Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1610634 we are now debating a constitutional amendment about automatic justice reconfirmation

good debate

Vedenmark

I don't have any problems with this proposal, I think it will benefit the current system and improve the state of judicial affairs. I stand in support of this amendment.

I put before the Senate a Motion of No Confidence in Chairman Sevae, as signed by myself, Gifty, and Creckelenney; with the intention of naming myself as Senate Chairman.

Rayekka

lmao you all are ridiculous

Motion of No Confidence in the Senate Chairman - DEBATE

As per the Constitution of Thaecia, it is the Senates right to call a motion of no confidence in its leadership should one third of Senators sponsor a no confidence motion.

In this case, Senators Actias, Gifty & Creckelenney have sponsored a motion of no confidence in Senate Chairman Sevae, naming Senator Actias as the replacement Chairman should the motion of no confidence pass.

We now enter the debate phase of the motion of no confidence. By law there is no limit to how long a motion of no confidence debate lasts, so I will follow precedent and set the limit at approximately 24 hours unless lack of, or a lot of debate determines otherwise.

[spoiler=Senators]

Sevae

Porfloxia

Gifty

Creckelenney

Angypt

Actias

Vedenmark

[/spoiler]

- Rayekka

Electoral Commissioner

Alright, first of all I do not believe this motion of no confidence is based on anything but Marv trying to prove a point he can get anyone recalled. You can look at the docket and see how much we've debated this term. There are nearly no bills left that can be debated, and I've been introducing them slowly, one by one. I haven't really abused my role either, perhaps once in the beginning of the term I threatened to never put something up for debate, but that thing never even passed the House so I never fulfilled that threat.

Meanwhile, Actias hasn't, unlike Veden, ever said anything about me being a bad chair, and is certainly not more active than I am. He has never been Chair either, if I recall, or even Deputy Chair, and there's no reason he should replace me now. He has literally no qualities that make him a better Chair than I am.

I believe this is just a power play, and I see no reason to play with the Chair position in this way. You're just delaying the Senate, and you're lucky there's no urgent business. I find this motion ridiculous.

So before voting for or against the motion, just consider what Actias would bring to the position that I don't. And we won't really know what kind of Chair he will be unless he becomes Chair, and I believe uncertainty is bad in that regard. Who knows, maybe he'll only put up bills that he supports. Meanwhile, I have done nothing wrong and I don't deserve to be recalled

Toerana V, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Sunipi

When government coalitions end, so too should the fruits of those alliances. That is the nature of politics and government. There is no doubt the Sevae has been a worthy Chair, as have his predecessors before him. However, with his party's decision to end the coalition governing this chamber and others, this is the proper course of action to ensure the Senate continues working cohesively.

My record shows consistent activity, a history of non-partisanship, and an understanding of Thaecia's culture, government, and institutions. I plan to use those qualities to be a dedicated and efficient Chair of this chamber, in which I will honor previous Chair's efforts to bring forth all business possible and relevant so that there can be a fruitful and recorded debate. That is the purpose of Congress, to be elected, hold serious and meaningful conversations on the issues of the day, and make decisions that work to better Thaecia now and in the future. It will be an honor to play a leading role in such a process.

When voting on this motion, consider the circumstances in which it was presented, my record here in Thaecia and beyond as a dedicated, independent voice, and cohesion of this chamber and the other which allows for continued and efficient progress in this term.

Actias Gifty Creckelenney

So unless I'm mistaken, the point of the recall is purely based on party politics and trying to get someone with your acronym into the Chairperson seat, and not based on the actual quality of the chairperson and their effect on the senate?

Actias wrote:When government coalitions end, so too should the fruits of those alliances. That is the nature of politics and government. There is no doubt the Sevae has been a worthy Chair [!], as have his predecessors before him. However, with his party's decision to end the coalition governing this chamber and others, this is the proper course of action to ensure the Senate continues working cohesively.

[Porfloxia: I cut out the rest of the quote because it's basically just a campaign post]

Actias's post makes no negative mention to Seva's term as chair of the senate, in fact praising Seva's leadership. Instead, it pivots entirely to party politics- shamelessly declaring that removing a chair solely based on the acronym next to their name on a ballot is the "propper course of action to ensure the Senate continues working cohesively" (despite noting that Seva has done well during his term at doing just that), rather than the thing that actually matters for a chair: their qualifications for that role. Chairs should not be determined based on their acronyms, but on how well the Senate believes they would run the chamber. Seva has done a decent job at this, a position that Actias also holds.

Toxic party politics should not be the decider of chairperson elections. The chairperson of the senate is a purely procedural role whose sole purpose is to help the chamber run smoothly. This motion is an insult to democracy and to the underpin any democratic legislature- that legislators get elected and vote based on their beliefs, and not those of their party. I strongly urge all senators to not support this motion, and the idea of puppet legislators who are beholden to their party that it represents.

Sevae

Actias' argument is frankly, again, ridiculous. If you truly value nonpartisanship, you would never have tried to recall me, and you know it. The job of the Chair, as I've put multiple times, is a purely administrative one, and it's an incredibly bad precedent to attempt such a recall.

I'm not even too attached to the position, I simply think I am doing a good job. But I agree with Porflox that this motion is an insult to democracy and to me being the legitimately chosen Chair with support from nearly every legislator.

We are not the United States, and we should not strive to be like them.

I’m just gonna say this one statement and leave it at that. As a Independent, I value myself to not engage in Partisan affairs, such as we witness on the Senate floor currently.

Personally, I do not believe that Seva is the best chair we’ve had. Certainly not the worst either judging by conscious. He made the statement of “how many bills we’ve debated, etc” (readers digest version), that specific statement is flawed considering I’ve been one of the only Senators who constantly have participated in each debate, nonetheless, have I reminded the Chairman to vote on a bill himself. Furthermore, I will stay neutral, though I will not stay back and watch people make statements knowing they are flawed or misleading.

In addition, TGP member, (not all just 1), I will not be bribed by your party to be the next Senate chair in order to stay silent on matters such as this.

Ok I’m done, carry on.

Actias

Having reflected on my signature on the motion I must agree that while Sevae is not best chair we've ever had he's not the worst.

This may be career suicide but I feel that the fundamental decision behind this motion is purely based on party politics. Based on this prospect and my thoughts on this matter, I would beseech all senators to not support this motion.

A party should not possess the power to unilaterally attempt remove someone from their position based on a disagreement within inter party politics and using the line that we supported him via votes to place him there therefore we can remove them.

This sets up a toxic environment within the Senate and could seriously cause long term harm to our politics and proceedings.

Once again I request all senators who think like I do to stand with me against this motion.

Sevae

Motion of No Confidence in the Senate Chairman - VOTING

Senators, we now move to vote on the motion of no confidence in Senate Chairman Sevae. If this motion passes Senator Actias will take on the role as Senate Chairman. Should it fail, Chairman Sevae will be granted 30 days grace from further motions of no confidence.

I ask Senators to vote either Aye, Nay or Abstain. A simple majority is required for this motion to pass.

[spoiler=Senators]

Sevae

Porfloxia

Gifty

Creckelenney

Angypt

Actias

Vedenmark

[/spoiler]

- Rayekka

Electoral Commissioner

Nay, and I encourage others to vote the same

Senators,

I stand by every decision I make, no matter if that decision originated with me or not. I take responsibility for the actions I take as an individual. Ultimately my decision to challenge failed. It took an effort of more than one person for this challenge to get off the ground, and obviously took that same group for it to fail. I respect that, and all the decisions made up to this point to turn on the motion and keep Sevae in the Chair, which he has held without cause for dismissal. Nonetheless this was my action, a divisive action that halted the Senate and created region wide animosity. That, was never part of my intentions nor the effort presented to me. Consequences should come of this unwarranted movement.

With that being said, following the conclusion of this vote today - which is over in reality - I will resign my Senate seat.

I will vote Nay

Motion of No Confidence in the Senate Chairman - RESULT

The motion of no confidence against Chairman Sevae has failed with 7 votes against.

Chairman Sevae is now granted 30 days grace against any further motions of no confidence which will expire on 22nd June 2022.

I now make way for the Chairman to continue Senate business.

[spoiler=Senators]

Sevae

Porfloxia

Gifty

Creckelenney

Angypt

Actias

Vedenmark

[/spoiler]

- Rayekka

Electoral Commissioner

Chair Sevae wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1610634 we are now debating a constitutional amendment about automatic justice reconfirmation

we are debating this again

What I have to say is - is this really necessary? I think in the event that the PM isn't satisfied with a justice but for some reason can't be around to appoint someone else and the justice is automatically renominated, it would have bigger consequences than if the PM renominates someone a couple days later than their term requires. It's a matter of someone unworthy possibly serving on the court for another 6 months. On the other hand, the PM will probably in some way have communicated the "unworthiness" to the House so that the House can make an informed decision. Still, there would be a possibility that the House confirms them anyway, for example in a sort of power play against the PM. I do not want that possibility, the authors are the ones who said they were against toxic partisanship and yet are opening a loophole.

In addition, why is this even in the constitution? We are again clogging the constitution up with things that would be fit for statute law. I don't like this at all. Everything you wrote in this amendment could as well be written as a "Justice Confirmation Act" because it would just detail the "Justices serve for 180 days" existing clause of the Constitution.

But largely due to the first point I remain firmly opposed to this legislation

Chair Sevae wrote:Is this really necessary? I think in the event that the PM isn't satisfied with a justice but for some reason can't be around to appoint someone else and the justice is automatically renominated, it would have bigger consequences than if the PM renominates someone a couple days later than their term requires. It's a matter of someone unworthy possibly serving on the court for another 6 months. On the other hand, the PM will probably in some way have communicated the "unworthiness" to the House so that the House can make an informed decision. Still, there would be a possibility that the House confirms them anyway, for example in a sort of power play against the PM. I do not want that possibility, the authors are the ones who said they were against toxic partisanship and yet are opening a loophole.

In addition, why is this even in the constitution? We are again clogging the constitution up with things that would be fit for statute law. I don't like this at all. Everything you wrote in this amendment could as well be written as a "Justice Confirmation Act" because it would just detail the "Justices serve for 180 days" existing clause of the Constitution.

If the Prime Minister cannot be around for a couple of days then they can delegate their powers to any of their Ministers. I for one have given up my powers to the Deputy Prime Minister twice in my term knowing I would not be available for 24 hours. (Constitution 3.4: The powers of the Prime Minister may be delegated to Ministries) This is a sensible thing to do to ensure that the Government always has a leader in the event of a crisis. If the Prime Minister is so dissatisfied with a Justice, they will have voiced these concerns before and the Deputy Prime Minister will know to veto their reconfirmation. The event that the Prime Minister has to go immediately without telling anyone is very, very unlikely- even when major tragedies happen in people's lives, they are always able to communicate with us of that- for instance, CM Kerovia MP informed us of his real world issues. It is incredibly unlikely that the PM will leave and have no communication with the rest of the region. Even if this does happen, this is like asking us to prepare for a meteor materialising right next to the Earth; we cannot prepare for literally every contingency that could ever occur, it is unrealistic. Say we had no founder and 300 WA nations moved to Thaecia to coup the region: the chances are nearly 0, and so planning for it is insane.

You do already prove why your argument isn't complete anyway- if a Justice is so terrible, the House won't confirm them. Realistically, the only scenario possible is the PM hates them but the rest of the region loves them; well why would the House then confirm a different nominee if the best one is available and the PM is refusing to nominate them for...whatever reason? Quick and easy way to get recalled as the PM really; same with MPs, if they start confirming a nominee that everyone hates except they are guaranteed to be facing recalls very quickly.

The Prime Minister also has at least 4 days to come back and veto the renomination at any time, so that makes this argument of even less value. The only scenario where this isn't possible is the Speaker opens a debate, closes it instantly, votes themselves, closes it instantly. Yeah, if a Speaker rejecting one Amendment is enough to almost be no-confidence'd, that is enough to do so if not be recalled outright.

Also if it is 'toxic partisanship' dictating who is being confirmed, then the problem has become even worse- it has been in two months three years since we last faced a nomination failing due to partisanship. This is another case of incredibly impossible scenarios: at this rate, the entire Government is going to be full of Ministers that are hated by the PM if the legislature is refusing to confirm everyone and only the ones they like, not those who are fit for the position. This is not a 'loophole' at all; by this logic, all confirmation votes for Ministers are also loopholes.

Finally though the reason this is in the Constitution is because it is a total overhaul to our Justice confirmation system and warrants a public vote on it. Should we be making major changes to the region without a public vote?

Besides, it would definitely be unconstitutional if it was in statutory law. This allows Justices to continue serving while their term is expired: this is a vital change because we often have an incomplete Judiciary confirming elections. I despise that this happens every 4 months now because of staggered terms, an incomplete Judiciary verifying the results of elections are horrific. If this isn't in the Constitution we are bypassing it- their term is 180 days and now we can quite literally ignore that and their time in the position continues. This also automatically renominates them to the position and allows for confirmation votes prior to the end of tenure to save time and have a full Judiciary in an election, this would undoubtedly be unconstitutional bypassing the PM's powers.

I don't think your issue lies with this being in the Constitution, I think that it lies in that your argument itself is flawed (and you recognised it) so a second reason was needed to oppose the legislation.

Truly though, all of your concerns are based basically on paranoia that the worst case scenario is going to happen: it isn't, contingencies already exist for it, and we have procedures to deal with things. Remember: Justices can be recalled by the Congress at any time.

Sorry for not participating, I like the proposal. It’s really good, I see no main issue with it.

Brototh

I think there is nothing wrong with the proposal. It is just a quite solid amendment.

Brototh

alright, fine, not enough activity for my liking but we'll roll with it

We are now voting on this Constitutional amendment that requires a 2/3 majority to pass

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1610634

EDIT: Voting is postponed until Porflox gets his thoughts in

going to say i won that debate

Seems fine to me and I would be fine with it passing in its current form, though I don't see why the senate shouldn't also have a say in the confirmation process. My ammendment to the amendment:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1711173

hmm, why Justices in particular? Wouldn't you want to have every position to be confirmed by both chambers?

also there is again the problem of 4 people being able to block a Justice confirmation even if the majority of all legislators, and thus all representatives of the people, agree to it. Okay, now that number is 6, but 6 MPs can still block the confirmation with your amendment

Sevae wrote:hmm, why Justices in particular? Wouldn't you want to have every position to be confirmed by both chambers?

also there is again the problem of 4 people being able to block a Justice confirmation even if the majority of all legislators, and thus all representatives of the people, agree to it. Okay, now that number is 6, but 6 MPs can still block the confirmation with your amendment

The idea is so that all representatives of the people have a say. Theoretically I'd want all positions to be confirmed by all chambers (or maybe just the senate), I'm procrastinating on it :P

On the majority of the senate but minority of congress thing, that's an inherent issue of having 2 chambers, and isn't solved by stopping a chamber from having a say in things.

I do not heavily oppose this amendment, but nor do I support it. I see the benefit of having the judicial system confirmed by two chambers, but I also see the issue of more bureaucracy.

If I were a Senator, I would abstain on this vote. I have no strong feelings either way and I encourage Senators to form their own opinions on this one.

I've had chance to have a read and I can't really see the longterm benefits but at the same time I don't hate it either.

I think I will abstain on this occasion.

Oh but the amendment proposed actually is written incorrectly. It is NOT "Both houses of Congress" or "in either House". There is only one House of congress. It is meant to be both chambers of congress. This needs to be fixed Porfloxia

I am going to have to agree with Gifty here. It is actually one amendment I do like from Porflox, though at the same time, I don’t really see any benefit. I would ask that Porflox explain to me the usefulness of this amendment.

okay, we can debate further during the vote

We're voting on the amendment https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1711173

I vote Nay, I haven't been convinced this is necessary

Vedenmark wrote:I am going to have to agree with Gifty here. It is actually one amendment I do like from Porflox, though at the same time, I don’t really see any benefit. I would ask that Porflox explain to me the usefulness of this amendment.

The usefulness is to avoid containing confirmation voting in a single chamber, thereby preventing the other half of the legislature (and particularly the senate, as its position as a smaller more 'prestigious' chamber makes it logical to have the senate vote on these kind of procedural/confirmation stuff). In addition, particularly given the position on the High Court (with cabinet confirmations to a lesser extent), it is important that procedural confirmations for the position is approved by a majority in both chambers. This is because of the sweeping powers the position grants its holder. Its procedural (the high court is meant to not be affected by political views but rather a procedural and facts based interpretation of our laws) nature also means that there should not be any major controversy around nominations to the Court- and if there is major controversy, then that is all the more reason to have the nomination be heard in both chambers to ensure the integrity of our highest and only Court.

Also applies to Sevae.

I vote Aye on the ammendment.

Vote on the amendment is closed, and it has failed. Now we'll vote on the main bill

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1610634

The Constitutional Amendment has passed

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1687924

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1698210

We are now debating these two

Alright, for the first bill I unconditionally support it. As I was made aware a few months ago, too many telegrams for recruitment can hinder regional growth. Which is also stated in the proposal. As a government member, I must vote the way I feel would best benefit the region. Regional growth is what we need, and this proposal is a step forward toward it. The way I see this bill is that it is very much beneficial and needed. No concerns or anything.

As for the second proposal, I agree with it as well. I think it’s more common sense that it would be illegal to release voter identification records, etc; though at the same time I believe we need to have it made a law that you should not do that. Also, no concerns or complaints here.

Chair Sevae

Support for the first because it's just common sense :P Something technical that I'm not sure about, but it sounds about right.

For the second, I'm not quite following what the law means. Why are we letting ballots of election officials be shared?

Could you please explain why you feel the bill allows election ballots be shared?

Vedenmark wrote:Could you please explain why you feel the bill allows election ballots be shared?

"disclosure of any ballot information in such a manner that could provide indication to the identity of an individual voter to any individual who is not presently serving as Electoral Commissioner, Deputy Electoral Commissioner, an Assistant Electoral Commissioner, or a Thaecian High Court Justice, unrelated to their positions as part of the confirmation of the electoral process."

It grants an exemption to election officials for some reason, and to be honest I don't really get what the entire underlined part means in relation to the rest of the sentence.

I may see your issue. You’re interpreting it differently. I interpreted the proposal as it would only be released during investigation and no other given time. Due its confidentiality. Maybe the Author can reword it or explain the wording herself.

I genuinely have no idea what Porflox is saying. I have read it about five times and I don’t understand his message, so I am just going to explain the section.

The current law states that once you cast your ballot, it may not be shared with anyone, except the EC, DEC, AEC, or High Court Justices, for when they are verifying election results. Because obviously they have to see the ballots to verify the result.

This update would allow the EC to share with Justices ballots for other elections. For instance if voter fraud is accused of someone then the court can check the ballot sheet with their name and vote ie to see if they have voted with multiple nations confirmed to be the same person.

I don’t understand the problem. It isn’t ballots of electoral officials specifically. Perhaps you did not read it properly.

“disclosure of any ballot information in such a manner that could provide indication to the identity of an individual voter to any individual who is not presently serving as Electoral Commissioner, Deputy Electoral Commissioner, an Assistant Electoral Commissioner, or a Thaecian High Court Justice, unrelated to their positions as part of the confirmation of the electoral process”

Disclosure of any ballot information - your ballot cannot be shared next to your name so thus it is secret

to any individual who is not presently serving - it cannot be shared to any individual who is not currently one of these

unrelated to the electoral process - and those individuals may only see it if they’re seeing it as part of immediately confirming the election or ensuring it was free or fair, etc.

I have no understanding of how this apparently provides exemptions for officials. This is a very clear and concise piece of legislation.

Do you mean it grants an exemption to electoral officials to be able to see the votes? And that’s bad?

Because if so, electoral officials would either have to judge names with no votes- which is useless- or votes with no names- which means “AHAHSHSHSHZHSBSBS”; first choice Brototh second choice Toerana V may as well be a legal vote.

Final post but also it’s not a new section oh my God. It feels like you guys are reading this as if this is some sort of a new section entirely. This is an amendment to a pre-existing article. Maybe I am reading what you are saying totally wrong but this has been happening for weeks I feel like I don’t know

[nation]Snowflame[/nation] has been inaugurated to the Senate of Thaecia.

- [nation=noflag]Rayekka[/nation]

Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia

Snowflame, Brototh

As promised, I am censuring Snowflame!!! This does nothing though

After Snowflame makes his comments on the bills we'll be voting on them

I support both, I think they're a common sense change

Snowflame

Brototh I read the law wrong and skipped over the "to any individual" part. The sentence is still a little clunky and really hard to understand, but that is beyond the scope of this amendment with is a pretty simple wording change.

I really don't see how it's clunky but alright as long as you support it.

I would like to say that I'm looking forward to working with you all for the rest of the term!

Now, as for the bills:

Most of the things that I have to say have already been stated by Senator Veden. I believe that both bills are purely common sense.

Right now, recruitment is one of the most crucial issues which we are facing, and the first bill improves upon that.

The second bill is extremely important when it comes to voter fraud.

Since everyone else has practically stated what I believe, I just want to express that I agree with both bills and will vote in the affirmative.

Brototh wrote:I really don't see how it's clunky but alright as long as you support it.

It took me a couple reads and an explanation to get it, though that might just be me being dum. Not sure if other people understand the sentence better

Alright, we are now voting on these bills

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1687924

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1698210

The vote is over and the bills have passed

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1712197

We are now debating the Equal Rights Act

With dockets already massive, allowing anyone to submit as many bills as they want without a representative's sponsorship will clog up dockets and add work to the chairs of both chambers to keep track of all the bills. Instead, we should allow the chair to reject any citizen-only bill or accept it (and by extension accept the responsibility of keeping track of the bill). This is unlikely to change anything anyway because a bill that has no sponsors from any representative means that no one in congress wants the bill to be debated on, much less passed into law. The 12-citizen requirement to veto a chair's tabling and to give a bill priority also seems a bit low. I'd change it to 20 signatures in line with LR 41.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1715579

Snowflame, Creckelenney, Marvinville, Sevae

I like this bill entirely. Now, for what Porflox said; that is just ridiculous. From my interpretation, the Senate docket has not been full enough. And to say it would clog the docket is just completely odd since Senators and HoC members barely debate on bills as is.

Vedenmark wrote:I like this bill entirely. Now, for what Porflox said; that is just ridiculous. From my interpretation, the Senate docket has not been full enough. And to say it would clog the docket is just completely odd since Senators and HoC members barely debate on bills as is.

For one, the HoC docket is much longer:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1674076

Secondly, the bill allows any citizen to submit as many bill they wish of any quality. The chamber chair must then keep track of all the bills, which is extra work that simply doesn't need to exist in a videogame.

Plus, like I said, if not a single legislator wants to see the bill go to vote, then no legislator is going to vote for it. This bill just adds extra work to chambers chairs for no reason, while deviating from LR 41 on the number of citizens required to force a debate in Congress.

If you as chair and as a legislator are fine with wasting time on stuff that has no chance of passing because not a single legislator is willing to see it go to vote, then more power to you :P But not everyone has that much time to spend on this game, and not everyone wants to spend the time they have keeping track bills that will likely be of poor quality and that have zero chance of succeeding.

Creckelenney

We have laws to allow Senators and HoC members to motion a no confidence on bills they feel is useless. Needing 1/3 Senators to sign it, 2/7 senators. So if you feel like a bill is not worth it, then act on it as per a law. In addition, the Chairman decides what goes on the docket or not, (it’s apart of the job).

Also, I do remember the honorable Senator proposing an all citizens legislature with an elected chamber. If not proposing it, their political party did so. As such, I do believe to make an argument that we do not need this proposal because it will bring forth, and I quote; “Poor quality bills” is just a joke. If you want to have a conversation of poor quality look at this Congressional term as a whole. That’s what I call poor quality.

This bill allows Thaecian citizens the opportunity to not just elect their own legislatures, though add that they can propose ideas to Congress which in my opinion makes this region unique. Don’t get me wrong, we are already unique but this would do the region good.

I’d also like to note on the HoC docket. Again, the docket is organized per the chambers leader.

Vedenmark wrote:We have laws to allow Senators and HoC members to motion a no confidence on bills they feel is useless. Needing 1/3 Senators to sign it, 2/7 senators. So if you feel like a bill is not worth it, then act on it as per a law. In addition, the Chairman decides what goes on the docket or not, (it’s apart of the job).

The chairman has the responsibility to put all bills proposed on the docket. Plus, there's just no point of submitting it if no representative is going to vote for it- it just adds extra work. (Btw which law allows you to remove bills from the docket? I can't find it)

Vedenmark wrote:Also, I do remember the honorable Senator proposing an all citizens legislature with an elected chamber. If not proposing it, their political party did so. As such, I do believe to make an argument that we do not need this proposal because it will bring forth, and I quote; “Poor quality bills” is just a joke. If you want to have a conversation of poor quality look at this Congressional term as a whole. That’s what I call poor quality.

When we debate bills, we debate on their merits- not their merit in relation to other bills/proposals. For the record, I am against any form of direct democracy in the current political climate in Thaecia (direct democracy only really works in a cooperative political system). As for "poor quality bills," that was in reference to the fact that they have exactly 0 chance of getting passed. My intent of the original sentence was that, even if they weren't of poor quality, they wouldn't get any votes anyway because a legislator who doesn't want a bill to go to vote is not going to vote for it if it does. However, I stand by my statement that many citizen-proposed bills with no sponsors will be of poor quality. Simply take a look at the World Assembly proposals that have been deemed illegal to see the kinds of "poor quality bills" that are going to flood the chair. Plus, the WA has an endorsement requirement to submit a proposal- the bill removes that requirement (the requirement to have a sponsor on the bill has a similar effect).

Remarks on the current quality of Congress have no bearing on the fact that the bill simply slows down congress to vote on bills that won't pass, in addition to forcing the chair to spend time and effort keeping track of all the bills being submitted.

Vedenmark wrote:This bill allows Thaecian citizens the opportunity to not just elect their own legislatures, though add that they can propose ideas to Congress which in my opinion makes this region unique. Don’t get me wrong, we are already unique but this would do the region good.

Proposing ideas to congress that either have no chance of getting passed, is of poor quality, or in all likelihood both has no utility. You have not yet rebutted my central argument: that these bills have no chance of succeeding, and simply serve to slow down Congress from voting on bills that might get passed, or giving the chair more time to do stuff that actually helps the region rather than having to keep track of a flood of bills from citizens (who can propose as many as they want, of any quality).

Vedenmark wrote:I’d also like to note on the HoC docket. Again, the docket is organized per the chambers leader.

If the bill gets passed, chamber leaders will have to put all submitted bills on the docket.

Let’s be honest, not all of the citizens are going to send bills in. This is a great opportunity to get citizens involved, getting them active.

To say any bill being submitted from the citizens is just foolishness. Citizens can help write bills with other members of Congress, etc.

To say that the chairman’s docket will be flooded is also just not a issue either. If I remember correctly, the Chair is only required to do 23 bills per term. 22 or 23. Let me know if I’m wrong if I am.

Vedenmark wrote:Let’s be honest, not all of the citizens are going to send bills in. This is a great opportunity to get citizens involved, getting them active.

To say any bill being submitted from the citizens is just foolishness. Citizens can help write bills with other members of Congress, etc.

To say that the chairman’s docket will be flooded is also just not a issue either. If I remember correctly, the Chair is only required to do 23 bills per term. 22 or 23. Let me know if I’m wrong if I am.

I'm not sure about the last one because I can't find the relevant law, though I'm probably just being dumb :P

Still, you haven't answered my core argument, which is that bills that don't have any sponsors are likely going to get 0 votes in favor, much less pass. If one of our main ways of "getting citizens involved" is having them force a bill onto the docket and either a) having it never go to vote, or b) having it go to vote and waste time as all members of congress slowly vote against it, then we aren't a great region :P We should encourage citizens to do things that help the region- which this bill does not do.

Going to drop a counterpoint in case you make it, but this bill also does not give citizens experience or otherwise make them ready to run for congress. A bill that gets exactly 0 sponsors in our 19 (I think) person congress is probably not a great one, and even if it was well written- it'd fail anyways because it is hugely unpopular and no one will vote for it (no legislator is going to vote for a bill that they don't even want to sponsor).

Sure, the time waste might not be massive assuming not a whole lot of citizens take advantage of the system, it's still time being wasted for no reason at all.

I just wanted to note that I fully support the amendments posted by Senator Porflox. The 12 signature requirement is very low and I am definitely for increasing that number.

alright, we're voting on the amendments by Porflox

I vote Aye

I also vote aye

The amendments by Porflox have passed. Speaker Marvinville please add those amendments to the bill.

We are now voting on the Equal Rights Act as amended

I vote Aye

The Equal Rights Act has passed as amended Marvinville

We are now debating the Military Structure Reform Act https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1714457

And the Amendment Minimum Vote Time Reform Act https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1716045

The authors are invited to speak

Marvinville

For the second bill listed, I have no disagreement with though I don’t really see why it needs to change.

For the first bill, our Prime Minister has proposed an amendment requiring the chairman’s attention: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1718102

Brototh Chair Sevae

both acts are tabled for the time being.

We're now debating the confirmation of Santa Marana as Minister of Legal Affairs

Santa Marana, please tell me about your legal philosophy. What's the most important thing for you when interpreting laws?

Gifty

With knowing that the last Miniter of Legal Affairs, was indeed not the desired candidate and or wanted for the said ministry, as a elected Senator, I now look towards a new candidate who shows promises of activity for the Ministry. One who has a long record of being active, and having duties that has given them experience. Stay dedicated!

However, my question is: What is your plan for the Ministry?

1. When interpreting laws. I want them to be of the greatest standard for Thaecian citizens. Thaecia should have laws that are fair and just all round an asset to Thaecian citizens

2. My plan is simple, make the ministry as effective as possible

I would like to issue a notice saying that part of the reason why I have nominated Santa Marana is not because we have some great, massive plans for the Ministry i.e. to create fifty new departments and a hundred jobs. There are two reasons why: because this is a good way to help teach Santa about being a Minister and being in the Cabinet, with a nice easy Ministry to start out in, and because he is a good candidate for helping the Ministry get back on its feet. The problem we are facing is that the Legal Affairs Minister right now is inactive, and Santa is a very active member of Thaecia who I can trust to respond to cases in a timely manner and as according with the government. What I am seeking here is a candidate who can help the Ministry recover and become effective again, not necessarily a great massive thing. Santa Marana is a promising candidate and I know that he can do the following three things:

- Appoint prosecution

- Appoint defence

- Issue the government's Point of view on legal inquiries

These are the only three things the Legal Affairs Ministry will need to do. We will also collaborate with the Court on updating the bar exam if needed but that is a wider effort. Santa Marana is able to do these three things and so I encourage a vote in favour of the nominee.

Toerana V

I'm not really satisfied with the answers but I don't see a reason to vote against either. There are only 3 weeks left in the term, and someone active is better than nobody for this position. I'll be abstaining

For the same reason, there's no real point in debating this further and we're moving on to voting so that the region can start functioning normally again

Post self-deleted by Gifty.

I have to be honest here, as a Senator I have to vote the way I feel would best benefit the region. From this nomination, there have been terrible action on the Senate side, only 2 of 7 Senators asked questions. As for the nominee's answers, they do not explicitly answer my questions, in addition, neither Seva’s. I do believe it would be safe to say that the Prime Minister did more talking for the nominee rather than the nominee himself. However, I must commend Santa Marana for being considered for the position and for showing himself as an active — member of Congress as of now. For that, I must consider the sides of this: Vote for a willing active person? Or vote against and let the Ministry continue to be inactive? A conscious decision must be made, that being said, I vote Aye.

The reason I vote Aye is since the nominee even bothered to answer the questions given, in addition to us needing an active person as Minister.

Santa Marana I am a bit late to post, so it's fine if you miss this- but do you have any specific plans to accomplish your 2 goals?

Santa Marana

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