Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

RESULTS - CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT ACT

Congressional Oversight Act

Authors: Aexodian & Fishergate

Sponsors: Aexodian & Fishergate

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (5):

Aexodian

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (1):

Andusre

Abstentions (1):

Asean Nations[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the Congressional Oversight Act has passed the Senate by a vote of 5-1.

Rayekka.

Asean Nations

Please bear with me for a moment while I set up the next bill. This is dependent on the speed-of-reply of others, so I cannot say how long we will be waiting for.

Thank you for your patience.

Asean Nations

OPENING DEBATE - AMENDMENTS TO L.R. 008 (THAECIA LEGAL CODE)

Amendments to L.R. 008 (Thaecia Legal Code)

Author: Titanne

Sponsors: Fishergate & Zanaana

L.R. 008 (current form)

This bill has been submitted by President Titanne to add two new items to the legal code: abuse of border control authority and abuse of appearance authority. These are both sensible amendments which improve the scope of the legal code.

There are a few minor amendments that may need to be made to the bill to ensure it can be applied effectively so I will write out and propose these at a later point during the debate stage.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Snowflame, Titanne, Asean Nations, Zanaana

I do agree with the bill and feel as if the proposed items should have been in the legal code a long ago, so it's good that we're fixing this problem now. I do, however, have a few amendments to propose

[Spoiler=Amendment A]

Add to Article XIV

- Abuse of Appearance Authority

Abuse of appearance authority shall be defined as publishing unsavory or inappropriate images, website or video links and text to the World Factbook Entry or the Regional Flag.[/spoiler]

[Spoiler=Amendment B]

Add Article XV

-Abuse of Communications Authority

Abuse of Communications Authority shall be defined as the use of telegrams that display inappropriate text, links, or images[/spoiler]

[Spoiler=Amendment C]

Add Article XVI

-Abuse of Polls Authority

Abuse of Polls Authority shall be defined as displaying and creating regional polls that either

1. Asks an obscene question

2. Has obscene answers

Or does both 1 and 2.[/spoiler]

Asean Nations

President Titanne may take part in this debate as the author of the bill.

Titanne

Snowflame wrote:I do agree with the bill and feel as if the proposed items should have been in the legal code a long ago, so it's good that we're fixing this problem now. I do, however, have a few amendments to propose

[Spoiler=Amendment A]

Add to Article XIV

- Abuse of Appearance Authority

Abuse of appearance authority shall be defined as publishing unsavory or inappropriate images, website or video links and text to the World Factbook Entry or the Regional Flag.[/spoiler]

[Spoiler=Amendment B]

Add Article XV

-Abuse of Communications Authority

Abuse of Communications Authority shall be defined as the use of telegrams that display inappropriate text, links, or images[/spoiler]

[Spoiler=Amendment C]

Add Article XVI

-Abuse of Polls Authority

Abuse of Polls Authority shall be defined as displaying and creating regional polls that either

1. Asks an inappropriate question

2. Has inappropriate answers

Or does both 1 and 2.[/spoiler]

A: I agree.

B: Yeah.

C: That’s highly debatable on what counts as inappropriate. More clear guidelines would be better.

Titanne wrote:A: I agree.

B: Yeah.

C: That’s highly debatable on what counts as inappropriate. More clear guidelines would be better.

I agree, which is why I edited the amendment

Snowflame wrote:I agree, which is why I edited the amendment

Changing obscene is only somewhat helpful, it could still be debatable between people.

Titanne wrote:Changing obscene is only somewhat helpful, it could still be debatable between people.

You say this yet in your bill you state, "publishing unsavory or inappropriate images". You had no problem there, so what's the problem here? What exactly is the difference between what you stated in your bill, and what I'm amending?

Titanne

Snowflame wrote:You say this yet in your bill you state, "publishing unsavory or inappropriate images". You had no problem there, so what's the problem here? What exactly is the difference between what you stated in your bill, and what I'm amending?

Oof it’s been so long since I wrote this... it’s fine, because I also forgot the court existed to solve disputes.

Snowflame, Fishergate, Asean Nations

Post self-deleted by Snowflame.

Let's not be provocative. The Senator raised a good point to challenge the President, who acknowledged his mistake and corrected his stance. That shall be all.

Titanne, Asean Nations

AMENDMENTS VOTING

Amendments A, B, & C

Author: Snowflame

[Spoiler=Amendment A]

Add to Article XIV

- Abuse of Appearance Authority

Abuse of appearance authority shall be defined as publishing unsavory or inappropriate images, website or video links and text to the World Factbook Entry or the Regional Flag.[/spoiler]

[Spoiler=Amendment B]

Add Article XV

-Abuse of Communications Authority

Abuse of Communications Authority shall be defined as the use of telegrams that display inappropriate text, links, or images[/spoiler]

[Spoiler=Amendment C]

Add Article XVI

-Abuse of Polls Authority

Abuse of Polls Authority shall be defined as displaying and creating regional polls that either

1. Asks an obscene question

2. Has obscene answers

Or does both 1 and 2.[/spoiler]

Senator Snowflame has submitted three amendments which we will now vote on.

I think the amendments further enhance the Legal Code so I am voting 'aye' to all three.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville[/spoiler]

Snowflame

AMENDMENTS RESULTS

Amendments A, B, & C

Author: Snowflame

[Spoiler=Amendment A]

Add to Article XIV

- Abuse of Appearance Authority

Abuse of appearance authority shall be defined as publishing unsavory or inappropriate images, website or video links and text to the World Factbook Entry or the Regional Flag.[/spoiler]

[Spoiler=Amendment B]

Add Article XV

-Abuse of Communications Authority

Abuse of Communications Authority shall be defined as the use of telegrams that display inappropriate text, links, or images[/spoiler]

[Spoiler=Amendment C]

Add Article XVI

-Abuse of Polls Authority

Abuse of Polls Authority shall be defined as displaying and creating regional polls that either

1. Asks an obscene question

2. Has obscene answers

Or does both 1 and 2.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Results (all amendments)]Ayes (6):

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):

Abstentions (1):

Aexodian[/spoiler]

All amendments have passed by a vote of 6-0. The bill will now be updated in accordance and brought back to the floor for a final vote.

VOTING - AMENDMENTS TO L.R. 008 (THAECIAN LEGAL CODE)

Amendments to L.R. 008 (Thaecian Legal Code)

Author: Titanne

Sponsors: Fishergate & Zanaana

As amended by: Snowflame

Please now cast your votes for or against the amendments to the Legal Code.

I vote 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Asean Nations

RESULTS - AMENDMENTS TO L.R. 008 (THAECIAN LEGAL CODE)

Amendments to L.R. 008 (Thaecian Legal Code)

Author: Titanne

Sponsors: Fishergate & Zanaana

As amended by: Snowflame

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (6):

Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Snowflame

Nays (1):

Marvinville[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the amendments to L.R. 008 have passed the Senate by a vote of 6-1. They will now be sent to Speaker Rayekka and the House of Commons.

Asean Nations

OPENING DEBATE - MEDIA CERTIFICATION ACT

Media Certification Act

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: The Marconian State

Subsequent to the failure in the House of Commons of the freedom of press Constitutional amendment, I am bringing the Media Certification Act back to the floor.

To recap where the debate left off before the bill was withdrawn: Senators and Associate Justice Islonia expressed concern that the bill would violate the freedom of the press, although this was not at that point a Constitutional right. Senator Marvinville then proposed a constitutional amendment to grant the right to free and independent press. This amendment passed the Senate but was struck down in the House. This brings us to now, with this bill remaining legally valid and Congress having expressed its intention to not pass a constitutional amendment ensuring freedom of the press.

I encourage Senators to debate the pros and cons of this bill with this new context in mind.

The author, Rayekka, may also contribute to the debate.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Snowflame, Asean Nations

Mr. Chairman, here we are again. We are back to where we started a few weeks ago: debating the Media Certification Act under the same exact conditions that led to it being tabled in the first place.

Everyone here knows that I originally personally supported the bill; however, the Constitutional Amendment that failed in the House ruins the credibility of this bill. If a Justice says that the bill is not legal, then we have to follow what the Justice says.

Even if it's not written in words in the Constitution, the press has freedom to write what they want.

The Bigtopia, Catlin, Asean Nations, Marvinville

Snowflame wrote:Mr. Chairman, here we are again. We are back to where we started a few weeks ago: debating the Media Certification Act under the same exact conditions that led to it being tabled in the first place.

Everyone here knows that I originally personally supported the bill; however, the Constitutional Amendment that failed in the House ruins the credibility of this bill. If a Justice says that the bill is not legal, then we have to follow what the Justice says.

Even if it's not written in words in the Constitution, the press has freedom to write what they want.

I should point at that Justice Islonia's words during the original debate were his personal opinion, not a legal opinion. There may be reasons why Senators do not wish to support this bill, but any concern over its legality should not be one of them.

I would like to submit this Amendment to the Senate Chair

[spoiler=Amendment A]

This Amendment strikes the whole bill and render it invalid

Rewrite the bill as follows:

Protection of the Press Act

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: The Marconian State

Preamble:

To protect the rights and freedom of the press without government interference

Article I:

This Act provides the right to freedom and independence of the Press, provided they break no regional laws. The Government may not set up a regulatory body to regulate the Press in any way, shape, or form unless this Act is repealed by Congress. The Thaecian Government shall encourage citizens to either form a media organization or to be a journalist for an already existing media organization.

[/spoiler]

Islonia, Fishergate, Catlin, Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour

The media certification act is awful because

1. NORB's rating and certification system can be used to de-legitimize news outlets that are anti-government

2. NORB is a body that will at best be useless and at worst be abused

Not relevant to my argument, but I think there is a massive grammar mistake in Article V section 2.

Marvinville

VOTING - MEDIA CERTIFICATION ACT

Media Certification Act

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: The Marconian State

We will now vote on this bill.

Senator Marvinville, I am choosing not to bring your amendment to a vote. If you would like to put the wording of your amendment into a new bill and propose that to me instead, I will gladly bring it to the floor.

So, Senators, please now cast your votes for or against the Media Certification Act.

My own vote is 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Zon Island, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Nay

Catlin, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Nay

Catlin, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville

I Abstain.

Marvinville

nay

Marvinville

Nay

Catlin, Marvinville

Nay.

Marvinville

RESULTS - MEDIA CERTIFICATION ACT

Media Certification Act

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: The Marconian State

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (1):

Fishergate

Nays (5):

Aexodian

Andusre

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame

Abstentions (1):

Asean Nations[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the Media Certification Act has been rejected by the Senate by a vote of 5-1. We will move onto new business shortly.

OPENING DEBATE - EDUCATION ACT

Education Act

Authors: Korsinia & Kryssinia

Sponsors: Rayekka & Zanaana

As amended by: Zanaana

This bill aims to establish a state-sponsored education system for Thaecia. While I think this could be a successful endeavour, I do have some concerns. Primarily, I fear that this could go the way of the Military Defence Force. It's something people have talked a lot about for a while but when it actually comes down to it, I feel like there won't be enough interest to make it sustainable. That will just lead to this legislation having to be repealed in the future.

However, that does not mean we can't try it out. What I would suggest to the Prime Minister Korsinia is that he uses his executive powers to set up what this bill aims to establish and see how much interest there is. If the interest is sufficient, Congress shall pass this bill to ensure the future of the education system is safeguarded. If just feel like we should not fully commit to this when we don't have to - if the Prime Minister wants to pursue this goal, he is free to do so without having to pass a bill through Congress.

Senators, please share your own opinions on the bill and authors, Korsinia and Kryssinia, please feel free to contribute your own thoughts to the debate.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Asean Nations, Marvinville

I am a big fan of this bill, it is long overdue we get a minister of education

Catlin wrote:I am a big fan of this bill, it is long overdue we get a minister of education

I also support the establishment, but I will reiterate my point from my opening statement:

We do not need to pass a bill through Congress for the Prime Minister to set up an Education Ministry.

All that this bill achieves is less flexibility in the event that the Education Ministry doesn't turn out to be as popular as we hope. Without this bill, the Prime Minister can appoint an Education Minister and then, if it doesn't turn out well, fire him/her and not have to appoint a replacement. With this bill, the PM has to appoint an Education Minister and does not have the option of shutting down the ministry if it doesn't turn out well.

Personally, I would recommend the Prime Minister takes the wording of this bill and republishes it as an executive decree on how the Education Ministry ought to run. Then, if the ministry is a success, Congress can pass the bill to help protect the future of the education system.

Basically my point is that we do not need to pass this bill in order to achieve what it sets out, but doing so might create problems in the future.

Islonia, Asean Nations, Zon Island, Terentiland, Marvinville

Fishergate wrote:I also support the establishment, but I will reiterate my point from my opening statement:

We do not need to pass a bill through Congress for the Prime Minister to set up an Education Ministry.

All that this bill achieves is less flexibility in the event that the Education Ministry doesn't turn out to be as popular as we hope. Without this bill, the Prime Minister can appoint an Education Minister and then, if it doesn't turn out well, fire him/her and not have to appoint a replacement. With this bill, the PM has to appoint an Education Minister and does not have the option of shutting down the ministry if it doesn't turn out well.

Personally, I would recommend the Prime Minister takes the wording of this bill and republishes it as an executive decree on how the Education Ministry ought to run. Then, if the ministry is a success, Congress can pass the bill to help protect the future of the education system.

Basically my point is that we do not need to pass this bill in order to achieve what it sets out, but doing so might create problems in the future.

I do get your point Senator but we can always make a bill repealing the education ministry if it doesn't work out or there is popular demand for it to be abolished. When there was popular support to get rid of the military, Congress passed a bill to abolish the military. In conclusion, if the education ministry doesn't work out, we can abolish it through a bill.

Catlin wrote:I do get your point Senator but we can always make a bill repealing the education ministry if it doesn't work out or there is popular demand for it to be abolished. When there was popular support to get rid of the military, Congress passed a bill to abolish the military. In conclusion, if the education ministry doesn't work out, we can abolish it through a bill.

I won't repeat my argument for a third time, but I hope most Senators understand the point I'm making.

Post self-deleted by Asean Nations.

Hello hello, Senators!

After reading some of the points present and a discussion with our Interior Minister, I have decided to test out the Education Act in practice.

If you don't mind, I'd like to withdraw the bill.

Islonia, Snowflame, Catlin, Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville, Zanaana

Korsinia wrote:Hello hello, Senators!

After reading some of the points present and a discussion with our Interior Minister, I have decided to test out the Education Act in practice.

If you don't mind, I'd like to withdraw the bill.

Thank you Prime Minister. Your bill will be withdrawn from the floor. If you ever wish to reintroduce it, the Senate will always be open for it.

And with that, the Senate docket is empty. I will look for some new bills to keep us busy while the House of Commons catches up with the backlog we have inflicted upon them. However, our next business will be determined by the result of the unicameralism referendum, so we will take a short recess until the results are announced.

OPENING DEBATE - AMENDMENTS TO L.R. 009

Amendments to L.R. 009 (Recall of Elected Representatives Act)

Author: Zon Island

Sponsors: Snowflame & Zon Island

L.R. 009 (current form)

This bill aims to amend the recall system by adding a public referendum stage. In my opinion, this would place an undue burden on the Electoral Commissioner and on the voters. A vote would have to be held to remove the member of Congress in question, then another vote would have to be held shortly after to replace them. I think the current system, which has only ever been used to remove completely inactive members, works sufficiently well without requiring public validation for every recall.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville[/spoiler]

Snowflame, Andusre, Asean Nations, Zon Island

I commend the initiative this amendment brings to the Act by bringing the voters power over their elected representatives, but I do how ever agree with the Chairman that It would place undue burden not just to the Commissioner but also to the voters. I also agree that the current form of the Act is sufficient enough to the Job.

Zon Island

The author, Zon Island, may contribute to the debate.

Zon Island

Senator Fishergate and Asean Nations, thank you for the feedback.Yes, I must agree that the current act has been sufficient but this amendment is not about whether or not our current act is sufficient it is about giving the people the power to recall their representative.On the undue burden it gives to the Commissioner, i must admit that i did not consider that factor when i first drafted this bill as you could say i was still not very experienced with drafting bill when i first started my career in congress so i did not really consider that as a problem which is why i appeal to all the senators who are some of the most capable members of congress Thaecia has had to propose a amendment to fix this issue instead of voting it down.

Asean Nations

Zon Island wrote:Senator Fishergate and Asean Nations, thank you for the feedback.Yes, I must agree that the current act has been sufficient but this amendment is not about whether or not our current act is sufficient it is about giving the people the power to recall their representative.On the undue burden it gives to the Commissioner, i must admit that i did not consider that factor when i first drafted this bill as you could say i was still not very experienced with drafting bill when i first started my career in congress so i did not really consider that as a problem which is why i appeal to all the senators who are some of the most capable members of congress Thaecia has had to propose a amendment to fix this issue instead of voting it down.

I can't imagine a way it would be possible to amend this bill so as to remove the burden from the Commissioner and the voters while still achieving the goal of the bill. I don't think recalls should be voted on by the public at all - the current system works well and voters do not need to be involved so directly in the recall procedure. I'm happy with the Recall Act as it exists currently and I intend to vote nay on this amendment.

Asean Nations, Zon Island, Marvinville

VOTING - AMENDMENTS TO L.R. 009

Amendments to L.R. 009 (Recall of Elected Representatives Act)

Author: Zon Island

Sponsors: Snowflame & Zon Island

Senators, please now cast your votes on this bill.

Personally, I am voting ‘nay’ for the reasons I have explained.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville[/spoiler]

RESULTS - AMENDMENTS TO L.R. 009

Amendments to L.R. 009 (Recall of Elected Representatives Act)

Author: Zon Island

Sponsors: Snowflame & Zon Island

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (1):

Catlin

Nays (6):

Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the amendments to the Recall of Elected Representatives Act have been rejected by the Senate by a vote of 6-1.

OPENING DEBATE - IMPEACHMENT REFORM CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment

Author: Cerdinia

Sponsors: Fishergate, Cerdinia, Zanaana, Pap Sculgief

This amendment addresses the concerns that have been raised recently over impeachment proceedings. I encourage Senators to read through the amendments carefully and contribute your thoughts.

The author, Cerdinia MP, may also take part in this debate.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Cerdinia

I don't know what you guys think with this but let me share. I think all impeachments should start in the house and the article(s) of impeachment would need a simple majority to pass. Then once it passes, the Senate would hold an impeachment trial with the Chief Justice being the temporary Senate leader. House members and defendants of the impeached figure and show their case to the Senate and then the Senate can decide to remove the person in a 2/3rds vote of approval. This process is similar to the process in the US and I think that it would work out well

Catlin, Asean Nations

Marvinville wrote:I don't know what you guys think with this but let me share. I think all impeachments should start in the house and the article(s) of impeachment would need a simple majority to pass. Then once it passes, the Senate would hold an impeachment trial with the Chief Justice being the temporary Senate leader. House members and defendants of the impeached figure and show their case to the Senate and then the Senate can decide to remove the person in a 2/3rds vote of approval. This process is similar to the process in the US and I think that it would work out well

Being rather honest with you, I think the american system is garbage and in this situation would create a constitutional contradiction.

Under the system you are proposing you are putting the trial of an individual in the hands of elected ones, elected individuals who have clear personal biases and in fact were elected to their offices for that exact reason. What this means is that two political parties can get together in order to impeach an individual they dislike, even a President or Prime Minister.

So here is the issue, the american impeachment system actually just allow for impeachments to be political as opposed to based on an actual violation of regional law or the constitution, which should be the real reason behind an impeachment. In my view this system of impeachments without a trial by the Court is, as I said, in contradiction with the constitution, more specifically this constitutional right:

"The right to a due process and a fair and free trial."

Legislators don't provide for a "fair and free trial", by refusing to amend the constitution we are keeping a broken system of impeachments which can remove democratically elected people from office based on personal biases.

Fishergate, Asean Nations

I would like to submit this amendment to the Senate Chair

[spoiler=Amendment A]

To amend Amendment III:

Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section I with the following:

The President can be impeached when the Senate House of Commons acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons House of Commons. Following the votes in Congress the House of Commons, the President shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court Senate with the Chief Justice presiding over the Chamber. The Senate House of Commons may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court Senate, with the representative not needing to be a Senator MP himself. If the Senate House of Commons does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court Senate. If the court Senate rules in favour of the impeachment with a two thirds majority vote, a snap election is to be held for the Presidency, while there is no official President in office the Prime Minister shall observe the duties of the President.

Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section II with the following:

The Prime Minister can be impeached when the Senate House of Commons acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons. Following the votes in Congress the House of Commons, the Prime Minister shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court Senate with the Chief Justice presiding over the chamber. The Senate House of Commons may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court Senate, with the representative not needing to be a Senator MP himself. If the Senate House of Commons does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court Senate. If the court Senate rules in favour of the impeachment with a two thirds majority vote, the appointed Deputy Prime Minister is to take over the duties of the Prime Minister for the remainder of the term. If there is no Deputy Prime Minister a snap election is to be held, while there is no official Prime Minister in office the President shall observe the duties of the Prime Minister.

Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section III with the following:

A Justice can be impeached when the Senate House of Commons acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons. Following the votes in Congress the House of Commons, the Justice shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court, in which the Deputy Justice shall take his place as a Justice during his trial Senate where the Chief Justice will preside over the chamber. If the Chief Justice was impeached by the House of Commons, an Associate Justice will preside over the chamber. The Senate House of Commons may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court Senate, with the representative not needing to be a Senator MP himself. If the Senate House of Commons does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court Senate. If the court Senate rules in favour of the impeachment with a two thirds majority vote, the Justice shall be removed from office and won't be allowed to be appointed to the court again in the future.

[/spoiler]

Fishergate, Asean Nations

Marvinville wrote:I would like to submit this amendment to the Senate Chair

[spoiler=Amendment A]

To amend Amendment III:

Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section I with the following:

The President can be impeached when the Senate House of Commons acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons House of Commons. Following the votes in Congress the House of Commons, the President shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court Senate with the Chief Justice presiding over the Chamber. The Senate House of Commons may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court Senate, with the representative not needing to be a Senator MP himself. If the Senate House of Commons does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court Senate. If the court Senate rules in favour of the impeachment with a two thirds majority vote, a snap election is to be held for the Presidency, while there is no official President in office the Prime Minister shall observe the duties of the President.

Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section II with the following:

The Prime Minister can be impeached when the Senate House of Commons acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons. Following the votes in Congress the House of Commons, the Prime Minister shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court Senate with the Chief Justice presiding over the chamber. The Senate House of Commons may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court Senate, with the representative not needing to be a Senator MP himself. If the Senate House of Commons does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court Senate. If the court Senate rules in favour of the impeachment with a two thirds majority vote, the appointed Deputy Prime Minister is to take over the duties of the Prime Minister for the remainder of the term. If there is no Deputy Prime Minister a snap election is to be held, while there is no official Prime Minister in office the President shall observe the duties of the Prime Minister.

Under Article I, Section VIII of the Thaecian Constitution, hereby creates Sub-section III with the following:

A Justice can be impeached when the Senate House of Commons acknowledges an impeachable offense as decreed by law or by a violation of the Constitution. This can be done with a two thirds majority vote in the Senate, followed by a two thirds majority vote in the House of Commons. Following the votes in Congress the House of Commons, the Justice shall then be sent to an official trial before the High Court, in which the Deputy Justice shall take his place as a Justice during his trial Senate where the Chief Justice will preside over the chamber. If the Chief Justice was impeached by the House of Commons, an Associate Justice will preside over the chamber. The Senate House of Commons may also hold a vote to send it's own representative to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court Senate, with the representative not needing to be a Senator MP himself. If the Senate House of Commons does not choose a representative, it shall be the duty of the Justice Ministry to provide for a state attorney to argue in favour of the impeachment before the court Senate. If the court Senate rules in favour of the impeachment with a two thirds majority vote, the Justice shall be removed from office and won't be allowed to be appointed to the court again in the future.

[/spoiler]

This amendment basically keeps the constitution as it is, so I don't see a point, if you could instead try to argue against my previous point that would be great.

Personally, I believe the impeachment system must be rigorous and apolitical. Cerdinia MP's amendment achieves this. By giving the High Court the final say on such high-profile impeachments as those of Prime Ministers, Presidents, and High Court Justices, is a good step for ensuring a balance of powers between the three branches of government. Equally, requiring a 2/3 majority in both chambers of Congress further ensures that an impeachment will only be enacted when there is clear grounds for impeachment.

Senator Marvinville's amendment is a convoluted re-working of the current system. In practice, it doesn't change much other than letting the Chief Justice preside over the Senate's vote. What really matters - who votes on whether or not to impeach - isn't affected at all and this power remains entirely with Congress. In my opinion, this amendment is significantly weaker than the one proposed by Cerdinia MP.

Cerdinia

Fishergate wrote:Personally, I believe the impeachment system must be rigorous and apolitical. Cerdinia MP's amendment achieves this. By giving the High Court the final say on such high-profile impeachments as those of Prime Ministers, Presidents, and High Court Justices, is a good step for ensuring a balance of powers between the three branches of government. Equally, requiring a 2/3 majority in both chambers of Congress further ensures that an impeachment will only be enacted when there is clear grounds for impeachment.

Senator Marvinville's amendment is a convoluted re-working of the current system. In practice, it doesn't change much other than letting the Chief Justice preside over the Senate's vote. What really matters - who votes on whether or not to impeach - isn't affected at all and this power remains entirely with Congress. In my opinion, this amendment is significantly weaker than the one proposed by Cerdinia MP.

My constitutional amendment is literally changing some stuff around from Cerds amendment so there would be a trial in the Senate instead of in the Court. Also impeachments usually do stay in Congress. It shouldn't be a courts job to impeach someone

Marvinville wrote:My constitutional amendment is literally changing some stuff around from Cerds amendment so there would be a trial in the Senate instead of in the Court. Also impeachments usually do stay in Congress. It shouldn't be a courts job to impeach someone

That's the issue though, your amendment means the trial is political as it happens in the Senate as opposed to solely in the court. That's not a free and fair trial, it's a massive problem. The court doesn't impeach, the court only judges if the impeachment passed by the House of Commons and Senate has legal merit based upon a factual analysis of law as opposed to the personal biases of senators.

Fishergate

Marvinville wrote:My constitutional amendment is literally changing some stuff around from Cerds amendment so there would be a trial in the Senate instead of in the Court. Also impeachments usually do stay in Congress. It shouldn't be a courts job to impeach someone

Impeachments stay in Congress in the United States, but the US impeachment procedure is terrible. Impeachments in many other countries, for example South Korea, give a judicial body the final say.

AMENDMENT VOTING - IMPEACHMENT REFORM CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Amendment A

Author: Marvinville

As it seems the debate has reached a natural conclusion, we will now move on to the voting stages, starting with Senator Marvinville's amendment.

Personally, I think this amendment does not improve the Constitution in any meaningful way and therefore I am voting 'nay'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Nay from me.

Fishergate

aye

Marvinville

issa nay from me

Cerd and Fishergate laid out a good case for Cerd's amendment. The recent impeachment hearings in the US prove that the US impeachment system is broken and tainted by party loyalty. The Court should have the final say on impeachments.

Islonia, Fishergate, Asean Nations, Cerdinia

AMENDMENT RESULTS - IMPEACHMENT REFORM CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Amendment A

Author: Marvinville

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (4):

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (3):

Aexodian

Andusre

Fishergate[/spoiler]

Senator Marvinville's amendment has passed the Senate by a very close 4-3 vote. The bill will be adjusted accordingly and we will then hold the final vote.

Marvinville

VOTING - IMPEACHMENT REFORM CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment

Author: Cerdinia

Sponsors: Fishergate, Cerdinia, Zanaana, Pap Sculgief

As amended by: Marvinville

Senators, please now cast your votes either for or against the constitutional amendment in its newly-amended form. I remind Senators that, as a constitutional amendment, this bill requires a 2/3 majority or greater to pass.

Personally, I am voting 'nay' as I believe this amendment is a weak solution to an impeachment system that needs much more significant reform. I hope the Senate will reject this amendment and work on producing a more meaningful amendment that can command the support of Congress.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

I highly encourage all senators to vote against the amendment now, the new one keeps the system broken and doesn't solve anything, shameful.

Brototh, Fishergate

Cerdinia wrote:shameful.

There is no need for inflammatory language like this in the Senate.

I vote Nay

Marvinville

aye

Marvinville

RESULTS - IMPEACHMENT REFORM CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment

Author: Cerdinia

Sponsors: Fishergate, Cerdinia, Zanaana, Pap Sculgief

As amended by: Marvinville

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (2):

Catlin

Marvinville

Nays (3):

Aexodian

Andusre

Fishergate

Abstentions (2):

Asean Nations

Snowflame[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the Impeachment Reform Constitutional Amendment has failed the Senate by a vote of 2-3.

Our next business will be introduced shortly.

OPENING DEBATE - SHADOW SPEAKER APPOINTMENT ACT

Shadow Speaker Appointment Act

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: Rayekka

As amended by: Cerdinia

This bill, authored by the Speaker of the House, aims to establish formal procedures for selecting a Shadow Speaker for the House of Commons.

Senators, please share your thoughts and opinions regarding this bill.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Speaker Fishergate wrote:OPENING DEBATE - SHADOW SPEAKER APPOINTMENT ACT

Shadow Speaker Appointment Act

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: Rayekka

As amended by: Cerdinia

This bill, authored by the Speaker of the House, aims to establish formal procedures for selecting a Shadow Speaker for the House of Commons.

Senators, please share your thoughts and opinions regarding this bill.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

One of the only issues I have with this is Article 2 which gives the largest party outside the speaker the position among other rules. I think this is a way to disregard Independents as non important members relating to positions in the opposition.

Fishergate, Asean Nations

The author of the amendment which the House passed for this bill, Cerdinia, may take part in this debate.

As may the author of the bill, Rayekka, if he wishes.

Asean Nations, Marvinville, Zanaana, Cerdinia

Marvinville wrote:One of the only issues I have with this is Article 2 which gives the largest party outside the speaker the position among other rules. I think this is a way to disregard Independents as non important members relating to positions in the opposition.

We amended that section of the bill so the House wouldn't spend too much time with a whole Shadow Speaker election, seeing as the whole position of Shadow Speaker is nearly useless to start of and the House already spends too much time confirming ministers. Another thing, that specifically only happens if only one individual contests the Shadow Speaker election, if an independent wanted the position of Shadow Speaker he could also content the election even if he wouldn't win, seeing as the 2nd place wins the position as per the bill, so I believe what you are pointing out there isn't a good reason to oppose the bill, an independent will only not be able to gain Shadow Speaker if he doesn't want to run in the Speaker election.

Asean Nations, Marvinville

Cerdinia wrote:We amended that section of the bill so the House wouldn't spend too much time with a whole Shadow Speaker election, seeing as the whole position of Shadow Speaker is nearly useless to start of and the House already spends too much time confirming ministers. Another thing, that specifically only happens if only one individual contests the Shadow Speaker election, if an independent wanted the position of Shadow Speaker he could also content the election even if he wouldn't win, seeing as the 2nd place wins the position as per the bill, so I believe what you are pointing out there isn't a good reason to oppose the bill, an independent will only not be able to gain Shadow Speaker if he doesn't want to run in the Speaker election.

I don't plan on voting against the bill but I'm just pointing out a minor issue I have but thank you for your statement

Asean Nations

This bill is only a temporary bill to fill a void until a better way is created through amendments to current legislation or new legislation. I hope senators will pass this bill without issue.

Asean Nations

ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE

I have been informed that a majority of Senators have pledged their support for a motion to hold an urgent ministerial hearing for Roleplay Secretary Islonia.

To confirm your support, please vote aye on the following motion:

Under Section IV of L.R. 002 - the Ministerial Hearings Act, the Senate hereby summons the Secretary of Roleplay, Islonia, to the floor for an urgent ministerial hearing.

Once four Senators confirm their support for this motion, it will be active and the Secretary will be obliged to join us for his hearing.

In the meantime, debate on the Shadow Speaker Appointment Act is suspended.

Personally, I am in favour of this motion so I vote 'aye'.

With four Senators in support, the motion passes.

I now formally invite the Secretary of Roleplay, Islonia, to the floor to face questions.

Senators, please post your questions for the Roleplay Secretary.

Marvinville

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