Trade, Pap Sculgief
Aye
Brototh
Nay
Brototh
Aye
Brototh
Nay
Brototh
Aye
Brototh
I am not opposed to separating the law registry into bills pertaining to IC and OOC issues, but this bill I think has a misunderstanding of what OOC actually means.
OOC as far as I'm aware relates to the person who is sitting behind the screen, and does not encompass RP legislation e.g. yoghurt viscosity, climate change bills, etc.
I also think the wording of the definitions of IC and OOC could use some work aside from the above.
The bill also mentions "and are signed into law by the Prime Minister" about bills passed by Congress. This is a fairly minor concern, but there seems to be a widespread misconception that bills must be signed into law by the PM. This isn't true - bills are law as soon as they obtain approval from the second chamber. The PM does not have to sign the bill to allow it to take effect. I think this is being confused with the veto power - in that the PM vetoes (i.e. strikes out/removes the effect of) a bill if it has been passed without a certain majority in Congress.
My vote is Nay
Islonia, Brototh, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville
bill passes 4-3
aye: Brototh World Trade Dendrobium Pap Sculgief
nay: Andusre Islonia Marvinville
house speaker: Dizgovzy
would personally recommend the future house resolves the issues posed by the above 3 senators on this bill
Senate is now in recess
Post self-deleted by Brototh.
Swearing in - Senators-elect Ashlawn and Rayekka
Congratulations to the two Senators-elect on their election victories. You are now required to swear the oath to be officially inaugurated into the Thaecian Senate.
Ashlawn, Rayekka, please take the following oath:
"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, The Bigtopia, Marvinville
I, Rayekka, do solemnly 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, Brototh, Fishergate, The Bigtopia, Dendrobium, Marvinville
I, Ashlawn do solemnly swear 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, Brototh, Fishergate, The Bigtopia, Dendrobium, Marvinville
Thank you Senators. Following the resignation of Marvinville as Senate Chairman, we must now hold a new Chairman election.
Senators, if you wish to run for Chairman, please declare your candidacy now.
[spoiler=Senators]
Pap Sculgief[/spoiler]
World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Indian Genius, Brototh, The Bigtopia, Zon Island, Marvinville
I intend to run for Chairman of the Senate, Fishergate
Ashlawn, World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Snowflame, Andusre, Indian Genius, Fishergate, The Bigtopia, Zon Island, Marvinville, Maow I
Candidacy Declaration Period closed
The window for Senators to declare their candidacy for the leadership election is now closed.
The following Senators have declared their intention to run for the position of Senate Chairman:
Brototh (TPU)
As the only candidate for the position, Brototh wins by default.
I hereby declare Senator Brototh the newly-selected Chairman of the Senate.
Senate business may commence as soon as the Chair orders it so.
Ashlawn, World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Zon Island, Chairman Brototh
I am the Senate!
Senators, we have begun debating World Trade's amendment to LR 035, the Regional Message Board Moderation Standards Act recently passed.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1424388
I personally like this amendment, the reason I had it so high on the priority was because of Senota/Tive/Chive. We enforced a blanket suppression policy, which was probably illegal because you could argue not every post directly violated LR 035--however there is no doubt they only existed to stir up trouble. With this amendment, ROs will have the ability to enforce a blanket suppression after a continued violation of site/regional rules.
WT has helpfully added a way to appeal it to the High Court by specifying they have the power to reverse it (presumably under a condition where there is no repeated violation of site/regional rules). Please share your thoughts on the bill.
Also--congratulations Rayekka and Ashlawn on your victory. It's great to see you'll be suffering with us for 2 months as we regret running in the first place :) /s
[spoiler=Senators]Andusre
World Trade[/spoiler]
World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Snowflame, The Bigtopia
For some reason I like this bill too. As Brototh mentioned, this bill was created after the Senota incident, and the policy that was used. As I stated on the RMB (in a joking manner) it could be said that it was against L.R.35. That is why this is created, so that we can enforce a similar policy in the future, without it having the potential to be considered illegal.
Brototh, The Bigtopia
I really like the bill here, it helps against unprecedented events like with what happened with Senota, and provides a way for it to be appealed. I do have one concern though, however it isnt major. Basically, Im a little bit confused about why the decision to apply the blanket suppression is covered, but nothing is mentioned about how to end the blanket suppression. Thats why Id like to submit Amendment A.
[spoiler=Amendment A] Ih) If a nation continuously breaks site or regional rules, a blanket suppression may be applied, meaning all the posts by that individual will be suppressed.The blanket suppression is to apply from the moment any officer with the communications authority decides to apply it until it is deemed no longer necessary by any officer with the communications authority. The decision to apply or end a blanket suppression may be reversed by the High Court.[/spoiler]
So to explain the amendment, Ive just changed the order the amendment is written, and slightly changed the way its written. Ive also added points about how a blanket suppression may be ended. Generally, I feel this amendment tidied things up a little bit.
Anyway, Senators, Id love to hear some feedback, good or bad, on this amendment!
World Trade, Brototh, The Bigtopia
Good amendment, will vote aye.
Pap Sculgief, The Bigtopia
Yeah, pretty good. I didn't really think about the whole how to end it part when writing it, so I think it is a good amendment that, as you say, really helps clear things up. Will vote aye.
Pap Sculgief, The Bigtopia
I like this amendment and support Senator Paps amendment to the amendment.
Pap Sculgief
Looks good, will vote aye
Pap Sculgief
Senators, we have now begun voting on Amendment A to the bill.
Author: Pap Sculgief[spoiler=Amendment A]Ih) If a nation continuously breaks site or regional rules, a blanket suppression may be applied, meaning all the posts by that individual will be suppressed. The blanket suppression is to apply from the moment any officer with the communications authority decides to apply it until it is deemed no longer necessary by any officer with the communications authority. The decision to apply or end a blanket suppression may be reversed by the High Court.[/spoiler]
My vote is aye
[spoiler=Senators]Andusre
World Trade[/spoiler]
World Trade, Pap Sculgief
Aye
World Trade, Brototh
Aye
Brototh
Aye
World Trade, Brototh
Aye
Pap Sculgief, Brototh
Aye
Aye
Aye
Senators, first I'd like to apologise for the long delay. I misread the Senate Procedures Act and believed that Amendments had a much longer minimum time than they actually do. As I adjust to the new job, things like this can be expected, and will not happen again.
Results:
Aye: Ashlawn, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief, Rayekka, World Trade
Abstain (did not vote): Andusre
We are now voting on the bill as amended.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1427732
My vote is Aye
[spoiler=Senators]Andusre
World Trade[/spoiler]
World Trade, Pap Sculgief
Aye
World Trade, Brototh
Aye
World Trade, Brototh
Aye
Pap Sculgief, Brototh
Aye
World Trade
Aye
World Trade
Aye
Pap Sculgief
Aye
Senators, the bill has passed unaminously.
Senators, we have begun debate on the new Senate Procedures Act. I am aware that there is some debate over the position of Shadow Chairman, so I will be in close touch with anyone who decides to write an amendment to remove that if they choose to, as such a change would result in many changes throughout several bills.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1415559
Personally I support this bill. The most well needed addition is that of the legality of adding Deputy Chairs outside of a majority coalition. I am open to suggestions and changes and I am sure Marvin and Islonia are too.
[spoiler=Senators / Results]
Aye (9): Andusre*, Ashlawn, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief, Rayekka, World Trade *Andusre's vote conducted over DM[/spoiler] [spoiler=House Speaker]Dizgovzy Speaker Dizgovzy[/spoiler]
Just one question about the Shadow Chairman article, if it stays in the bill, what happens when only one nation runs for chairman, like what weve seen recently in the last week? Will the position not be filled? Either way, I dont really think we need to have a Shadow Chairman position in existence, but thats just my thoughts
Yes, there is no legal requirement for the position to be filled and there never has been, so it would just be unfilled. I would rather we keep Shadow Chair (more on that later if an amendment is proposed), but it being cut out wouldn't change my vote by any means
Pap Sculgief
[spoiler=Amendment A]Remove Article VIII - Points of Order[/spoiler]I don't think anyone has ever used this, nor ever will. If you want to ask a question, just DM, TG, or ask on the RMB.
I disagree with the amendment because Point of Orders requires the official to answer the question. If we get rid of it, then the person would not need to answer the question and could move on.
Brototh
That's a fair point, I will make a change to it later
In Article XIII Section IV there is a typo saying "Once this is done the House will go into recess." This should say "Once this is done the Senate will go into recess."
I disagree with Amendment A proposed by the Chairman. Senator Marvin makes a strong point that points of order require attention from the Chairman. Although this system isn't used often it is good to have that certainty for Senators in times where the Chairman may not be as responsive as the Chairmans we have had. It allows the Chairman to be held accountable by the Senate.
World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Brototh, Marvinville
Amendment A will be withdrawn. Article XIII Section IV will be modified to read 'Once this is done the Senate will go into recess' without us voting on an amendment to fix just a typo.
Here is an amendment that I do not necessarily agree with, but I know if Islonia was not taking his LoA he would be proposing it now.
[spoiler=Amendment B]Remove Article VI - Shadow Chairman of the Senate
New Article: In LR 004, remove the mention of Shadow Chairman in Article IV - Senators and Members of Parliament.[/spoiler]
I don't necessarily agree with this amendment, because I think it's good that there is one official successor. There would typically be multiple deputy chairs like the House has deputy speakers, and I worry that there may be a dispute of who takes over the role. Another point is that the deputy chairs may be unpopular--the Shadow Chair has already shown they have some degree of support by gaining the second highest amounts of vote in the chair election.
Senators, we will now vote on Amendment B.
Author: Islonia
[spoiler=Amendment B]Remove Article VI - Shadow Chairman of the Senate
Create a new Article: In LR 004, remove the mention of Shadow Chairman in Article IV - Senators and Members of Parliament.[/spoiler] Aye (1) : Islonia
Nay (1) : Brototh
Abstain (0) :
[spoiler=Yet to Vote / Senators]Andusre
World Trade[/spoiler]
I vote Nay
Brototh
Nay
Brototh
Abstain
Brototh
Nay
Brototh
Nay
Brototh
Senators, Amendment B has failed 1-5-3.
Aye (1) : Islonia
Nay (5) : Brototh Marvinville World Trade Ashlawn Rayekka
Abstain (3) : Pap Sculgief Dendrobium Andusre
We will now begin voting on the bill.
Aye (5) : Brototh Marvinville Ashlawn Pap Sculgief Rayekka
Nay (1) : Islonia
Abstain (1) : Dendrobium
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1415559
[spoiler=Yet to Vote / Senators]Andusre
World Trade[/spoiler]
Aye
Brototh
Aye
Brototh
Aye
Brototh
Aye
Brototh
Dendrobium: Abstain : conducted via #senate
The bill passes 5-1-3. Speaker Dizgovzy Dizgovzy
Aye (5) : Brototh Marvinville Ashlawn Pap Sculgief Rayekka
Nay (1) : Islonia
Abstain (3) : Dendrobium Andusre World Trade
Senators, we have now begun debating the Thaecia Petitioning System Reform.
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=speaker_dizgovzy/detail=factbook/id=1422760
Pap Sculgief, Indian Genius
Moved the de-Officialising of Political Parties Act to next Saturday, as the poll results come out on Friday and Ashlawn & I would much rather see the results before casting our votes on such a large topic.
Ashlawn, Pap Sculgief
Am I allowed to speak here, Hon. Chairperson Brototh?
In regards to this bill.
I do not see the purpose of Article IV, Section I. Surely if a petition does not receive the required amounts as set in Article II it can then be dismissed, or even so with this dismissal cap of 5, why even bother with a required amount. What happens if a question petition gets between 5 & 15 signatories?
Tomorrow I will propose an amendment making it so any petition that does not meet the threshold in Article II can be dismissed. As well as this I will extend the right of dismissal to the chambers of Congress leadership to allow congressional leadership, this is the Speaker & Chairman, to dismiss any petitions that do not meet the threshold.
I agree that the petition system needs an overhaul, this bill in its current state I cannot vote for unless the amendment that I will formerly submit tomorrow is passed to correct the loopholes.
Pap Sculgief, Marvinville
So basically, I have a couple of problems with this bill.
First of all in Article I Section II.i, I feel that a petition should be able to not only ask a question but to petition anyone in government to do something. If I was, for example, writing a petition aimed at Kors, our PM, wanting them to actually do something (no offence Kors, this is purely an example), then it would make more sense to write it like so: Petition for Kors to actually do something. Under the bill in its current form, Id have to write the title like this: Petition for Kors, will you actually do something? The way I see this, is that we need to have both questions and statements for petitions, as it makes things easier in different circumstances.
Secondly, Im a little bit confused as to why we need to have a petition to bring a bill to Congress. At the moment, any citizen can write a bill, and it will be debated on, provided that is has a Congressional sponsor. This makes we wonder why a petition is needed for a bill, when it couldve simply been submitted had the author sought out a sponsor. This then makes me wonder if this will ever be used in practice in the region.
Also, the clause about if the High Court must provide a reason when rejecting a case, is already in the constitution and therefore not needed in this bill.
To be perfectly honest, I dont really like this bill. There are good bits and bad bits. In my senate manifesto, I said Id want to write a petitions bill that was inspired by British system of having a threshold for receiving a response and then a further threshold for having it debated. I have been thinking this bill idea through since my election, and its something that I want to write in this term. I support my idea, and thats why I intend to vote nay here, however that could change if any of you provide your opinions.
World Trade, Rayekka, Brototh, Marvinville
[spoiler=Amendment A]
Amends Article IV, Section I to read:
"Should a petition not reach the threshold as set out in Article II, the petition may be dismissed by the respective receiver. For petitions received by the executive, the right of dismissal is held by the President and Prime Minister. For petitions received by Congress, the right of dismissal is held by the respective chambers Speaker/Chairperson."[/spoiler]
World Trade, Brototh
I concur with Senator Pap and sincerely hope the Senator chooses to propose an amendment to introduce these changes to the current bill.
Well, Rt. Hon. Chairperson Brototh didn't say whether I can speak or not, but as the laws grant me the permission to speak here, I will speak.
I quite agree with Hon. Senator Rayekka. I myself have a rather better idea. Let's give a time frame. Otherwise, it may seem strange. Like, suppose the petitioner announces the petition with just one signature on the RMB. And, the next day, the PM/Prez/Congressmen or whomever the petition is directed at, say that they are rejecting the petition as it didn't reach the threshold. That's unfair in my opinion. I would like to request the Hon. Senators to provide an amendment for a time frame under which the threshold must be reached.
Coming to Hon. Senator Pap Sculgief,
Good idea. Well, I quite agree with you. You can provide an amendment if you want to.
Look, this bill is intended to maintain the voice of the people, whether in an emergency or a normal situation. Suppose that the Congress is half-empty due to a mass-protest and no one in the Congress likes the bill, no matter if it's good or not. Petitions are there for this reason only. As I say, we should be prepared for the worst but hope for the best.
I disagree with the concept of adding a time frame, as a bill might receive enough signatories a day later or a few days later, or perhaps longer where new members find it and pick it up. If the concern is that people might not want the petition after [x]amount of days, then they have the right to withdraw their support from the petition at any time. Rayekka's amendment is much better in my opinion.
As Senator Rayekka said, I concur. I am in opposition to this bill and much so believe that it could be changed into something different. I appreciate the work that the House has done to fix this bill, however in my opinion it is fundamentally flawed. Some months ago when a few of us were in opposition to Diz as speaker, I had written an amendment to LR 012 that removes the requirement for a petition to be in the form of a question. It is pretty upsetting that the House has kept this in.I understand why the bill has a section that says "this must be debated on in congress if it receives [x] amount of support", as citizens may really want a bill to be debated on. However this is also flawed, because no Speaker or Chairperson would refuse to put a bill to vote or at least higher on the docket if it received so much support anyway, by the time it reached 10-15 signatories I'm pretty sure any Speaker or Chair with common sense would realise their approval ratings would sink and they would probably lose re-election if they didn't put it on the floor.
Another problem is--if the House and Senate are so reluctant to put it onto the floor that they need 20 signatories to actually do it, perhaps it actually isn't a good bill, and the reason they don't want to put it on the floor is because it's a waste of time that they would vote down regardless of the support for it or not. This is something where LR 012 excels, because the Chairperson and Speaker can refuse to put it to the floor if it is a waste of time. Now only the High Court can do that, which is pretty poor in my opinion.
I would propose an amendment to this bill to rectify these issues, but if I did it would just be a carbon copy of LR 012 in the first place. LR 012 is by no means a perfect bill, but it is a better bill than this.
So that if the Senators do decide to pass this bill for whatever reason, here is what I have proposed.
[spoiler=Amendment B]Amend Article II to read:
I. A petition intended to ask a question shall require a minimum of 15 signatures.
II. A petition intended to get voted on by Congress shall require a minimum of 20 signatures.
IIa. The following are exceptions to II:
If the petition is intended to waste the time of the legislator
If the petition was created for the purpose of amusement for the author
If the issue the petition raises has already been addressed
III. The Speaker of the House of Commons and the Chairman of the Senate reserve the right to reject a petition addressed to them if they believe the petition is a waste of time and/or serving as amusement to the author(s). The Speaker/Chairman may not reject a petition if they cannot justify this action under the provisions of Article II Section 2 of this law.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment C]Amend Article I to read as follows:
I. This bill allows every citizen to author and sign a petition.
II. The petition can be:
i) A question asked by the author to one or more members of Government and/or a Governmental Branch.
ii) A bill seeking to get voted on by Congress.
iii) A request to the Prime Minister, President, or any member of the Cabinet.[/spoiler]
You'll notice Amendment B is copied from LR 012-- this is because I don't see why Indian Genius could not have just amended LR 012 instead of rewriting this bill entirely. I am much more looking forward to Pap's future bill. I invite all MPs who amended this bill to contact me if they wish to help writing an amendment to LR 012.
Pap Sculgief
Senators, as we are in clear consensus we do not like this bill, we will now vote on the amendments. I personally hope we can pass all three, but defeat the bill all the same. The Senator Pap Sculgief will be submitting his new bill in the Senate group chat soon, which I can already say is much better (but requires some small tweaks).
Author: Rayekka
[spoiler=Amendment A]
Amends Article IV, Section I to read:
"Should a petition not reach the threshold as set out in Article II, the petition may be dismissed by the respective receiver. For petitions received by the executive, the right of dismissal is held by the President and Prime Minister. For petitions received by Congress, the right of dismissal is held by the respective chambers Speaker/Chairperson."[/spoiler]
Author: Brototh
[spoiler=Amendment B]Amend Article II to read:
I. A petition intended to ask a question shall require a minimum of 15 signatures.
II. A petition intended to get voted on by Congress shall require a minimum of 20 signatures.
IIa. The following are exceptions to II:
If the petition is intended to waste the time of the legislator
If the petition was created for the purpose of amusement for the author
If the issue the petition raises has already been addressed
III. The Speaker of the House of Commons and the Chairman of the Senate reserve the right to reject a petition addressed to them if they believe the petition is a waste of time and/or serving as amusement to the author(s). The Speaker/Chairman may not reject a petition if they cannot justify this action under the provisions of Article II Section 2 of this law.[/spoiler]
Author: Brototh
[spoiler=Amendment C]Amend Article I to read as follows:
I. This bill allows every citizen to author and sign a petition.
II. The petition can be:
i) A question asked by the author to one or more members of Government and/or a Governmental Branch.
ii) A bill seeking to get voted on by Congress.
iii) A request to the Prime Minister, President, or any member of the Cabinet.[/spoiler]
Amendment A:
Aye - Brototh
Nay -
Abstain - Islonia
Amendment B:
Aye - Brototh
Nay -
Abstain - Islonia
Amendment B:
Aye - Brototh
Nay -
Abstain - Islonia
[spoiler=Senators]
Andusre, Ashlawn, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief, Rayekka, World Trade [/spoiler]
World Trade, Pap Sculgief
Aye to all.
Pap Sculgief, Chairman Brototh
Aye to all
World Trade, Chairman Brototh
Aye to all
Aye to all
A: Aye
B: Nay
C: Aye
A. Aye
B. Nay
C. Aye
Results: All three amendments pass
Amendment A:
Aye - Brototh World Trade Pap Sculgief Ashlawn Rayekka Marvinville Dendrobium
Nay -
Amendment B:
Aye - Brototh World Trade Pap Sculgief Ashlawn Rayekka
Nay - Marvinville Dendrobium
Amendment C:
Aye - Brototh World Trade Pap Sculgief Ashlawn Rayekka Marvinville Dendrobium
Nay -
Senators, we have begun voting on the final bill.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1430229
My vote is nay
[spoiler=Senators]
Andusre, Ashlawn, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief, Rayekka, World Trade [/spoiler]
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.