Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

I would like to post the following on behalf of Former Prime Minister Brototh, "Repealing the Internship Act especially is utterly ridiculous. Peeps has said himself before that we should have legislation for things we might not need it for, because on NationStates people often find it hard to do things without a law telling them to do so. The internship act sets out the procedures for interns and by positively creating internships, is far more likely to result in their usage for training up legislators than by not having it at all."

We are now voting on the 'Unnecessary Legislation Repeals Act'.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1798726

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I will be voting Nay.

Following the points made, I will be voting nay

The 'Unnecessary Legislation Repeals Act' has failed to pass the Senate 1-4-2.

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I would like to announce that I will be removing Senator New Central Iowa as Junior Deputy Chairman.

We are now debating the 'Acting Minister Act'.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=rayekka/detail=factbook/id=1807437

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I have created this legislation with the help of Orca6771 (Discord name) as at the start of the term, we had an issue where Ministries were held up due to no chairman in this chamber. This bill will put in place proper procedures where Ministers are concerned when there is a resignation, or after a transfer of power. It allows the Prime Minister to temporarily appoint Acting Ministers while awaiting the Senate to confirm a candidate.

Snowflame, Astorius

I have nothing to add aside from saying that I support the bill.

The content of the bill is sensible and I support

We are now voting on the 'Acting Minister Act'.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=rayekka/detail=factbook/id=1807437

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I vote Aye.

Abstain, sorry for inactivity, will try to be more active, wifi issues

The 'Acting Minister Act' has passed the Senate 4-0-3 and will now be sent to the House - Santa Marana.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=rayekka/detail=factbook/id=1807437

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

We are now debating 'Amendments to the Positions Restrictions Act'. This bill has passed the House.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1796160

Author The Ambis has permission to speak in the Chamber during the debate.

My personal opinion is against this bill. The WAD role is a significant one and while doesn't have the same power, is similar to that of the President and is an elected official. I feel with the amount of time it takes to be WAD it would be inappropriate to allow them to be Minister too. It would effectively allow the WAD to be a Minister & Assembly Leader as well. I feel with the workload of each role it would lead to one or more departments being neglected. I intend on voting against.

Snowflame

I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I will have a reasoning for this bill, and be able to respond to questions within 24 hours.

I’m for this legislation in principle. WAD certainly isn’t the same as a Minister, and especially if the executive believes it’s better for the WAD to have an additional portfolio in cabinet, why not. I get the reason for opposition but I don’t see it outweighing the potential usefulness of having the WAD be able to coserve as a Minister.

I completely agree with the Chairman on this issue and am planning on voting against the amendments.

Rayekka

Hello there Senators. Chairman Rayekka, thank you for bringing this bill to the Senate's attention. I will first give my reasoning, then respond to Rayekka's points.

First, I don't do a whole lot. I give recommendations on WA things, and that's about it. Would I potentially like to change that if elected to another term, or even now? Yes, but even then it will not be much more than what I am already doing. I see no reason the WAD cannot do a ministerial job either.

Second, it opens more doors. The Prime Minister pretty much told me that if I were not WAD, I would have been one of his top choices for the position of Domestic Affairs Minister. It seems counterproductive that someone who the Prime Minister believes would do a good job, not be able to do that because of a prior job.

Third, the WAD does not have to be a minister. Ultimately, the choice comes down to the Prime Minister and the Senate. If either feel like the person in question is unfit for the position, then they can either not nominate them, or reject them.

Now to Rayekka's points.

Rayekka wrote:My personal opinion is against this bill. The WAD role is a significant one and while doesn't have the same power, is similar to that of the President and is an elected official.

Alright, sure they hold some overseas power. Do you know what that might mean? You should consider making them the FA minister! Also, the second argument is rather confusing. MPs and Senators are elected positions, and they can be a minister.

Rayekka wrote:I feel with the amount of time it takes to be WAD it would be inappropriate to allow them to be ministers too.

I have clarified above that it does not take a lot of time, and have asked Sunipi for his take on it, as the only other WAD.

Rayekka wrote:It would effectively allow the WAD to be a Minister & Assembly Leader as well. I feel with the workload of each role it would lead to one or more departments being neglected.

The Assembly Leader isn't restricted for a reason. I made sure of that when we passed this bill originally. The Assembly Leader does not have a tremendous amount of workload. Unlike Congress, we don't have an absurd amount of legislation coming through, as the end of my term pointed out. Also, lovely enough, all three of these positions have a recall feature! Admittedly, recalling a minister is rather challenging, as only the Senate can do it, but it is possible. If someone is slacking, go ahead and recall/ remove them.

Snowflame wrote:I completely agree with the Chairman on this issue and am planning on voting against the amendments.

See above.

If any other Senators have questions, feel free to ask here, over on Discord, through telegrams, or via DMs.

I motion for unanimous consent for the following bill:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=snowflame/detail=factbook/id=1783063

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I acknowledge the motion.

New Central Iowa

I would real quickly like to relay a comment that Sunipi, former WAD said on the discord:

Full support - different individuals can manage different workloads, and we should use law to generalise that

This is a complex debate and one that shouldn't be taken lightly, and so I feel very conflicted.

On a personal note, do I think that the WAD should be a Minister simultaneously? No. Is this bill asking for my opinion on this topic, however? No. The bill isn't legislating that this should happen, it is instead accounting for a possibility which could very likely happen. So far, so good.

That said, do we really want to have it written in law that a WAD can also be a Minister? While the job is far less busy than what it has been before as the President, it still requires a level of dedication. So does being a Minister. While the concern for a workload is less significant for me, it still creates a workload that could cause a level of burnout for the nation in both positions. At the same time, a WAD can be Deputy Minister, and a congressperson, which could be perceived as enough opportunities already: being a Minister is overkill.

And need I remind the Senate of the campaigns for PM this last election. Both candidates campaigned on a policy of making the executive more open to all citizens, and bringing in fresh faces. So what message does letting the WAD become a Minister send? For me, it sends a message that is, a) saying that you can't be a Minister without doing important work already, and b) that the role of the WAD isn't important to the region. Frankly, it doesn't reflect that of a region looking to bring in a new guard of faces, and instead is saying in black and white, that if you aren't in the established clique you can't get involved. At this point, personally, not looking good.

Yet I feel obliged to return to my first point, this is only accounting for a possibility and can only happen with backing of the PM and Senate. We aren't closing anyone off from government, and we are just ensuring that there are laws allowing for this to happen.

This debate boils down to a key few ideals. How significant should the WAD be? Are we willing to compromise yet another set of position restrictions to let the same people do more stuff? And how much work is too much work? Personally, I am leaning towards nay here. I feel that the WAD is a separate executive role, and shouldn't be potentially fused with a Ministry. There are other responsibilities to be had apart from a Minister, so why are we increasing this amount?

This is my view and I am open to a debate with anyone who sees otherwise.

I acknowledge the UC

I really enjoyed reading WAD The Ambis & Senator Pap Sculgief's arguments on this. Ambis does make valid points and makes me a realise a couple of my points I made are irrelevant or incorrect and I am happy to go on record and say a couple bits I mentioned were so. However, Senator Pap makes some brilliant points on precedent, what we're showing to citizens, and the fact WAD can be Deputy Minister & Congressperson. The thought of having a WAD who is both Minister & Congressperson does not sit with me. I believe the WAD is a significant role, and therefore I will be standing by my position of Against. If the WAD wants a Ministerial job they have the option to resign.

I would like to note I am very open to the idea of reform Ambis mentioned in his points.

Snowflame

Pap Sculgief wrote:While the concern for a workload is less significant for me, it still creates a workload that could cause a level of burnout for the nation in both positions. At the same time, a WAD can be Deputy Minister, and a congressperson, which could be perceived as enough opportunities already: being a Minister is overkill.

And need I remind the Senate of the campaigns for PM this last election. Both candidates campaigned on a policy of making the executive more open to all citizens, and bringing in fresh faces. So what message does letting the WAD become a Minister send? For me, it sends a message that is, a) saying that you can't be a Minister without doing important work already, and b) that the role of the WAD isn't important to the region. Frankly, it doesn't reflect that of a region looking to bring in a new guard of faces, and instead is saying in black and white, that if you aren't in the established clique you can't get involved. At this point, personally, not looking good.

This debate boils down to a key few ideals. How significant should the WAD be? Are we willing to compromise yet another set of position restrictions to let the same people do more stuff? And how much work is too much work? Personally, I am leaning towards nay here. I feel that the WAD is a separate executive role, and shouldn't be potentially fused with a Ministry. There are other responsibilities to be had apart from a Minister, so why are we increasing this amount?

This is my view and I am open to a debate with anyone who sees otherwise.

These are great points that you bring up, and while I wish I had time to respond, I have found myself (like all of us right now) kind of busy. I will leave you with the fact that I would love for this bill to pass, but understand and respect those who choose to vote against.

Post self-deleted by Rayekka.

We are now voting on 'Amendments to the Positions Restrictions Act'. This bill has passed the House.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1796160

I vote Nay.

Point of Order Rayekka it appears to me that the UC motion made by Senator Snowflame failed to pass. I see only three Senators who acknowledged the motion and the CRA requires a majority (4).

Section III - Any representative may make a motion of unanimous consent that their chamber pass any amendment, bill, motion, or nomination. All representatives in the chamber in which the motion was made must be alerted to the motion. The motion shall be successful if after 24 hours a majority of the representatives in the chamber have acknowledged the motion and no representative has objected. If a chamber adjourns during this time the motion shall fail.

Democratized Peoples wrote:Point of Order Rayekka it appears to me that the UC motion made by Senator Snowflame failed to pass. I see only three Senators who acknowledged the motion and the CRA requires a majority (4).

Section III - Any representative may make a motion of unanimous consent that their chamber pass any amendment, bill, motion, or nomination. All representatives in the chamber in which the motion was made must be alerted to the motion. The motion shall be successful if after 24 hours a majority of the representatives in the chamber have acknowledged the motion and no representative has objected. If a chamber adjourns during this time the motion shall fail.

Thank you Senator for the point of order. I acknowledge I have made a mistake. The post has been deleted and the UC continues to be on the floor.

Snowflame wrote:I motion for unanimous consent for the following bill:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=snowflame/detail=factbook/id=1783063

I am going to declare this UC as failed as it has failed to reach quorum. I will add it to the Senate docket.

The 'Amendments to the Positions Restrictions Act' has failed the Senate 3-3-1.

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

We are now debating Amendments to Congressional Internship Act. This bill was a UC that failed in the Senate, but passed the House.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=snowflame/detail=factbook/id=1783063

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I am in full support of this. I don't really understand why it didn't pass as a UC.

Rayekka wrote:-snip-

I am in full support.

I personally didn't UC because this act is the epitome of useless and actually is worse than useless. It imposes senseless regulations on how MPs and Senators may go about getting assistance that has absolutely no benefit. But as it seems that a majority of this house feels better having it around, I'd like to introduce an amendment that gets rid of most of its bad effects.

[spoiler=Amendment A, Peeps Substitute]Strike the entirety of the bill and replace it with the following:

Section I - Amend Article I Section I of L.R. 064 to read as follows:

[list][*]Section I - Any MP or Senator is allowed to hire one intern.[/list]

Section II - Article II of L.R. 064 is repealed and subsequent articles shall be renumbered accordingly.

Section III - Amend Article III of L.R. 064 to read as follows:

[list][*]Section I - The Chamber Leader will maintain a factbook listing the current interns, with information provided by MPs or Senators as they gain or lose interns. This dispatch will be made readily avaliableavailable on the Chamber's site page.

[*]Section II - Each intern is required tomay maintain a factbook listing how they would have voted for certain bills if they were Members of Congress, and can provide arguments in the factbook as to why if they so choose, these factbooks shall be posted on the factbook referenced in Section I of this Article.

[list][*]Section IIa - Interns will be allowed to post this factbook once on the Chamber's RMB. They must not engage in active bill debate on the RMB and can only post their thoughts on the text of the current bill in question in their factbook.[/list][/list][/spoiler]

This amendment allows MPs and Senators more flexibility in how they choose to use the internship program and gets rid of some of the sillier requirements, including a standardized application format. I'm happy to answer any questions on this amendment.

New Central Iowa

What Peeps?

All the amendments I made do is fix an issue that came up in the original version of the bill that none of us caught until it was signed into law. When I originally made these amendments, I talked with Luka and Alto about it, both of who agreed with my amendments.

You are using this debate not to discuss the issue of the amendments, but to try and overturn the original purpose of the bill that both chambers have already agreed to and which have garnered support across the entire political spectrum.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Peeps' amendments do not get put up for a vote as they involve a different issue entirely from the one at present.

Senators, I think that it is telling that a Senator does not wish for an Amendment to be voted on that preserves the purpose of the bill (adding Senators to L.R. 064) while adding onto it in a germane manner.

Mr. Chairman, the Senate has a long history of not ruling amendments out of order for almost any reason. I would be incredibly disheartened if my germane amendment was the one that broke that streak.

Lego Darkslayer

Democratized Peoples wrote:Senators, I think that it is telling that a Senator does not wish for an Amendment to be voted on that preserves the purpose of the bill (adding Senators to L.R. 064) while adding onto it in a germane manner.

Mr. Chairman, the Senate has a long history of not ruling amendments out of order for almost any reason. I would be incredibly disheartened if my germane amendment was the one that broke that streak.

Rejecting an amendment is not unprecedented, in fact...such a thing happened a few months ago. The truth of the matter is that your amendments are very off topic and have nothing to do with the matter at hand. You are abusing the current debate as a way to spread an agenda that is currently not being discussed.

To continue, just look at the actions of my fellow Senator. He purposefully did not UC the amendments, amendments which do nothing more than give Senators the power to have interns which was accidentally deleted from the final copy of the bill, because of the fact that he didnt like the original bill. He forced a debate just to have the opportunity to try and pass amendments which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

That is why I motion for his amendments to not be put up to vote. It is abundantly clear that he does not like the original bill. That's fine, the Senator is allowed to have his own opinion, but look at what he's doing. He tried to repeal the original bill before it could even be used and he's forcing a debate here when what he wants to debate has nothing to do with what my amendments are trying to accomplish. I understand that the docket doesn't contain many bills, but this is seriously wasting the time of the Senate.

If the Senator truly wants to get rid of the internship bill, he should do so in his own bill instead of attempting to block my amendments because of his political agenda which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Brototh

After much deliberation I have decided to put Amendment A to vote. While I completely understand and somewhat agree with the statements made by the Deputy Chairman, I do believe that while this bill is on the floor, why not use the opportunity to debate further, potentially positive, changes. If the amendment vote fails, then the original bill amendments remain, if it passes, then we’ve saved time and improved the bill. If anyone would like to speak to me more about this please telegram or discord message me.

[spoiler=Amendment A, Peeps Substitute]Strike the entirety of the bill and replace it with the following:

Section I - Amend Article I Section I of L.R. 064 to read as follows:

[list][*]Section I - Any MP or Senator is allowed to hire one intern.[/list]

Section II - Article II of L.R. 064 is repealed and subsequent articles shall be renumbered accordingly.

Section III - Amend Article III of L.R. 064 to read as follows:

[list][*]Section I - The Chamber Leader will maintain a factbook listing the current interns, with information provided by MPs or Senators as they gain or lose interns. This dispatch will be made readily avaliableavailable on the Chamber's site page.

[*]Section II - Each intern is required tomay maintain a factbook listing how they would have voted for certain bills if they were Members of Congress, and can provide arguments in the factbook as to why if they so choose, these factbooks shall be posted on the factbook referenced in Section I of this Article.

[list][*]Section IIa - Interns will be allowed to post this factbook once on the Chamber's RMB. They must not engage in active bill debate on the RMB and can only post their thoughts on the text of the current bill in question in their factbook.[/list][/list][/spoiler]

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I will be voting Aye to the amendment.

Amendment A has passed 4-2-1.

[spoiler=Amendment A, Peeps Substitute]Strike the entirety of the bill and replace it with the following:

Section I - Amend Article I Section I of L.R. 064 to read as follows:

[list][*]Section I - Any MP or Senator is allowed to hire one intern.[/list]

Section II - Article II of L.R. 064 is repealed and subsequent articles shall be renumbered accordingly.

Section III - Amend Article III of L.R. 064 to read as follows:

[list][*]Section I - The Chamber Leader will maintain a factbook listing the current interns, with information provided by MPs or Senators as they gain or lose interns. This dispatch will be made readily avaliableavailable on the Chamber's site page.

[*]Section II - Each intern is required tomay maintain a factbook listing how they would have voted for certain bills if they were Members of Congress, and can provide arguments in the factbook as to why if they so choose, these factbooks shall be posted on the factbook referenced in Section I of this Article.

[list][*]Section IIa - Interns will be allowed to post this factbook once on the Chamber's RMB. They must not engage in active bill debate on the RMB and can only post their thoughts on the text of the current bill in question in their factbook.[/list][/list][/spoiler]

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

We are now voting on Amendments to Congressional Internship Act, as amended. If this passes, as we have amended the bill, it will be sent back to the House.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1812386

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I vote Aye.

The Amendments to Congressional Internship Act, as amended has passed 4-0-3. This bill will be sent back to the House. Santa Marana

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1812386

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

We are now debating 'Amendments to Article VI - Removal and Recall of the Constitution as Amended'. This bill has passed the House.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=santa_marana/detail=factbook/id=1807391

I now invite author Zon Island to explain what this bill changes. Brototh has permission to take part in the debate given they were an amender.

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

Nice changes to make the system a lot more fair and harder for big parties like FREE to kick out smaller names

I'm broadly in support, but I'm really confused on how this is formatted. It seems to get rid of the congressional removal provisions of Article VI and also it seems to only have sub-sections? Here's my amendment to fix this proposal.

[spoiler=Amendment]Amend the bill to read the following:

Section I - Section I of Article VI of the Constitution is amended to read the following:

[list][*]Section I - The people may, by a petition signed by a number of Citizens totaling at least 1/5th the number of votes in the last regularly scheduled Prime Ministerial election or 17, whichever is higher, initiate recall on the World Assembly Delegate, Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or one or more members of either Chamber of Congress. [list][*]Sub-section I - If a qualifying petition naming the any recallable officeholder is presented to the Electoral Commissioner, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a recall referendum for the named positions as soon as possible with two options, one for the individual being removed from office and one against. [*]Sub-section II - If a majority votes for removal, then the officeholder shall be removed from office immediately and an election shall be held for a replacement, if applicable under relevant law. [*]Sub-section III - If a recall petition is presented within 14 days of a regularly scheduled election for that position, no snap election or recall referendum shall be held.[/list][/list][/spoiler]

The only policy change is that recalled individuals may run for office again. It doesn't really make sense to prohibit people from running again, a majority already dislikes that person, but it does protect from someone even less liked by the people from getting in due to someone being banned from office.

i agree with democratized peoples in this situation, while this bill has my full support, it is quite confusing to read, and fails to adequately elaborate upon what specifically in the constitution is being amended.

I agree with Peeps on the formatting point, however, the major policy change that was mentioned, I disagree with. The problem that was mentioned, was that of a less popular candidate being elected due to the banning from office due to the recall. However, if this was a concern of the citizens, then don't vote to recall the official in the first place. The official that would be recalled was removed from office for a reason, a reason that the public would've felt necessary to recall for, so why should they be allowed to stand again. For me, it is a matter of principle, if we allow recalled officials to stand again, then we are taking away the importance of a recall, and could potentially decrease the encouragement for officials to avoid the idea of being recalled.

Overall, if the amendments proposed were simply aesthetic and didn't change anything I would support, and I currently oppose them on the basis of the policy change.

I agree to with Peeps amendment, however, I agree with Pap. I don't believe in the policy change. I believe that those who are removed from office should be barred from standing in the snap election. It is how it is in real life, and it prevents ill-informed voters voting for the person who got removed accidently because it's a big name, for say.

May I propose Democratized Peoples separate their amendments in two? One with the reformatting, and one with the policy change.

Hi, sorry for late response. It seems I forgot to add which section of Article VI is being amended.

However, I do not support the amendment as I do not support allowing the recalled person to stand in the snap election, also I feel the current version is better written but could use some small changes that I did not notice until recently. So I would like to propose my own amendment which if any senator supports, please sponsor.

[spoiler=Amendment]

Section I of Article VI of The Constitution is amended to read as follows:

[list][*]Section I - The people may, by a petition signed by a number of Citizens totaling at least 1/5th the number of votes in the last regularly scheduled Prime Ministerial election or 17, whichever is higher, initiate recall on the World Assembly Delegate, Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or one or more members of either Chamber of Congress.

[list][*]Sub-section I - If a qualifying petition naming the Prime Minister, World Assembly Delegate or one or more member of either Chamber of Congress is presented to the Electoral Commissioner, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a confirmation referendum for the named position(s) as soon as possible. The individual(s) named will retain office throughout the referendum process.

[*]Sub-section II - The confirmation referendum shall ask whether or not the individual named should be recalled from their position. If a simple majority votes to remove the individual from their position, they shall immediately vacate their positionseat, and a regular snap election shall be held to fill the newly-vacant position. If not, the recall shall end.

Sub-section III - If the named individual is removed from their position, they may not run in the proceeding snap election for their position, and if they were a member of Congress, for any seats in their chamber in the proceeding snap election.

Sub-section IV - If a qualifying petition naming the Vice PresidentVice Delegate or Deputy Prime Minister is presented to the Electoral Commissioner, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a referendum on whether or not the individual should continue to hold office, if a simple majority votes against the individual continuing to hold office, they shall be immediately removed.

Sub-section V - If a recall petition is presented within 14 days of a regularly scheduled election for that position, no snap election or recall referendum shall be held.

[/spoiler]

Here's a version disallowing people from running the snap election if they are recalled. I don't fully understand the opposition, but I'll withdraw my previous amendment in favor of this one.

[spoiler=Amendment]Amend the bill to read the following:

Section I - Section I of Article VI of the Constitution is amended to read the following:

[list][*]Section I - The people may, by a petition signed by a number of Citizens totaling at least 1/5th the number of votes in the last regularly scheduled Prime Ministerial election or 17, whichever is higher, initiate recall on the World Assembly Delegate, Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or one or more members of either Chamber of Congress. [list][*]Sub-section I - If a qualifying petition naming the any recallable officeholder is presented to the Electoral Commissioner, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a recall referendum for the named positions as soon as possible with two options, one for the individual being removed from office and one against. [*]Sub-section II - If a majority votes for removal, then the officeholder shall be removed from office immediately and an election shall be held for a replacement, if applicable under relevant laws, the recalled individual shall not be eligible to run in the snap election for the position in which they are recalled. [*]Sub-section III - If a recall petition is presented within 14 days of a regularly scheduled election for that position, no snap election or recall referendum shall be held.[/list][/list][/spoiler]

Zon Island wrote:Hi, sorry for late response. It seems I forgot to add which section of Article VI is being amended.

However, I do not support the amendment as I do not support allowing the recalled person to stand in the snap election, also I feel the current version is better written but could use some small changes that I did not notice until recently. So I would like to propose my own amendment which if any senator supports, please sponsor.

[spoiler=Amendment]

Section I of Article VI of The Constitution is amended to read as follows:

[list][*]Section I - The people may, by a petition signed by a number of Citizens totaling at least 1/5th the number of votes in the last regularly scheduled Prime Ministerial election or 17, whichever is higher, initiate recall on the World Assembly Delegate, Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or one or more members of either Chamber of Congress.

[list][*]Sub-section I - If a qualifying petition naming the Prime Minister, World Assembly Delegate or one or more member of either Chamber of Congress is presented to the Electoral Commissioner, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a confirmation referendum for the named position(s) as soon as possible. The individual(s) named will retain office throughout the referendum process.

[*]Sub-section II - The confirmation referendum shall ask whether or not the individual named should be recalled from their position. If a simple majority votes to remove the individual from their position, they shall immediately vacate their positionseat, and a regular snap election shall be held to fill the newly-vacant position. If not, the recall shall end.

Sub-section III - If the named individual is removed from their position, they may not run in the proceeding snap election for their position, and if they were a member of Congress, for any seats in their chamber in the proceeding snap election.

Sub-section IV - If a qualifying petition naming the Vice PresidentVice Delegate or Deputy Prime Minister is presented to the Electoral Commissioner, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a referendum on whether or not the individual should continue to hold office, if a simple majority votes against the individual continuing to hold office, they shall be immediately removed.

Sub-section V - If a recall petition is presented within 14 days of a regularly scheduled election for that position, no snap election or recall referendum shall be held.

[/spoiler]

From what I can tell is these changes are mainly for position name corrections and clarifications. Therefore I feel it isn't necessary to vote on this, and instead I will implement the changes.

We are now voting on an amendment to 'Amendments to Article VI - Removal and Recall of the Constitution as Amended'.

[spoiler=Amendment]Amend the bill to read the following:

Section I - Section I of Article VI of the Constitution is amended to read the following:

[list][*]Section I - The people may, by a petition signed by a number of Citizens totaling at least 1/5th the number of votes in the last regularly scheduled Prime Ministerial election or 17, whichever is higher, initiate recall on the World Assembly Delegate, Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or one or more members of either Chamber of Congress. [list][*]Sub-section I - If a qualifying petition naming the any recallable officeholder is presented to the Electoral Commissioner, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a recall referendum for the named positions as soon as possible with two options, one for the individual being removed from office and one against. [*]Sub-section II - If a majority votes for removal, then the officeholder shall be removed from office immediately and an election shall be held for a replacement, if applicable under relevant laws, the recalled individual shall not be eligible to run in the snap election for the position in which they are recalled. [*]Sub-section III - If a recall petition is presented within 14 days of a regularly scheduled election for that position, no snap election or recall referendum shall be held.[/list][/list][/spoiler]

I vote Aye as it has kept the rule barring people who were removed from standing in an election.

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

Let the record show that due to the long downtime, the Senate has been in recess since 23rd December and will remain in recess until 2nd January 2023.

We now return from recess and will return to debating 'Amendments to Article VI - Removal and Recall of the Constitution as Amended'. This bill has passed the House.

Original bill: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=santa_marana/detail=factbook/id=1807391

Senator Democratized Peoples introduced Amendment A

[spoiler=Amendment A]Section I - Section I of Article VI of the Constitution is amended to read the following:

[list][*]Section I - The people may, by a petition signed by a number of Citizens totaling at least 1/5th the number of votes in the last regularly scheduled Prime Ministerial election or 17, whichever is higher, initiate recall on the World Assembly Delegate, Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or one or more members of either Chamber of Congress. [list][*]Sub-section I - If a qualifying petition naming the any recallable officeholder is presented to the Electoral Commissioner, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a recall referendum for the named positions as soon as possible with two options, one for the individual being removed from office and one against. [*]Sub-section II - If a majority votes for removal, then the officeholder shall be removed from office immediately and an election shall be held for a replacement, if applicable under relevant laws, the recalled individual shall not be eligible to run in the snap election for the position in which they are recalled. [*]Sub-section III - If a recall petition is presented within 14 days of a regularly scheduled election for that position, no snap election or recall referendum shall be held.[/list][/list][/spoiler]

We will be debating this amendment & the main bill.

Author Zon Island & Amender Brototh have permission to take part in the debate.

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

It has come to my attention that the amendment proposed says the person removed cannot stand if other laws say they cant. No other law does say this, effectively meaning they can stand. I urge the Senator to remove the clause 'if applicable under relevant laws' if not then I will propose an Amendment B.

That’s certainly not the intent and I’d argue not the effect of the amendment that has passed this body. The intent is that if by election shouldn’t happen if we’ve hit the safe harbor deadline before a scheduled election where we don’t hold by-elections. But I’ll introduce the following amendment for clarity.

I also just clarified a lot of things and got rid of the provision where more than one member of Congress can be removed from one recall vote. Multiple petitions can still be presented at once just each one will require their own yes/no on recall.

[spoiler=Substitute Amendment]Replace the bill with the following:

Section I - Section I of Article VI of the Constitution is amended to read the following:

[list][*]Section I - The people may, by a petition signed by a number of Citizens totaling at least 1/5th the number of votes in the last regularly scheduled Prime Ministerial election or 17, whichever is higher, initiate recall on the World Assembly Delegate, Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or a member of either Chamber of Congress.

[list][*]Sub-section I - If a qualifying petition naming any recallable officeholder is presented to the Electoral Commissioner in a period other than within 14 days of a regularly scheduled election for their office, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a recall referendum for the named positions as soon as possible with two options, one for the individual being removed from office and one against.

[*]Sub-section II - If a majority votes for removal the officeholder shall be removed from office immediately and if applicable a snap election shall occur.

[*]Sub-section III - A recalled individual may not run for the position from which they were recalled in the snap election triggered by their recall.[/list][/list][/spoiler]

Democratized Peoples wrote:That’s certainly not the intent and I’d argue not the effect of the amendment that has passed this body. The intent is that if by election shouldn’t happen if we’ve hit the safe harbor deadline before a scheduled election where we don’t hold by-elections. But I’ll introduce the following amendment for clarity.

I also just clarified a lot of things and got rid of the provision where more than one member of Congress can be removed from one recall vote. Multiple petitions can still be presented at once just each one will require their own yes/no on recall.

[spoiler=Substitute Amendment]Replace the bill with the following:

Section I - Section I of Article VI of the Constitution is amended to read the following:

[list][*]Section I - The people may, by a petition signed by a number of Citizens totaling at least 1/5th the number of votes in the last regularly scheduled Prime Ministerial election or 17, whichever is higher, initiate recall on the World Assembly Delegate, Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or a member of either Chamber of Congress.

[list][*]Sub-section I - If a qualifying petition naming any recallable officeholder is presented to the Electoral Commissioner in a period other than within 14 days of a regularly scheduled election for their office, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a recall referendum for the named positions as soon as possible with two options, one for the individual being removed from office and one against.

[*]Sub-section II - If a majority votes for removal the officeholder shall be removed from office immediately and if applicable a snap election shall occur.

[*]Sub-section III - A recalled individual may not run for the position from which they were recalled in the snap election triggered by their recall.[/list][/list][/spoiler]

There is already a part inside the Constitution and the bill that says a special election should not be held within 14 days of a scheduled election.

I would recommend that you change "recallable officeholder" to "the positions World Assembly Delegate, Prime Minister, or a member of either Chamber of Congress" as there is another sub-section that is for the recall of the Deputy Prime Minister and Vice Delegate in the bill.

You might also want to add that if a majority does not support the recall of a officeholder that it ends and the person keeps their position.

The 14 day threshold here is to also say the recall process itself (not just the snap election) can’t start within 14 days of a general election.

As for the second point, it’s taken care of by the “if applicable” at the end of sun-section II. A snap election wouldn’t be applicable for a vacancy in the office of Deputy Prime Minister.

For the last one, I think it doesn’t need to be stated. Hold vote and then if a then b but if c nothing.

We are now voting on Amendment B -

[spoiler=Amendment B]Replace the bill with the following:

Section I - Section I of Article VI of the Constitution is amended to read the following:

[list][*]Section I - The people may, by a petition signed by a number of Citizens totaling at least 1/5th the number of votes in the last regularly scheduled Prime Ministerial election or 17, whichever is higher, initiate recall on the World Assembly Delegate, Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or a member of either Chamber of Congress.

[list][*]Sub-section I - If a qualifying petition naming any recallable officeholder is presented to the Electoral Commissioner in a period other than within 14 days of a regularly scheduled election for their office, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a recall referendum for the named positions as soon as possible with two options, one for the individual being removed from office and one against.

[*]Sub-section II - If a majority votes for removal the officeholder shall be removed from office immediately and if applicable a snap election shall occur.

[*]Sub-section III - A recalled individual may not run for the position from which they were recalled in the snap election triggered by their recall.[/list][/list][/spoiler]

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I feel this solves all problems I have with the bills and previous amendments. I vote Aye.

Rayekka wrote:We are now voting on Amendment B -

[spoiler=Amendment B]Replace the bill with the following:

Section I - Section I of Article VI of the Constitution is amended to read the following:

[list][*]Section I - The people may, by a petition signed by a number of Citizens totaling at least 1/5th the number of votes in the last regularly scheduled Prime Ministerial election or 17, whichever is higher, initiate recall on the World Assembly Delegate, Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or a member of either Chamber of Congress.

[list][*]Sub-section I - If a qualifying petition naming any recallable officeholder is presented to the Electoral Commissioner in a period other than within 14 days of a regularly scheduled election for their office, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a recall referendum for the named positions as soon as possible with two options, one for the individual being removed from office and one against.

[*]Sub-section II - If a majority votes for removal the officeholder shall be removed from office immediately and if applicable a snap election shall occur.

[*]Sub-section III - A recalled individual may not run for the position from which they were recalled in the snap election triggered by their recall.[/list][/list][/spoiler]

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I feel this solves all problems I have with the bills and previous amendments. I vote Aye.

Abstain.

Democratized Peoples wrote:The 14 day threshold here is to also say the recall process itself (not just the snap election) can’t start within 14 days of a general election.

As for the second point, it’s taken care of by the “if applicable” at the end of sun-section II. A snap election wouldn’t be applicable for a vacancy in the office of Deputy Prime Minister.

For the last one, I think it doesn’t need to be stated. Hold vote and then if a then b but if c nothing.

The Constitution in it current form already has a part on the recall referundum and snap election not being held within 14 days of a scheduled election.

Rayekka wrote:We are now voting on Amendment B -

[spoiler=Amendment B]Replace the bill with the following:

Section I - Section I of Article VI of the Constitution is amended to read the following:

[list][*]Section I - The people may, by a petition signed by a number of Citizens totaling at least 1/5th the number of votes in the last regularly scheduled Prime Ministerial election or 17, whichever is higher, initiate recall on the World Assembly Delegate, Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or a member of either Chamber of Congress.

[list][*]Sub-section I - If a qualifying petition naming any recallable officeholder is presented to the Electoral Commissioner in a period other than within 14 days of a regularly scheduled election for their office, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a recall referendum for the named positions as soon as possible with two options, one for the individual being removed from office and one against.

[*]Sub-section II - If a majority votes for removal the officeholder shall be removed from office immediately and if applicable a snap election shall occur.

[*]Sub-section III - A recalled individual may not run for the position from which they were recalled in the snap election triggered by their recall.[/list][/list][/spoiler]

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

A reminder to vote on this amendment. I will close the vote tomorrow. Given it is New Year I am allowing more time for the remaining Senators to vote.

Amendment B has passed 3-0-4.

We are now voting on the Amendments to Article VI - Removal and Recall of the Constitution as Amended by the Senate after the passage of Amendment B. Should this pass the Senate, it will be sent back to the House as we have made an amendment.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=chairman_rayekka/detail=factbook/id=1817128

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I vote Aye.

Post self-deleted by Rayekka.

Rayekka wrote:We are now voting on the Amendments to Article VI - Removal and Recall of the Constitution as Amended by the Senate after the passage of Amendment B. Should this pass the Senate, it will be sent back to the House as we have made an amendment.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=chairman_rayekka/detail=factbook/id=1817128

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

A reminder to vote

apologies havent been on NS in a while, anyways im abstaining

The Amendments to Article VI - Removal and Recall of the Constitution as Amended by the Senate has passed and will be sent back to the House after the House elections.

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

We are now debating the Political Party Deemphasization Act.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1784174

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I am personally in opposition to this bill. I believe Political Parties still have a place in Thaecia and it should be citizens right to form them, and if a candidate runs under a party, the candidate should be listed as such to ensure citizens are well informed when casting their ballot.

Snowflame, New Central Iowa

I completely agree with the words echoed by the Chairman. Political Parties are an important part of Thaecian culture and an important part of our politics. I do not support any attempt to abolish or change that culture.

New Central Iowa

Thank you Chair.

This bill is simple. It does two things. The first is to rid political parties of the onerous requirements found in LR58. Parties won't be subjected to deregistration if they don't do menial tasks unrelated to their actual job in our governmental system. They will instead be able to focus on advocating for the positions they believe in and the candidates they trust.

The second is it removes party affiliation from the ballot. Candidates should have to campaign. If they are affiliated with a party that's great, but they should have to advertise that affiliation and why it matters to them. Three letters after a name should not mean that someone is elected or defeated on their own.

What this bill does not do is remove political parties from our system of elections and politics. It just streamlines their operations and makes advertisement of what they stand for and who to vote for more important.

I urge all members to vote aye on this piece of legislation.

We are now voting on the Political Party Deemphasization Act.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1784174

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I vote Nay.

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