Post Archive
Region: The Thaecian Senate
This is quite good. I have my points of disagreement, but they are points I have made in the past and I know that most of my fellow Senators will disagree with me on, so I will be voting for this bill in its current form.
[spoiler=Amendment A]Article V Section I Subsection 3. is removed[/spoiler]
This fixes something that is unconstitutional as Peeps brought up in the court case and to me. I do agree it's unconstitutional, it's pretty clear to me
[spoiler=Amendment B]Article XIII is amended to the following:
Section I - Tabling occurs when ongoing chamber business is sidelined by the chamber leader to make way for more urgent business.
Section II - In the event a bill is tabled, its entitled debate and voting times are reset for when it goes back on the floor.
Section III - The chamber leader has the right to table any business at any time.
1. This right is revoked if the bill has been sponsored by at least 3/5ths of the Chamber's members.
2. Motions of no confidence cannot be tabled.
Section IV - This decision may be overruled by a Chamber veto, in which case the business will be immediately brought back to the floor.
1. A veto shall be defined as a dispatch signed by a majority of the Chamber's members.
Article XIV Section IV is amended to:
A chamber will be automatically adjourned exactly 24 hours before whole Chamber elections are held.
[/spoiler]
This is to limit the power of the chamber leader to table anything or adjourn without consent (like Marv did last term).
[spoiler=Amendment C]Subsection 2. b. is added to Article I Section IV:
The chamber leader may put two bills, motions, or hearings to debate at a time, using the regions The House of Commons 2 or The Thaecian Senate 2, which may be created at any time by a specially designated founder account created by a founder of Thaecia. The rest of this act shall apply equally to all House of Commons and Senate RMBs.[/spoiler]
This is what I've always wanted to do, explicitly allowing multiple RMBs. Feel free to debate away, and maybe my wording is off, but I will not back down from this idea, I think it's obviously beneficial
[list][*]Voiced concerns on B more on Discord in #senate (Congress Server). Just replace this saying that the Chamber leader can't table a bill if it has 3/5th sponsors of the representatives in that chamber, fixes the issue of popular bills being shot down.
[*]Amendment C is poor in general. This is not "obviously beneficial" to me. This will cause Thaecia to run out of bills and things to do, something we genuinely suffered from during my term as Senate Chair. People were bored of the region because it felt like nothing was going on. It's a good idea in theory, but in practice it will do nothing other than hurt our time. I could maybe get behind making a separate region for RP bills, but, you know, the House have already decided that's stupid.
I doubt this will pass the House, if they can't be bothered making more regions for something that will do nothing other than save time, they won't pass something that will do nothing other than get too much stuff done. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.
You need to specify who owns the chamber leadership accounts, by this logic, we could probably be putting it in the hands of the leadership themselves. Which would obviously be a poor idea because the leadership accounts are in the hands of people that have been heavily entrusted with them for the past few years. Putting it in the hands of very easy to upset partisan shrills is going to be nothing short of a disaster.
This is also going to just contribute to more and more embassies that we don't need.
[list][*]I oppose both of these solutions to my problems, but these would make it better:
[list][*]1. Change mentions of "the chamber's RMB" to "a Chamber RMB" e.g "Senators for the a Senate RMB and Members of Parliament for a House of Commons RMB". This would change the vague wording of "a specially designated founder account" and dare I say take some of the direct power to start making affiliate regions out of partisan hands. Usage of them can be by the leadership, sure, but I'd prefer if it were owned by the region's administrators.
[*]2. Just let multiple bills be debated on the floor at one time. The board has never got that cluttered, we aren't going to confuse anyone. This would really quell a lot of my problems with this amendment. I still oppose because we will very quickly run out of content, but this will really fix problems with it. Clearly previous experience has shown us managing puppets is hard, and archive collection is hard, so let's just keep it on one RMB. Problems solved, your proposal is still put in the bill.[/list][/list][/list]
Alrighty, I've edited Amendment B and Brototh agreed with the edits (see Congress server). As for Amendment C, point taken about the founder, I've tried to rectify it, and I've limited the number of regions to 2 so as not to create too many embassies, and it would still fix most problems I see with the current state of affairs.
To be honest, I could get behind one other HoC/Senate RMB; maybe it could come in useful at some point. Don't think we should go entirely overboard, but for now, tentative support.
Full support Amendment B
Senators, we have begun voting on the following amendments to the Congress Regulation Act.
[spoiler=Amendment A]Article V Section I Subsection 3. is removed[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment B]Article XIII is amended to the following:
Section I - Tabling occurs when ongoing chamber business is sidelined by the chamber leader to make way for more urgent business.
Section II - In the event a bill is tabled, its entitled debate and voting times are reset for when it goes back on the floor.
Section III - The chamber leader has the right to table any business at any time.
1. This right is revoked if the bill has been sponsored by at least 3/5ths of the Chamber's members.
2. Motions of no confidence cannot be tabled.
Section IV - This decision may be overruled by a Chamber veto, in which case the business will be immediately brought back to the floor.
1. A veto shall be defined as a dispatch signed by a majority of the Chamber's members.
Article XIV Section IV is amended to:
A chamber will be automatically adjourned exactly 24 hours before whole Chamber elections are held.
[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment C]Subsection 2. b. is added to Article I Section IV:
The chamber leader may put two bills, motions, or hearings to debate at a time, using the regions The House of Commons 2 or The Thaecian Senate 2, which may be created at any time by a specially designated founder account created by a founder of Thaecia. The rest of this act shall apply equally to all House of Commons and Senate RMBs.[/spoiler]
Aye to A and B, Nay to C
[spoiler=Senators]
Dendrobium (SOL)
Emazia (IND)
Ermica (TCU)
Sevae (IND)
Toerana V (IND)
World Trade (IND)[/spoiler]
Aye to all
Aye to all
Aye to A and B, nay to C
Aye to A and B, nay to C
Aye to A, B. Nay to C
A. Aye
B. Aye
C. Nay
Senators, Amendments A and B have passed while C has failed. We have begun voting on the Congress Regulation Act as amended.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1563677
Aye
[spoiler=Senators]
Dendrobium (SOL)
Emazia (IND)
Ermica (TCU)
Sevae (IND)
Toerana V (IND)
World Trade (IND)[/spoiler]
Brototh
Aye
Aye
aye
Aye
Aye
Results:
Aye (7) Ashlawn Dendrobium Emazia Ermica Sevae Toerana V World Trade
Nay (0)
Abstain (0)
The Congress Regulation Act as amended has passed and will be sent to the House.
[spoiler=Speaker]
Andusre[/spoiler]
Senators, we have begun voting on whether to consider the Motion for Thaempirial Army to Withdraw from Confederate Army.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1563690
Nay
Nay
Aye
Nay
Abstain
Results:
Aye (1) Toerana V
Nay (3) Ashlawn Sevae World Trade
Abstain (1) Emazia
Did Not Vote (2) Dendrobium Ermica
The Motion for Thaempirial Army to Withdraw from Confederate Army has failed to receive the necessary support to be considered.
Senators, we have begun debate on the Treaty of Lucent between Europeia and Thaecia.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1560714
I would like to sponsor Taungu to speak on the Senate floor as they have some issues they would like to raise with us.
Taungu
Thank you for sponsoring me Senator ^^
First things first, I would like to make it clear that I am strongly in support a treaty with Europeia, after all, as Seva and Andusre have all spoken about beforehand when the Pact of Non-Aggression Between Thaecia and Europeia was being debated in the Senate with our multitudes of collaborations and interactions from R/D to dual citizens like myself to events and whatnot. Nonetheless, one of the purposes of a legislature is to air potential concerns, of which I have a couple with regards to the present treaty here in the Senate.
---
1. The first issue is with the above clause, which looks to strike the Pact of Non-Aggression and replace it with the treaty, which is all well and good if not for the latter half of the clause which "constitutes the repeal of any prior written documents describing a relationship".
The problem wedged here is that Thaecia has two separate treaties describing a relationship between ourselves and Europeia in the bilateral Non-Aggression Pact and the multilateral Arnhelm Declaration of Recruitment Standards. Through the Arnhelm Declaration, Thaecia established a relationship with Europeia along with a whole array of other regions as signatories of the treaty/declaration, pledging not to recruit from Europeia and vice versa. That relationship, albeit small is caught under that broad umbrella of any prior written documents describing a relationship.
And so, with Europeia and Thaecia having a relationship through the Arnhelm Declaration as signatories, passing this treaty repeals the Arnhelm Declaration, which had originally been passed as a show of good faith to stop future administration from potentially resuming mass-WA recruitment telegrams?
It would be preferable to simply specify that the Pact of Non-Aggression is being repealed in that clause, which avoids that pitfall of repealing the Arnhelm Declaration by the virtue of passing this treaty, or by using supersession which has already been used before in Thaecia law with LR 027, the Pact of Non-Aggression, and is already established with the Constitution's supersession over all other laws.
2. The second is small in comparison to the other two, but I reckon it should be addressed nonetheless, specifically in the use of the term "transferrals" for describing a World Assembly Delegate transition when we have already have the more commonly used term "transition" used in other legislation amendments and a treaty (Poem of the Greats Article 5(3)). Why complicate an already commonly used term with another theoretical definition when we can just use "Delegacy transitions"?
3. The third piece that I find problematic is in the above when the treaty looks to impose a limitation on our sovereignty to grant or cede control, as at a technical level, I don't think it even can do so. A treaty cannot limit our sovereign actions, it can only attempt to impose on our region obligations to other regions that we choose to maintain but remain free to break on a technical standpoint. The ramifications of not following a treaty are just to have the treaty broken, and I frankly doubt a provision saying we cannot cede sovereign control to another entity would be enforceable or appropriate as we effectively appear to be ceding a piece of our sovereignty to another, a daresay large overreach of just a minor provision of a treaty.
And yes, I recognize the point that such a provision in a treaty theoretically reinforces that the treaty is solely between the two regions at play, in this case Thaecia and Europeia, but surely not at what reads as an ironic ceding of sovereignty to the treaty partner?
It would be more appropriate to have a statement stating that if either Thaecia or Europeia cede sovereign control of their respective region to another entity that the treaty is then immediately voided - avoids the pitfalls of a ceding sovereignty and keeps a region's fate solely in its hands, irrespective on how unlikely I see one of us ceding control to another region to be.
---
And to note to some individuals questioning my timing being one of the Senior Diplomats while the treaty was being drafted, I did raise these same points near the end of drafting, myself and Altys had a discussion about whether Arnhelm's limitations and signatories function as a relationship (Altys said they didn't, I disagreed as it is a relationship no matter how small), while the rest of points were not touched upon. Seeing as there wasn't much, if anything that led me to view these problems otherwise and others matters that occupied me in the week interval between then and now, it's prudent to address them at this point while it is still easier.
1. I would very much argue that the Arnhelm Declaration of Recruitment Standards does not constitute a "relationship between the regions". It is very much so what it is- a declaration. It is something that describes regulations that each region on the list have volunteered themselves to follow. None of the regions on the list consented to us joining the organisation- it's not a bilateral treaty and does not describe a relationship that Europeia, Thaecia, and all the other regions on the list, have set out and agreed to follow.
If the treaty said that we could not recruit from any region of any kind, no matter if they had signed it or not, then would we have a relationship with every region in the game? I think that's a very hard push- say for example a region- we'll use Enadia- decides to cut off all relations with Thaecia. Enadia can do this, because we have not signed a bilateral treaty with them, recognising one another. There is no relationship between us- the only sort of relationship that exists is an agreement not to follow malicious recruitment practices.
They would still be subject to the rest of the agreements of this declaration, including that upon Thaecia, because this is not a relationship between the regions- when writing L.R.046 Interregional Foreign Espionage Act (2021) we made it very clear that it meant a bilateral agreement, because of signatories to this declaration. No relationship between Thaecia and Enadia exists- perhaps a hostile one now does exist de facto and in essence, but legally neither region has formed a relationship with the other.
Arnhelm does not describe a relationship between the regions- it sets out some arbitrary rules and regulations to follow, which, if I recall correctly, have been violated by members of this treaty before. This hasn't resulted in them being kicked off the treaty, because it isn't a treaty in the sense it is a relationship between other regions, it is really just arbitrary rules and morals that the signatories of the treaty have placed upon themselves. It describes things that the signatories will do, and as we've seen with regions breaking these rules and then coming back to them when they please, does not in my opinion constitute any sort of relationship between the regions. Instead, again, it is merely a declaration of what regions will do and what legal restrictions they have placed upon themselves. Because there isn't any direct recognition of other signatories, and the loose recognition there is doesn't take into account that some regions might not want to sign a treaty with said region (hell, can we even sign treaties with region at the unilateral demand of another region-hence the lack of relationship- without the agreement of the Senate- that's the real constitutional question), there is no relationship between us and most of the regions on here- those that we have relationships with, are from other events unrelated.
As Altys said, "the treaty's intention isn't to have relationships but to impose limitations". Relationships don't exist.
2. Don't know what to say to this, this is nothing but reaching. It's obvious what it means, this is nothing to get worried over. If this is bad, we should ban all synonyms from the English language and condense everything into one word, because that's what this is, a synonym. It can only mean one thing, it's very obvious what it means, literally no reason for us to care about using a slightly different word that obviously achieves the same purpose- nobody is confused over what it means, this isn't an issue, moving on.
3. No, a treaty cannot limit our sovereign actions, but it is still a statutory provision within the region. This does two things:
a) We have already established precedent in LR 024 and LR 037 that laws can prohibit other laws being debated while they are still bills- if they have poor SPAG, a lack of an author and sponsor in the text, etc- this could very easily prohibit the region from debating on these bills. Thaecia is very much so an established entity in other laws and the constitution (even if not directly saying 'Thaecia is...', by referencing it, we are accepting it as an existing entity), so it isn't wrong to say that we can revoke the right of the legislature to debate bills that would give our control to other regions. Constitutionally, the legislature can still pass them if it receives the correct amount of votes, but the vote stage can never occur because the debate stage is illegal- nothing in the Constitution mandates the debate stage.
b) As you've said, this only explicitly mandates that this is between THA and EIA, and nobody else. By ceding the control of our region to another entity, we are ergo putting Europeia into a situation where they are then forced to sign a region with which they have no relationship - see what I've done there - because they recognise the legitimate government of Thaecia. By giving control of our region to another entity, we are putting both regions in a vulnerable position where they can give up the control of themselves to another region and cause a whole host of problems. Treaties are very much so statutory provisions, and they are thus something that we have to follow, otherwise, there's no point in them existing. Back to it though; Thaecia has never signed a treaty with whatever region Europeia would give themselves up to, and vice versa, so this is a pretty clear cut way of avoiding a massive problem in the future. This provision fixes the issue of giving ourselves up to another region and then causing an interregional bonanza that we really, really don't need to have- this does nothing but good, setting out that the treaty cannot be fulfilled if this is violated, which is then a domestic legal issue, not an interregional one of giving up sovereignty of regions to other states.
An actual constitutional question, can a treaty void itself? Nah, it can't, cause there's no such thing as voiding in Thaecian law, and the closest thing to it would be withdrawal, which requires Senate approval. So whatever resolution you're seeking isn't going to work, I respect it's just a thought, but still, just saying.
Islonia, Sevae
I agree with what Brototh said and obviously still support this treaty.
Also, to Taungu's third point, the thing this clause does is not limiting us in any way. It simply says that if we want to merge with another region, we'll have to exit this treaty - which makes sense because it's wouldn't be a Europeia/Thaecia treaty anymore.
The first two - i can't add anything to it, and also the first one doesn't matter anyway. Even if we assume the Arnhelm declaration will suddenly get repealed (which it won't because its signed by many other regions and is thus not bilateral), Thaecia signed this declaration when we were trying to prove we're past the WA tg bombs, and now all regions know we're past this. If the declaration ever gets repealed, this won't affect our reputation negatively (well, unless we return to WA recruitment which we won't).
Otherwise everything stays the same for me from the previous debate. The NAP was a success, we've had military operations and more double citizens (Peeps has joined Thaecia and already filed a court case, Altys has joined Europeia and also done stuff). So the regions are closer than ever and I'm in support of expanding the relationship. Plus, we'd finally get an onsite embassy!
Islonia
1. Arnhelm is an open, multilateral treaty, being an interregional agreement, bilateral or multilateral, that differs from a declaration in that regions have agreed to bind themselves under law to conform to its provisions. Thaecia, Europeia, The Communist Bloc, LKE etc, bound themselves to follow the provision of the Arnhelm Declaration by signing and ratifying the treaty, thereby pledging themselves to not recruit in another signatory region (Recruitment Standards(9)), lest they find themselves in violation of the provisions and the signatory regions are then allowed to recruit from that region without violating the Arnhelm provisions (Reasonable Justification(10)). These 'rules and regulations to follow' form the relationship that is established between each signatory of Arnhelm. Sure, this isn't a relationship anywhere near the size of a full-blown treaty, but it is a technical operating aspect.
Furthermore, "None of the regions on the list consented to us joining the organisation..." and the point involving Enadia- that's not a requirement for a treaty, Arnhelm is an open treaty, a bilateral and multilateral agreement that allows members not initially parties to them to become signatories, much like the IC example of GAR#2 Rights and Duties of WA States, or the Geneva Convention or the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 where North Korea and Japan signed onto it, while they formally don't recognize each other. Those countries don't recognize each other but they have a technical relationship as outlined to follow the provisions of that convention. So while there might not be an explicit relationship between Thaecia and Enadia other than a hostile one, legally both regions have formed a relationship, no matter how small or arbitrary, by pledging to uphold the recruitment regulations of Arnhelm.
Besides that, to the third paragraph where you state, "Because there isn't any direct recognition of other signatories, and the loose recognition there is doesn't take into account that some regions might not want to sign a treaty with said region...", that doesn't have much relevancy to whether a relationship is formed or not, after all in the last provision of Arnhelm - Residual Provisions(14, 15, 16) - any new signatory is marked down and the prior signatories are notified, the connection remains, no matter how small or technical.
In the case of L.R.046 - that doesn't have much relevancy either to the discussion as that describes an internal situation and response to spying, not anything signed to by other regions. Otherwise, L.R.046 defines an ally as "a region with whom Thaecia has signed and ratified a bilateral treaty", once again, that doesn't change the matter that Thaecia has a technical relationship with regions such as Enadia or LKE through Arnhelm, after all a region can have relations without being an ally through a bilateral treaty, which Arnhelm isn't, as a multilateral treaty.
To what Altys said, "the treaty's intention isn't to have relationships but to impose limitations" - the intention of a treaty does not determine whether a relationship is formed or not, the signatories, the provisions, which establish regulations to follow and what can happen if one breaks the treaty make the relationship, not the intent, leaving our inclusion in the Arnhelm Declaration as no more.
2. What you said is exactly why I emphasized that this is the least concerning of the topics I raised, it's just a synonym that is used less and encountered less than the primarily used term "transition". After all, we've been looking to standardize, simplify, and clarify laws in recent times from the Constitution to Parliamentary procedures, is it not in that same spirit good to standardize what terms we use for Delegacy transitions?
3. For the case of 3a, thank you for the clarifications, and apologies if I misinterpreted any words - but isn't this a statutory provision limiting our sovereign actions by blocking bills on ceding control from reaching the legislative floor? And in your last sentence, even if through the Constitution the legislature still could put such a move forward, an invalid debate stage meaning that voting is never reached renders any such decisions, no matter how unlikely, moot. It's rather ironic that through this clause meant to ensure that the treaty is between two specific sovereign states, we take away a sovereign action.
Then with 3b, other pieces of the treaty draft already ensure that the treaty is between Thaecia and Europeia in which "Europeia will recognize only the legitimate government of Thaecia, as determined by Thaecian law, as representative of the Region and People of Thaecia" and vice versa. And as I'd already addressed in my original post, while the goals of that clause are all well and good, the phrasing and execution is a nightmare of sovereignty questions, neither region should be ceding their right to do as they wish with regards to sovereignty.
Why can't a law void itself? I can remember off the top of my head L.R.043 Congressional Reduction Act 2020 that had a provision to automatically void, or repeal - see what I did there 😛 - itself in its last clause. Beforehand, all other laws that had been repealed were through separate pieces of legislation, so voiding or repealing a law exists in the system. I did forget about that clause in the Constitution, but it could be switched around as ceding either party's sovereignty to somebody else automatically suspends the treaty and obligates a vote in the respective legislatures or other corresponding body to on whether to pass the treaty again and continue the treaty's existence in force or otherwise leaving it suspended, but not withdrawn.
I fully agree and wholeheartedly support a treaty between ourselves and Europeia, we're close and affirming it certainly hurts nobody.
However, we passed the Arnhelm Declaration as a sign of good faith, that this is us showing the world that we wouldn't engage in NS-wide recruitment telegrams, that the past is the past and no future administration of Thaecia would engage in that practice. Why would we remove our show of good faith when even now, a year on, from when those telegrams had happened, people still associate Thaecia with that practice? Why wouldn't we keep this commitment and show off to regions that we still uphold it, when we could just either specify the NAP repeal or supersession as used beforehand in Thaecian law?
---
Interesting points and discussion all around, lovely to have it, even though I might have spent too much time writing this out ^^
The point is, the Arnhelm declaration is not bilateral. Full stop. It makes no sense to argue otherwise. Only bilateral agreements are repealed by this treaty, not any other multilateral ones. Bilateral is defined as "affecting reciprocally two nations or parties", which means exactly two and not any other number.
And for number 3, of course I still don't see how it's relevant as we'll never cede sovereignty, but assuming it is relevant, Treaty Law doesn't supersede Statute Law in Thaecia, so I still don't see how the treaty blocks us from actions in Congress. It could block those actions in the future if we decide to make treaty law more important, but even then, if we decide to merge with another region, we'd just repeal the treaty first and then merge.
Honourable Senators,
It is no secret that I'm not a fan of Europeia, and will be against this treaty regardless of its form, but I believe that Taungu's point, particularly the one in reference to the Arnhelm Declaration are well made.
While the wording does state that this treaty shall be the only bilateral agreement between the two, it then goes on to explicitly state that the treaty repeals any agreement that describes a treaty between the regions. While it may be argued that the Arnhelm Declaration is not a treaty, it is a mere declaration, a statement signed by the Thaecian Government, it was signed by the Government, passed by the Legislature and current resides in our Treaty Index. It also very clearly describes the recruitment relationship between Thaecia and other UCRs, including Europeia. Regardless of how you refer to it, the document explicitly outlines the recruitment relationship between Thaecia and Europeia, as well as others.
It is inherently a document that outlines rules and regulations surrounding recruitment, and therefore formalises some form of relationship between the two parties. However, ultimately only the court can decide whether the passage of this bill constitutes Thaecia's withdrawal from the Declaration.
As for Taungu's second point, I think it's a minor one and not a treaty blocking issue. Although I believe that the choice of language is curious, I'm not familiar enough with Europeian Legislation to know whether this is standard for them or not.
Taungu's third point, in fairness, I think is relatively irrelevant, because if Thaecia ever reaches the point where it chooses to cede Thaecia to another region then Thaecia is very likely not an active region, or has closed, and thus the treaty wouldn't be valid.
However, I am curious as to whether Article 1(3) would prevent a Founder transition, which is a possibility, although likely one we won't face for a significant amount of time, as it would see the Founder ceding the Founder account, and thus the region to another individual. Although I am somewhat curious as to why Europeia requires this, as surely if even the region of Thaecia is in the hands of another entity, the government of Thaecia could still exist in exile? Seems like a quick exit strategy for Europeia if Andy ever goes rogue.
Senators, we have begun voting on the Treaty of Lucent between Europeia and Thaecia.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1560714
Aye
[spoiler=Senators]
Dendrobium (SOL)
Emazia (RPT)
Ermica (TCU)
Sevae (IND)
Toerana V (RPT)
World Trade (IND)[/spoiler]
Toerana V, The Islamic Country Of Honour
aye
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Aye
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Aye
Nay
Aye
Aye
Results:
Aye (6) Ashlawn Dendrobium Emazia Ermica Sevae World Trade
Nay (1) Toerana V
Abstain (0)
The Treaty of Lucent between Europeia and Thaecia has passed.
[spoiler=PM]
The Islamic Country Of Honour[/spoiler]
Senators, we have begun debate on the Amendment to LR 048 PRRA.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1555914
A decent Amendment for solving a simple issue, I don't see a problem here and will most likely be voting in favor.
I concur with my colleague above.
I think that all Justices, including Deputies, should be blocked from elected positions. This is simply due to the fact that in instances like what we have right now, the Deputy Justice is a temporary sitting Justice, and thus it would be the equivalent of letting a proper Justice hold an elected position, which is a very dangerous prospect. By joining the court you accept the fact you've left political life for your tenure.
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Honestly not much left to say. An amendment that is not overly complicated that solves the issue in a clear and concise way (unlike anything I write). I hope to see this amendment pass.
Senators, we have begun voting on the Amendment to LR 048 PRRA.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1555914
Aye
[spoiler=Senators]
Dendrobium (SOL)
Emazia (RPT)
Ermica (TCU)
Sevae (IND)
Toerana V (RPT)
World Trade (IND)[/spoiler]
Toerana V
aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Nay
Results:
Aye (5) Ashlawn Dendrobium Ermica Sevae World Trade
Nay (1) Toerana V
Abstain (1) Emazia
The Amendment to LR 048 PRRA has passed and will be sent to the House.
[spoiler=Speaker]
Andusre[/spoiler]
Senators, we have begun debate on the Repeal of L.R. 036.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1514366
Brototh
All for this one
Brototh
Yep
Brototh
I do not see why we need to get rid of this???? Saying it """serves no purpose""" is clearly a sign of not having read the bill or simply not understanding what is written. L.R. 036 prevents unfair treatment within ministries and chambers of congress and additionally binds an actual solution to it for when it does occur. Honestly not trying to sound disrespectful here myself, but a removal of it is kind of very dumb, and please don't come with the "what about ooc moderation" argument which is too obvious to not see coming. This bill clearly differentiates between ooc moderation and ic cases while making the point necessarily clear that ic is not void of ooc. Thàt is what this bill is for in part. Strongly opposed to the removal of L.R. 036.
Sevae
Due to the approaching general election the current business has been tabled and the Senate is now in recess. It's been wonderful being able to serve with all of you and I hope to see you all next term.
I'd like to express my personal gratitude to both my deputy chairs Dendrobium and Ermica who have decided not to run for re-election. Dendro its been a pleasure serving with you, first as Brototh's Deputy Chairs and later as one of my Deputy Chairs, thank you for your help. Ermica thank you for leading the chamber during the period I was busy. You were a great chair despite my lack of instructions. I wish everyone good luck on their future endeavors.
[spoiler=Senators]
Dendrobium (SOL)
Emazia (RPT)
Ermica (TCU)
Sevae (TGP)
Toerana V (RPT)
World Trade (IND)[/spoiler]
World Trade, Ermica, Dendrobium
By the power invested in me by the Constitution of Thaecia, I now inaugurate the following into the Senate:
With that out of the way, the CDP for chamber leadership elections shall begin. Please post here to declare your candidacy: I'll give you all ~24 hours to declare
Taungu, Ashlawn, Korsinia, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Sevae, Nova Anglicum, Mardis
Rhyssuan Peoples I intend to run for Chairman
Ashlawn, Xernon, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville, Sevae, Mardis
I don't intend to run for Chairman and I endorse Korsinia for the post of Chairman :)
Korsinia, Xernon
I do solemnly swear...
Oh wait
I also don't intend to run and am endorsing Korsinia
Korsinia, Xernon, Creckelenney, The Islamic Country Of Honour
These past few months serving as Chairman of the Senate has been a wonderful experience and I thank the Senators across my tenure who gave me their support. However recently my duties as Chair have become fairly tiring. Therefore I will not be running for Chair this term and I am endorsing Korsinia for Chair.
Korsinia, Xernon, The Islamic Country Of Honour
I will not be standing, and pledge my support to former Prime Minister Korsinia. I worked in his administration and can safely say that he will conduct his duties well as Senate Chairman.
Korsinia, Xernon, The Islamic Country Of Honour
I will not be running and support Korsinia for Chairman.
Korsinia, Xernon, The Islamic Country Of Honour
I thank everyone for the support :)
Xernon, The Islamic Country Of Honour
Post by Laula Suist suppressed by The Chairman Of The Senate.
That's a great decision
Alright everyone, if I'm not mistaken we seem to only have one candidate for Chairperson, but the law stipulates a Q&A that must last at least twelve hours. Practically speaking this means the vote will begin tomorrow. If you have any questions for Korsinia, now is the time to ask them:
[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn
Sevae[/spoiler]
Also, I would ask that only Senators post on this rmb, unless sponsored according to the Senate Procedures Act
Korsinia
Korsinia, besides confirmation hearings what would be the first item that you'd put up for debate this term?
Korsinia
Korsinia are there any bills you won't put up for debate?
Korsinia
I'm still in the process of assembling the new Senate docket, so I have no bill I have decided to be the first one yet
Tho I will prioritise amending the Military bill when that is proposed
As I've said before, I still haven't gotten around to all the bills yet so there's no bill I stand opposed to as of now
Nova Anglicum
Alright everyone, voting for Senate Chairman has begun.
Korsinia: Sevae, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Ashlawn
[spoiler=Senators]Ashlawn
Sevae[/spoiler]
Korsinia
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Korsinia
The Islamic Country Of Honour
I would like to cast my vote in favour of Korsinia.
I vote for Korsinia
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Korsinia
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Korsinia
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Alright everyone, since 24 hours has passed, there's 1 candidate, and Korsinia is the only one who hasn't voted (due to internet issues I believe), they're elected Chairman of the Senate. Ready, set, govern!
I would like to stand forward.
Marvinville, Nova Anglicum, El Eems Islands
I would like to run for Chairman.
Ashlawn, Democratized Peoples, Xernon
I support The Islamic Country Of Honour for Chair
The Islamic Country Of Honour
I support Emazia for chair.
Emazia, Marvinville
I do not intend to run, and I support Emazia for chair
Marvinville
I'm not running
Alright, the Standing Period for Chairman has ended. We shall now move on to the statements period.
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Alright everyone, the statements period is over. Cast your vote for Chairman:
ICH:
Emazia:
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Ich vote ICH
Ashlawn, The Islamic Country Of Honour
I vote for ICH
Ashlawn
I vote ICH
Ashlawn, The Islamic Country Of Honour
Rhyssuan Peoples, Senator Korsinia has indicated his vote in advance in the Congress server, should he be unable to vote due to unavoidable IRL circumstances.
Edit: Korsinia is back, this statement is now redundant
I vote for Emazia.
The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville
I vote Emazia
The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville
I vote for ICH
I vote for emazia
Marvinville
And with that, The Islamic Country Of Honour has won the Chairman Election. You may now conduct Senate business as normal
Ashlawn, The Islamic Country Of Honour
Announcement From the Chairmans Office
I would like to congratulate everyone on earning their seat in this prestigious cabinet.
While most of you know what the duty of a Senator entails, I would still like to give a brief description of it for mainly first-time Senators. As a Senator, we are expected to vet the bills that are placed before us to ensure only proper, meaningful and well-written bills make their way into the Legal Code, and as such, I expect all of you to make your best efforts to find out any potential problems that exist with the bills, and to ensure no loopholes exist in it. For this, you need to check each and every word of the legislations and think in your mind whether it perfectly suits what it means to do and most importantly, dont be afraid to ask questions and discuss among ourselves. For the Senate to work well, we need to ensure we are all doing our bit. Just like in a car, all the tyres are required to make the car move forward, we also need to ensure everyone of us is contributing at the same time to make the Senate move forward.
At the same time, co-operation with the Congress and the Executive is something that Ill highly request you all to maintain. Like us, they are also bodies similarly charged with the same purpose: the welfare and upkeep of Thaecia. We were not elected into this office to make the Senate the superior chamber or for our own political benefits. We were elected to make and set policies that will ultimately usher in a better Thaecia.
It is an honour to have been elected your Chairman to head this Senate for these next four months, an opportunity I greatly cherish. I am also happy to announce that in order to assist me, Korsinia will be joining the Senate leadership in the capacity of Senior Deputy Chairman and Ashlawn will also be joining as the second Deputy Chairman, and once they are confirmed as Minister, they will be replaced by Sevae who has shown exemplary administrative skills during their time in NS.
With that, I declare the Senate open.
Korsinia, Xernon, Sevae
Opening of the Hearings of The Nominees For The Posts of The Foreign Affairs Minister, The Home Affairs Minister, and The Education Minister
In a break from the usual conventions and after thoroughly checking the laws concerning the hearings for the Prime Ministers nominees, I have decided that we will be confirming all the nominees in two batches.
So, now, we will be scrutinising the first batch of the nominees: Nominee for Foreign Affairs Minister Ashlawn, nominee for the Home Affairs Minister Primo Order and the nominee for the Education Minister Nova Anglicum.
You shall have a minimum of 48 hours to ask questions to the nominees and scrutinising them. Should more time be required, I am prepared to extend that by another 24 hours.
While asking questions to the nominees, keep in mind the different factors the nominees should cover in order to allow for a reasonable scrutiny of the nominees:
a) Management Plan of the Nominees which will give the Senators an idea if they can convert their plans into reality
b) Experience relevant to the field which will assure the Senators that they know the challenges they are going to counter in their term in the office
c) Understanding of the core issues affecting the branches they are nominated for
d) Contingency plans should they have to remain away from NS for a while
e) Their opinion on some of the choices they will most likely be making as a Minister
With that being said, and as the Senators know, Nova Anglicum is going to be unavailable for a period of time due to IRL activities and so we asked questions in advance to Nova in the Senate Server of the Congress which they have answered and I have compiled them into a dispatch:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1570372
I suggest you to ask the the nominees questions in separate batches because both of the posts require skills technically different from each other.
So start formulating questions, Senators.
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Xernon
Ashlawn, I am well aware of your extensive experience and knowledge of FA issues, and I also admire your administrative experience and reliability and let it be on record, I am highly in favour of your confirmation. Here are some questions, I however have, to ensure the Senate can scrutnise you well.
a) Ashlawn, can you detail your experience in other regions and Thaecia relevant to the post you have been nominated for?
b) Do you think there is any possibility of a conflict of interest with the other positions you hold abroad?
c) Do you have any particular region who you want Thaecia to open ties with? And if so, why?
d) We have seen how the military and FA are closely related most of the times, and as such, what is your R/D alignment and are you supportive of Thaecias current non-alignment which allows it to raid or defend according to the regions interests?
e) Are you content with the direction and policies of the Foreign Affairs Ministry of the last Administration? Are there any changes you wish to bring upon? If so, why?
f) The Foreign Affairs Council has played a decisive and important role in recent times and are consulted on almost all FA decisions before they are undertaken. Do you wish to continue that? And if not, why do you plan not to?
g)Which one will you focus more on: opening up more ties or strengthening existing ties, or do you wish to do both of them? Explain the reasoning behind your answer.
h) In recent times, the Ambassador post has mainly been utilised for only sending monthly or important updates? What is your thoughts on changing the way the job is usually considered to be, i.e, by interacting regularly with the locals in their assigned regions, bringing updates of any political development to the Diplomats Round Table?
i) There has recently been lots of talks about strengthening ties with our existing allies and embassies, how do you plan to fulfil this objective?
j) If you were to go off from NS for a week or two, what contingency plan do you have in mind to ensure the works of the FA Ministry continue during your absence?
Xernon
Primo Order, I have been a witness to your impressive work ethics and the amazing work and dedication you have when it comes to helping newcomers integrate into our regions and I would like to take this opportunity to commend you for it. However, I have a set of questions for you so that the Senate gets an insight on your aims and plans for the Ministry and let it be known I am highly in favour of your confirmation.
1. The Home Affairs Ministry is the most work-intensive Ministry of the four mandated Ministries. How do you plan to ensure you have the workforce necessary to turn the plans into reality?
2. What is your thoughts on Prime Minister Xernons Shift-Based Recruitment System? My personal thoughts: Its something I am very excited about since manual recruitment not only has some really good advantages, like manual recruitment reaches the nations faster than API and stamp recruitment telegrams do and also has a higher conversion rate and so if we can make it a success, thatll go a long way of ensuring a constant uptick in our numbers.
3. If you were to pick two issues/topics which you would primarily focus on as HAM, what it would be and why?
4. The Inception of The Thaempirial Army has laid bare the gaps in the citizenship rules of Thaecia, which is expected to be fixed in the ongoing Constitutional Convention? How do you plan to navigate the waiver system until then? For the nominee, when I was in charge of waivers during my time as HAM and PM, I used to be quite flexible about the waiver rules, and considered that as long as people return their WAs to the nations they registered with Thaecia within few hours of an op, theyll be allowed to retain their citizenship as the Court doesnt state by when the waivered nations have to return their WA nations to their main registered nations. Furthermore, according to the MCA(Military Commission Act), the soldiers will be allowed to retain their citizenship after they provide a list of the nations they used for the operation. Also, once a nation registered for a waiver with a particular puppet nation, for say JohnLong, the next time they again wish to apply for a waiver with that particular nation, I permit them to just send a DM and declare their intent because they have already verified that particular nation is theirs. Sometimes, if a person isnt sure I might be around for granting the waiver just before the update, they telegram me in advance. Do you plan to continue these or do you have another ways with which you wish to counter the shortcomings of the current Citizenship rules?
5. Retention has been an issue which many notable citizens have raised. Prime Minister Xernon has also mooted the mentor-based integration system, a system which I personally approve of? What are your thoughts on this and how do you plan to fulfil this objective of Prime Minister Xernon?
6. How do you plan to structure the Ministry? I must caution the nominee against over-bureaucratising the Ministry since that results in a slower implementation of the projects and would advise them to form smaller teams, with each of them having a particular task.
7. If you ever were to go on an LOA for a week or two, how do you plan to ensure that in your absence, the Ministry can continue their works?
8. Do you have anyone in mind for Deputy Minister at the moment? If you have, why do you feel they are suited for the job?
Xernon
Damn ICH hogging up the questions 😔
To all [spoiler=nominees]Ashlawn, Primo Order and Nova Anglicum[/spoiler] what are the key areas you will focus on and why those?
Xernon
I'll just note that ICH has asked some great questions and I'm waiting for them to be answered. Then I may ask other questions depending on the responses
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.