Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

Proposal of Amendment 1.1

If a Minister does not appear in hearings for 4 consecutive weeks, this will be grounds for impeachment, unless they have an excuse, such as medical, work-related and school-related problems, travel, etc.

Greater Conexus wrote:Proposal of Amendment 1.1

If a Minister does not appear in hearings for 4 consecutive weeks, this will be grounds for impeachment, unless they have an excuse, such as medical, work-related and school-related problems, travel, etc.

Sounds reasonable, has my support, although I do think you guys could organise where this stuff would fit in the bill better.

Titanne

Greater Conexus

Cerdenia

Are your votes ayes, then? I’d like to send the bill back to Rayekka soon.

Titanne wrote:Greater Conexus

Cerdenia

Are your votes ayes, then? I’d like to send the bill back to Rayekka soon.

For the new proposal yes

Cerdenia wrote:For the new proposal yes

Great.

Oh, and since Grand Conexus wrote the bill and I support it, it passes! Hurrah! Now I can send it back to the House.

Cerdenia

Titanne wrote:Oh, and since Grand Conexus wrote the bill and I support it, it passes! Hurrah! Now I can send it back to the House.

Done! I will begin the process with HB #3 tomorrow.

I am very sorry I wasn't able to participate in the debates. It was because of the time zones. I vote aye on both mine, Conexus's Amendment and Albianis's Amendment

Xernon

Wow we did more on our first day during the ex Senate during two months LOL

Xernon

I know, crazy, right? We are going to take a little break today, however, I will post our next bill for viewing and debate. Voting will begin tomorrow.

Term Limits Act - H.B. 003

Author: Korsinia

Sponsor: Korsinia

As Amended By: Rayekka

Understanding that the President and Prime Minister can serve unlimited amounts of terms, with no breaks in between. Justices can sit as long as they like with no election of their positions. Hereby enacts the following:

Individual citizens of Thaecia may serve an a maximum of two (2) consecutive terms as Prime Minister and a maximum of two (2) consecutive terms as President. If a Prime Minister or President loses or does not stand for re-election they cannot serve another term in that position at any time. Should the need for impeachment be necessary, it can be done through majority support from the House of Commons and 2/3rds support in the Senate. Impeachment proceedings can be started by either chamber of Congress.

Defining term to be the period after the day of the Presidential/Prime Minister elections, to the day before the next elections.

The Justices of Thaecia will be re-evaluated through a hearing in the Senate and re-confirmed by the Senate every 6 months. An absolute majority is required to re-confirm a Justice.

Should a Justice not be fit for their position, the Senate can impeach them with a 2/3rds majority. Justices are deemed not fit for their position if they have committed a felony in Thaecia or are inactive for 28 days or longer.

I do not like the fact that a nation cannot serve one term as President or PM, take a break and then serve another as President or PM.

Amendment Proposal:

Change

'Individual citizens of Thaecia may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive terms as Prime Minister and a maximum of two (2) consecutive terms as President'

To:

'Individual citizens of Thaecia may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive terms as Prime Minister or President'

Reasoning: This wording stops individuals who in the positions of Prime Minister and President from swapping positions after a maximum of two terms have been served

Amendment Proposal

From

The Justices of Thaecia will be re-evaluated through a hearing in the Senate and re-confirmed by the Senate every 6 months. An absolute majority is required to re-confirm a Justice.

To

The Justices of Thaecia will be re-evaluated through a hearing in the Senate and re-confirmed by the Senate every 6 months. 4/5ths of the total number of Senators are required to re-confirm a Justice.

Reason

We don't want one Senator to be able to obstruct all of the Senate Business, absolute majorities are hard to achieve, and that would just delay the Senate.

Personally I am not opposed to government officials serving an unlimited amount of terms, however I do agree with justices having to be reconfirmed. Will only be voting aye to the proposal if my amendment passes, as that's the only important part of the bill for me.

I am opposed to this bill or term limits for Prez and PM so a NAY for me

Post self-deleted by Albianis.

Amendment proposal:

If the 2/3rd majority for impeachment is not reached, but a 1/2 majority is, the Senate will recomend the resignation of that certain Justice

2nd Amendment proposal:

For impeachment of either the President or the Prime Minister there must also be gathered a 2/3rd majority in the House of Commons

3rd Amendment proposal:

If the President or the Prime Minister retires after one term or loses re election he can not run for this offices for 5 months

4th Amendment Proposal:

Someone who held at any time the office of President cannot hold at any time the office of Prime Minister, and the other way around

5th Amendment proposal: Someone who held the offices of either President or Prime Minister for two terms must retire for 9 months before he can run for his ex-job again

Albianis

Developing World wrote:5th Amendment proposal: Someone who held the offices of either President or Prime Minister for two terms must retire for a year before he can run for his ex-job again

Do you mean a term?

Post self-deleted by Developing World.

Greater Conexus wrote:Do you mean a term?

Where?

Developing World wrote:Where?

When you say 'year' do you mean 'term'?

Albianis wrote:When you say 'year' do you mean 'term'?

No

Developing World wrote:Amendment proposal:

If the 2/3rd majority for impeachment is not reached, but a 1/2 majority is, the Senate will recomend the respective Justice to resign. If he refuses he will get a official adress of ostracizment

Unnecessary and does nothing.

Developing World wrote:2nd Amendment proposal:

For impeachment of either the President or the Prime Minister there must also be gathered a 2/3rd majority in the House of Commons

Seems reasonable.

Developing World wrote:3rd Amendment proposal:

If the President or the Prime Minister retires after one term or loses re election he can not run for this offices for a year

Unnecessary again, person just served one term there is no reason to prohibit he/she from running.

Developing World wrote:4th Amendment Proposal:

Someone who held at any time the office of President cannot hold at any time the office of Prime Minister, and the other way around

A bit confusing, could you explain this better?

Developing World wrote:5th Amendment proposal: Someone who held the offices of either President or Prime Minister for two terms must retire for two years before he can run for his ex-job again

Imposes dumb and long restrictions upon the PM and President, the people should decide if they want someone as PM/President, not some dumb extremelly restrictive law.

Cerdenia wrote:Unnecessary and does nothing.

Seems reasonable.

Unnecessary again, person just served one term there is no reason to prohibit he/she from running.

A bit confusing, could you explain this better? Imposes dumb and long restrictions upon the PM and President, the people should decide if they want someone as PM/President, not some dumb extremelly restrictive law.

Well those restrictive laws are better than the original bill, which prohibits them from doing so. This amendments are just giving them some retire time

Oh and the 4th meant if you were Prez you can not run for PM, or if you were PM you can not run for Prez

Also Albianis and Greater Conexus were right, I meant terms not years. Modify them now

Developing World wrote:Amendment proposal:

If the 2/3rd majority for impeachment is not reached, but a 1/2 majority is, the Senate will recomend the respective Justice to resign. If he refuses he will get a official adress of ostracizment

Developing World wrote:2nd Amendment proposal:

For impeachment of either the President or the Prime Minister there must also be gathered a 2/3rd majority in the House of Commons

Developing World wrote:3rd Amendment proposal:

If the President or the Prime Minister retires after one term or loses re election he can not run for this offices for 5 months

Developing World wrote:4th Amendment Proposal:

Someone who held at any time the office of President cannot hold at any time the office of Prime Minister, and the other way around

Developing World wrote:5th Amendment proposal: Someone who held the offices of either President or Prime Minister for two terms must retire for 9 months before he can run for his ex-job again

Here are my Amendments in their final form. Waiting for a vote on them

Developing World wrote:Well those restrictive laws are better than the original bill, which prohibits them from doing so. This amendments are just giving them some retire time

I will vote with Cerdenia as his points make sense.

I do not support the clarification of the 4th Amendment. That is unnecessary and harsh.

Titanne wrote:I will vote with Cerdenia as his points make sense.

Yes but if you reject this Amendment you will vote on the original bill that forbidden them from having offices anytime after

I agree with the intent of the bill. That there should be openess for new voices not just reelect the same people. My amendments are moderating it

Time for a vote on Developing World’s Amendments.

Post self-deleted by Titanne.

1: Aye

2: Aye

3: Nay

4: Nay

5: Aye

1: Nay

2: Aye

3: Aye

4: Nay

5: Nay

1: Aye

2: Aye

3: Aye

4: Nay

5: Nay

Amendment One: Passes

Amendment Two: Passes

Amendment Three: Passes

Amendment Four: Fails

Amendment Five: Waiting for Greater Conexus

I have changed my vote on Amendment Five.

1: Aye

2: Aye

3: Nay

4: Nay

5: Nay

This means that bills 4 & 5 fail and bills 1-3 succeed.

Developing World

Titanne

Cerdenia wrote:Amendment Proposal

From

The Justices of Thaecia will be re-evaluated through a hearing in the Senate and re-confirmed by the Senate every 6 months. An absolute majority is required to re-confirm a Justice.

To

The Justices of Thaecia will be re-evaluated through a hearing in the Senate and re-confirmed by the Senate every 6 months. 4/5ths of the total number of Senators are required to re-confirm a Justice.

Reason

We don't want one Senator to be able to obstruct all of the Senate Business, absolute majorities are hard to achieve, and that would just delay the Senate.

Titanne

Cerdenia wrote:Amendment Proposal

From

The Justices of Thaecia will be re-evaluated through a hearing in the Senate and re-confirmed by the Senate every 6 months. An absolute majority is required to re-confirm a Justice.

To

The Justices of Thaecia will be re-evaluated through a hearing in the Senate and re-confirmed by the Senate every 6 months. 4/5ths of the total number of Senators are required to re-confirm a Justice.

Reason

We don't want one Senator to be able to obstruct all of the Senate Business, absolute majorities are hard to achieve, and that would just delay the Senate.

Cerdenia wrote:Titanne

Right! We will now begin debate on this bill!

Cerdenia

Also, I have installed my puppet into this region, if you receive anything from Titannea, please treat it as if it were from me

Titanne wrote:This means that bills 4 & 5 fail and bills 1-3 succeed.

Thank you to the Senators!

Post self-deleted by Developing World.

Aye on Cersinia's Amendament

Albianis wrote:Amendment Proposal:

Change

'Individual citizens of Thaecia may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive terms as Prime Minister and a maximum of two (2) consecutive terms as President'

To:

'Individual citizens of Thaecia may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive terms as Prime Minister or President'

Reasoning: This wording stops individuals who in the positions of Prime Minister and President from swapping positions after a maximum of two terms have been served

So it is rejected I guess

Aye

Any reasons for it getting shot down though?

Albianis wrote:Aye

Any reasons for it getting shot down though?

I don't agree with the restrictions, the people should decide if they want someone or not through vote, not some restrictive law.

Titanne, Albianis

And now I will send all those amendments back to Speaker Rayekka.

We will now begin debate on S.B. #1, which is Developing World’s petition bill.

AlbianisCerdeniaDeveloping World

Greater Conexus

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=developing_world/detail=factbook/id=1194151

My initial vote on this will be nay, partially because I’m extremely confused by the wording on that, and partially because the basics that I do understand seem to be chaotic. I also feel that if the bill were to be passed, an amendment would be needed.

This amendment would be that members of political parties can propose bills, but at least half of their signatures must be from independents or members of other political parties.

For those that want a clearer layout:

[url]https://www.docdroid.net/qsVsZuS/public-members-billing-act-005-thaecian-senate.pdf[/url]

Titanne wrote:This amendment would be that members of political parties can propose bills, but at least half of their signatures must be from independents or members of other political parties.

Let me try and Word this for you:

Remove 'Section 1,a,IV'

Change 'Section 3,b,iii' to: "in the case of an independent author, less than 25% of the signatures are from independent persons; in the case of a non-independent author, less than 50% of the signatures are from independent persons or members from other political parties'.

Titanne wrote:My initial vote on this will be nay, partially because I’m extremely confused by the wording on that, and partially because the basics that I do understand seem to be chaotic. I also feel that if the bill were to be passed, an amendment would be needed.

I believe that the wording is pretty clear. Albianis is a great writer. Anyway, what are you confused about?

Developing World wrote:I believe that the wording is pretty clear. Albianis is a great writer. Anyway, what are you confused about?

I'm hoping it was the layout on the factbook that was confusing, the copy and paste didn't translate well, hopefully now that I've supplied the original document the wording is more clear.

(Thanks Developing World for your kind comments)

Developing World

Titanne wrote:This amendment would be that members of political parties can propose bills, but at least half of their signatures must be from independents or members of other political parties.

The independent writer specification is there because most of the parties have MPs or Senator and for those who do not I will propose an Amendment to give them a non-voting representant in the HoC, so they will have representation in legislating and also an ind. writer ensures impartiality in the signatures, as they will vote for a bill, not for a party the writer is member of, so I oppose this Amendment, at least for the time being

Titanne wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/nation=developing_world/detail=factbook/id=1194151

1st of all, thist bill is extremely confusing and I would recommend it be reworded. 2nd, I don't like how it requires for people to use offsite services (Google forms or Discord) in order to propose stuff (Which the bill seems to do, however I am not exactly sure because it's really confusing lol), even though most people have this services, not all people have, our Senate Chairman has yet to join our discord, I'd personally prefer we keep things on site and simple.

In general the idea of the bill is complicated and confusing, and seems to exclude people who do not have acess to some offsite services. I'd recommend Senators vote nay to this one when the time comes, our current system just requires for citizens to ask an MP/Senator to sponsor their bills in order to get them to the House/Senate, which is not that hard if you have an actually good proposal.

Cerdenia wrote:1st of all, thist bill is extremely confusing and I would recommend it be reworded. 2nd, I don't like how it requires for people to use offsite services (Google forms or Discord) in order to propose stuff (Which the bill seems to do, however I am not exactly sure because it's really confusing lol), even though most people have this services, not all people have, our Senate Chairman has yet to join our discord, I'd personally prefer we keep things on site and simple.

In general the idea of the bill is complicated and confusing, and seems to exclude people who do not have acess to some offsite services. I'd recommend Senators vote nay to this one when the time comes, our current system just requires for citizens to ask an MP/Senator to sponsor their bills in order to get them to the House/Senate, which is not that hard if you have an actually good proposal.

This does not require the people to use offsite forums in any way...

Developing World wrote:This does not require the people to use offsite forums in any way...

Word the bill better then, because it states:

"2. This Act allows Citizens:

a. submit legislation to the Speaker of the House

i. unless they are doing so by proxy for a non-citizen

ii. unless they are not an independent persons

b. to create a legislative petition

i. this will be done using a google form in which signatories will submit

their nation name"

And:

"3. This act requires the Speaker of the House:

a. To post all petitions in which he is informed about on a Thaecia NS Thread and

on a ‘#petitions’ channel in the Thaecia Discord Server"

I see this is reffered to the Speaker of the House, who has a discord server, but what if he didn't have one like our Senate Chairman? Just cut the offsite stuff off, will be more simple for everyone.

Cerdenia wrote:Word the bill better then, because it states:

"2. This Act allows Citizens:

a. submit legislation to the Speaker of the House

i. unless they are doing so by proxy for a non-citizen

ii. unless they are not an independent persons

b. to create a legislative petition

i. this will be done using a google form in which signatories will submit

their nation name"

And:

"3. This act requires the Speaker of the House:

a. To post all petitions in which he is informed about on a Thaecia NS Thread and

on a ‘#petitions’ channel in the Thaecia Discord Server"

I see this is reffered to the Speaker of the House, who has a discord server, but what if he didn't have one like our Senate Chairman? Just cut the offsite stuff off, will be more simple for everyone.

On the 3rd paragraph, we put it there so people who do not use NS regularly but use Discord can have some information on the petitions. I think it should stay. End if the Speaker did not have Discord, some MP would post them.

And the 2nd paragraph is reffering to having the bill wrote in a Google Form so is more readable, unlike in a dispatch.

Developing World wrote:On the 3rd paragraph, we put it there so people who do not use NS regularly but use Discord can have some information on the petitions. I think it should stay. End if the Speaker did not have Discord, some MP would post them.

And the 2nd paragraph is reffering to having the bill wrote in a Google Form so is more readable, unlike in a dispatch.

Making a bill readeable is easy, just the problem is that you don't know how to do it, just look at this bill of mine: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=cerdenia/detail=factbook/id=1188396

Also, "End if the Speaker did not have Discord, some MP would post them." you should clarify that on the bill then, it's not really implied anywhere. I don't think anyone barely uses NS here, the main game is on NS, it's more the opposite...

Cerdenia wrote:Making a bill readeable is easy, just the problem is that you don't know how to do it, just look at this bill of mine: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=cerdenia/detail=factbook/id=1188396

Also, "End if the Speaker did not have Discord, some MP would post them." you should clarify that on the bill then, it's not really implied anywhere. I don't think anyone barely uses NS here, the main game is on NS, it's more the opposite...

Fine I do not know how to make it :)))

I will add that in the bill

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=cerdenia/detail=factbook/id=1188396

This is so much clearer, thank you Cerdenia for the excellent example.

Cerdenia

Titanne wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/nation=cerdenia/detail=factbook/id=1188396

This is so much clearer, thank you Cerdenia

I will still vote nay, for the chaotic reason and use of offsite items.

Cerdenia

Developing World wrote:The independent writer specification is there because most of the parties have MPs or Senator and for those who do not I will propose an Amendment to give them a non-voting representant in the HoC, so they will have representation in legislating and also an ind. writer ensures impartiality in the signatures, as they will vote for a bill, not for a party the writer is member of, so I oppose this Amendment, at least for the time being

I do not support this amendment in the least. Thaecia has like 8 political parties, only 3 of which hold office. This bill could also be manipulated incredibly easily.

Cerdenia

We will now begin the voting period on Albianis and Developing World’s Bill.CerdeniaAlbianisDeveloping World

Greater Conexus

Titanne wrote:I do not support this amendment in the least. Thaecia has like 8 political parties, only 3 of which hold office. This bill could also be manipulated incredibly easily.

Oh I meant 2-member extraparliamentary parties

Developing World wrote:Oh I meant 2-member extraparliamentary parties

There literally are none that don’t have seats.

Titanne wrote:There literally are none that don’t have seats.

Perhaps there will be

Nay.

Suggestion: If you want to propose a seperate amendment, I suggest you include it in the same proposal.

RESULTS:

Resolution O

Titanne wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/nation=cerdenia/detail=factbook/id=1188396

This is so much clearer, thank you s our next billCerdenia for the excellent example.

This I

Titannea wrote:RESULTS:

Resolution OThis I

Since the 1st S.B failed should I rename this one to number two?

Yes. Sorry about the typos

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