Post Archive
Region: The Thaecian Senate
Specifically, whenever the Executive makes use of the Thaempirial Army, they shall inform and interact with the Chairperson of the Senate, who then shall pass on information to the Senate, the Foreign Affairs Minister, and the Speaker of the House of Commons, as equal partners.
What is the use of informing the Speaker of the House? They have no role in the decision-making process, and can not do anything about the operations. I see it as an additional headache that might develop in the future if the Speaker is someone who should not know about the operation.
Griefing shall be defined as refounding of an occupied region, applying passwords to an occupied region, or the ejection/banjection of inhabitants of occupied regions.
While I mostly agree with the definition offered by the author, I do believe it should be broadened to include closure of the regions embassies with others, except with regions mentioned in the Section V. There are some regions, like The Embassy, that primarily pride themselves on the enormous number of embassies they have, and closing them is a big loss to regions like them.
A Thaempirial Army member who defies the order to withdraw from the operation in question shall be expelled from the Thaempirial Army and shall never be readmitted.
What if the Army Solider falls inactive in the midst of the piling in the operation which was later found to have involved acts of griefing? So I support adding the word knowingly and thus editing the clause who defies the order knowingly because you could argue they will be defying the order because they didnt move out even though they were not aware or were there on NS in the first place during that time period.
Section V - This article shall not apply to regions that are fascist, racially supremacist, or LGBTQphobic in nature.
I highly appreciate the authors decision to include this clause, and I think we should further broaden it to include regions which have found to spew anti-Semitic or Islamophobic statements, as we know, there are people who get attacked and are the targets of hate statements for the religion they follow as well.
The Thaempirial Army may not admit anyone who has been tried and found guilty of treason.
While the later parts of the sections heavily imply the member has to be found guilty in a Thaecian court and thus treason here refers to treason committed against the region of Thaecia, I do not think it hurts to clarify it and say treason against the region.
The Senate may also, at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense and by a motion passed with a simple majority, exclude any region from the protections afforded by this article.:
I think we should allow the Prime Minister to be able to request the Senate to perform that action because at the end of the day, neither the President or the Secretary of Defence are primarily in charge of deciding our actions towards other regions in the game.
Extra Policy Contemplations
And also something I noticed is that, there is no impeachment mechanism mentioned for the Secretary of Defence in the bill. Shouldnt they be accountable to the Congress as well? For example, if a Secretary is grossly abusing their powers and the President doesnt fire the Secretary, they get to remain in their position, leaving the regions military standing at a risk.
Also, I think it should be specified and defined what is meant by The Executive.
I support these amendments, it adds more flexibility to the military. The military is an important part of the region and these amendments will help it.
1. Support to an extent- I do not support informing the Speaker, neither does Andusre. However, this was included as the best compromise possible. In my opinion, it is not reasonably possible for the House of Commons to consent to removing this- at the very least, it has been heavily opposed by the citizenry in several polls in the past. I would appreciate an amendment to change this, but I feel that even if the Senate passes it, all it will do is needlessly sink the bill. This is the best case scenario we have as of right now.
2. Opposed, closing embassies is not uncommon. Obviously we are not going to do something like the Embassy, but say we are detagging a region. Raider organisations will routinely create embassies with the region they are tagging and the region they came from. Removing the embassy is an important step. Banning embassy closures apart from Section V is a poor idea, and I think that amending it even further to try and get around every possible situation is unrealistic- sometimes, things like this are better left opened. We can't restrict every little action the military does- and realistically, we are not going to sink our entire international and domestic reputations by doing an Embassy raid. The probability of us doing so is extraordinarily low and removing the ability to close embassies is not helping anyone.
3. Opposed, because the very definition of defy implies knowingly: "openly resist or refuse to obey". If you are inactive, you cannot refuse to obey. Besides, intent of the accused is already a concept in Thaecian law as per Legislative Resolution 044 Thaecia Indictable Offences Act- while that specifically applies to that law, it is an important thing to understand in general. If they are inactive, they are not defying the order, simple as- they can defy the order as much as they can obey it, that is to say, not at all.
4. Support- but I suggest an amendment that would either change it to simply 'racist' or also include 'religious hate'- more religions exist than just Judaism and Islam that are persecuted, of course, in the West, I would say these are the most I see hated on, but this works in general. Islamophobia and religious hate has been variously described as types of racism before, so it would work here as well.
5. Opposed- the Constitution of Thaecia protects the right to due process. That's why if you're found guilty of a crime in the East Pacific you won't be instantaneously banned here, because our courts are separate. Finding someone guilty of treason in another region and then trying to apply said punishments here will only result in you being laughed at. Additionally, the new Constitution will assume people innocent before guilty if I recall correctly, which is also a step.
6. Support to an extent- I would support adding the Prime Minister, but I would not support removing the SoDf and President. They are the two in charge of the military on a daily basis, removing them from this would be in my opinion, extremely foolish, considering as I said, they are the very two individuals running the military.
7. Support- I would agree with the idea of adding a way for the Senate to recall the Secretary of Defence with a simple majority vote. Feel free to amend the bill, I would suggest an Amendment to Article I Section IV.
8. Oppose- I think it's blatantly obvious that the Executive means the Executive Branch as detailed in the Constitution- (the President [in new Constitution],) the Prime Minister, and Ministers. Unneeded extra detail.
[spoiler=Amendment A]
Article-I, Section IV: The Secretary of Defence can be unilaterally dismissed by the President.
Changed to,
Article-I, Section-IV: The Secretary of Defence can be dismissed through unilateral dismissal by the President or a vote of no-confidence by the Senate, with an absolute majority required for the vote of no-confidence to succeed.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment B]
Article III, Section V: This article shall not apply to regions that are fascist, racially supremacist, or LGBTQphobic in nature.
Changed to,
Article III, Section V: This article shall not apply to regions that are fascist, racist, or LGBTQphobic in nature.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment C]
Article III, Section V(a): The Senate may also, at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense and by a motion passed with a simple majority, exclude any region from the protections afforded by this article.
Changed to,
Article III, Section V(a): The Senate may also, at the request of the President, Prime Minister or Secretary of Defense and by a motion passed with a simple majority, exclude any region from the protections afforded by this article.[/spoiler]
By the power invested in me by the Constitution of Thaecia, I now inaugurate Baobab In Thaecia into the Senate.
The Islamic Country Of Honour
[spoiler=Amendment D]Section IVa of Article II is removed[/spoiler]
The amendment is to remove the section that limits the military's ability to go on operations and thus I don't like it. Why should the Senate being adjourned stop us from an operation that would be beneficial to our Foreign Affairs.
I support the rest of the bill and the amendments
Sevae, the section you intend to remove, prevents a loophole that allows the military to possibly go on a controversial operation which they are aware might be rejected by the Senate due to questions regarding it, and so, removing this prevents the Senate from acting to stop a rogue or controversial usage of the military by its leaders. While I am pretty sure the present military leadership is transparent and has a great deal of knowledge and care for our region's FA, I cannot guarantee the same for the people who might possibly come after them. So we always have to have such checks and balances in place, so that no matter who's the leader, they won't be able to drive our army into the ground. And a single untoward incident can cause some irreversible damage to our image abroad.
I don't want that. I think it's unnecessary since our Court is so inactive that they could take like a week to verify results, taking away a significant period of time where many things can happen. Example - The East Pacific has been couped during our election, and we have to provide assistance to the legitimate government. If we don't do it it could be couped permanently and we'll lose an ally. That's too much of a risk to take to prevent some illegal operation that a newly elected government that the people trust will suddenly conduct.
This is a very valid point and something with which I agree. But I still have not shed my concerns about the possible loophole that the removal of this clause enables, and so I was thinking about a solution where both of our concerns are addressed. I had an idea in my mind, which is, when the Senate is adjourned or has more than half of its seat vacant, we can only conduct liberations or support/aid to help another region's legitimate government, as recognized by the Thaecian Government, and fash bashes. Is this fine with you and the authors? I have not settled the details of it yet, since I wanted to speak to you all before doing so, but this is one solution that addresses both mine and Sevae's concerns.
Sevae
I agree
Now type a 19 thousand word essay on why you agree you have 2 days
Of Altonianic Islands, Emazia, Sevae
Okay, after consultations with the relevant authorities and after some contemplations, I have come to the conclusion that Sevaes amendment is the right path forward.
Amending that critical part of the law, rather than striking it out, might open a new can of worms of loopholes rather than fixing anything while Sevaes amendment ensures both that our military operations are still well-scrutinised and are free to be conducted at any time.
Even though when the Senate is adjourned and thus a motion can not be moved, the Senators must still be updated about the military informations, and if the Senators raise any concern about how it might impeach our FA, the Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, who are also required to be informed, will take note of that and take due action. So we still have three layers of security: Senate, Prime Minister and FAM. So any concerns about how the Military might misuse this power granted to them during elections is not valid.
I have an amendment.
[spoiler=Amendment E]
Amends Article II, Section V to be read as
Section V - The Prime Minister shall have the authority to veto or withdraw participation in a military operation for any reason, but that reason must be given to the Secretary of Defence. The Foreign Affairs Minister shall be able to veto participation in an operation only if said participation would incur significant harm to the region's Foreign Affairs. The Prime Minister shall have the authority to overturn this veto.[/spoiler]
I noticed that while the bill states the PM can veto the militarys participation in an operation, it does not state whether they have the power to withdraw the regions military from an operation when it is underway. I highly support giving the Prime Minister this authority because if they see that the militarys continued participation might hurt the regions standing, which was the opposite of what they expected when they entered into the op in the first place, they should have the authority to ask the military to withdraw from the operation, in case the SoDf and the President refuses to do so. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister is the regions Foreign Affairs head, and so it makes sense for them to be given this additional authority.
Closing of the Debate Stage and Opening of the Voting Stage on the Amendments
We are now voting on the 5 (five) amendments proposed by our Senators.
The amendments are listed below:
[spoiler=Amendment A]
Article-I, Section IV: The Secretary of Defence can be unilaterally dismissed by the President.
Changed to,
Article-I, Section-IV: The Secretary of Defence can be dismissed through unilateral dismissal by the President or a vote of no-confidence by the Senate, with an absolute majority required for the vote of no-confidence to succeed.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment B]
Article III, Section V: This article shall not apply to regions that are fascist, racially supremacist, or LGBTQphobic in nature.
Changed to,
Article III, Section V: This article shall not apply to regions that are fascist, racist, or LGBTQphobic in nature.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment C]
Article III, Section V(a): The Senate may also, at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense and by a motion passed with a simple majority, exclude any region from the protections afforded by this article.
Changed to,
Article III, Section V(a): The Senate may also, at the request of the President, Prime Minister or Secretary of Defense and by a motion passed with a simple majority, exclude any region from the protections afforded by this article.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment D]
Section IVa of Article II is removed.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment E]
Amends Article II, Section V to be read as
Section V - The Prime Minister shall have the authority to veto or withdraw participation in a military operation for any reason, but that reason must be given to the Secretary of Defence. The Foreign Affairs Minister shall be able to veto participation in an operation only if said participation would incur significant harm to the region's Foreign Affairs. The Prime Minister shall have the authority to overturn this veto.[/spoiler]
[Spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Amendment A: Aye
Amendment B: Aye
Amendment C: Aye
Amendment D: Aye
Amendment E: Aye
Amendment A: Aye
Amendment B: Aye
Amendment C: Aye
Amendment D: Aye
Amendment E: Aye
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Aye to all
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Aye to all
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Aye to all
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Aye to all
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Closing of the Voting Period on the Amendments and Opening of the Voting on the Amended Bill
Senators, thank you for voting on the amendments.
As it stands, all the amendments have passed with each of the amendments receiving the support of six Senators (Sevae, Nova Anglicum, Baobab In Thaecia, Emazia, Creckelenney and The Islamic Country Of Honour).
We are now voting on the amended version of the bill.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1582361
[spoiler=Senators]
Baobab In Thaecia[/spoiler]
Aye
Chairman The Islamic Country Of Honour
Abstain. I'll admit I've been a bit inactive recently, but it is my opinion that this bill is better than LR040 in many places, but is also worse in others.
Aye
Chairman The Islamic Country Of Honour
Aye
Chairman The Islamic Country Of Honour
Aye
Chairman The Islamic Country Of Honour
Aye
Closing of the Voting Stage and the Passage of Amendments to the Military Commision Act
Since the outcome of this business is unlikely to be affected by the remaining votes, the Senate, hereby, closes the vote on Amendments to the Military Commission Act.
5 Senators (Ashlawn, Sevae, Baobab in Thaecia, Nova Anglicum, and The Islamic Country of Honour) have voted in favour of this proposal, one Senator has willingly exercised their option to abstain (Emazia) while one Senator (Creckelenney) has not voted.
As such, Amendment to the Military Commission Act hereby passes the Senate and is thus passed to the House.
Sma Cyrillic, I hereby present to you the Amendments to the Military Commission Act.
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Opening of the Debate Period on the Amendments to Legislative Resolution 047: The Constitutional Convention Act
Senators, we are now debating on the Amendments to Legislative Resolution 047: The Constitutional Convention Act
The author Democratized Peoples, is granted the permission to speak on this Chamber floor during the debate.
[spoiler=Senators]
Baobab In Thaecia[/spoiler]
I am sponsoring that, just to inform.
I wholeheartedly support this amendment.
Same
Full support
These are some fairly reasonable amendments, and I am most certainly going to vote in favour once I open the voting.
The first amendment, ensures that we dont have to put a temporary suspension on our business in the Convention to fix trivial language issues to prevent contradictions, for instance. And putting such a minor correction to a public vote is also a waste of time and energy, when these two finite resources could be put to use in other regional processes, and it is a good move from the author to recognise it.
The second amendment gives the Convention the flexibility to shift to another platform, as they fit, and at-least specifies which platforms the Convention can be held on. Earlier and still now, there have been concerns among some about using Discord for the Convention and should the Convention Leadership see a decent reasoning behind it, they can shift over to the RMB or another platforms, as long as ot is accessible to all our citizens.
Closing of the Debate Stage and Opening of the Voting Stage
Senators, thanks for meaningfully debating the proposal placed on the floor.
We are now voting on the Amendments to LR 047: The Constitutional Convention Act
The Senate shall have a maximum of 24 hours to vote on this proposal and as such I urge the Senators to quickly vote.
[spoiler=Senator]
Emazia[/spoiler]
Aye
Aye
aye
Aye
Aye
Closing of the Vote on the Amendments to LR 047
Since the minimum time of 24 hours have passed, and the fate of this bill is unlikely to be changed by the remaining two votes, I am closing the vote on the Amendments to LR 047: The Constitutional Convention Act.
As it stands, the bill passes with the vote of 5 Senators (Senators Sevae, Emazia, Nova Anglicum, Baobab In Thaecia, The Islamic Country Of Honour voting in favour of it, and 2 Senators (Senators Ashlawn and Creckelenney) have not voted.
Speaker Sma Cyrillic, I present to you the Amendments to LR 047: The Constitutional Convention Act.
[spoiler=Senator]
Emazia[/spoiler]
Opening of the Debate Period on the Amendments to Legislative Resolution 039-the Law Registry Act
Senators, we are now debating on the Amendments to the Legislation Resolution 049 - the Law Registry Act (2020).
The author, Brototh, is granted permission to speak on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate.
[spoiler=Senators]
Emazia[/spoiler]
I'm in full support of these amendments, they seem fine to me.
I propose an Amendment to this Bill
[spoiler=Amendment A]Adds to Article I, Article II, all removals in italics and additions in bold,
Amends Article I Section II to read as follows,
Section II - All bills that pass through Congress (that are not vetoed by the Prime Minister, in the event it does not receive a 2/3 majority) turn from Bills into Acts when they are signed off by Congress. Bills become law as soon as both chambers of Congress approve them, and in limited circumstances, the Prime Minister must choose not to veto it. When a bill passes through Congress, fulfilling legal requirements to become law, it shall lose the suffix of 'bill', to be defined as legislation that has not yet been passed through Congress, and gains the suffix 'Act', to be defined as the opposite. This shall be reflected in the name of the law in the Registry.
Section IIa - Constitutional Amendments shall not be considered 'acts' for the purpose of this Act only, as so that they are not included in the Law Registry.
Amends Article II Section II to read as follows,
Section II - All bills that pass through Congress and are signed into law by the Prime Minister turn from Bills into Acts when they are signed off by Congress. Bills become law as soon as both chambers of Congress approve them, and in limited circumstances, if a referendum that the bill requires passes, or the Prime Minister must pass it into law. When a bill passes through Congress, fulfilling legal requirements to become law, it shall lose the suffix of 'bill', to be defined as legislation that has not yet been passed through Congress, and gains the suffix 'Act', to be defined as the opposite. This shall be reflected in the name of the law in the Registry.
Section IIa - Constitutional Amendments shall not be considered 'acts' for the purpose of this Act only, as so that they are not included in the Law Registry.
Renumbers any sections appropriately, if needed.[/spoiler]
I am not happy with the current state of the law. This amendment resolves any potentially unconstitutional issues, and resolves the issue of constitutional amendments being included with legislative resolutions. I was going to strike this entirely initially as suggested by Democratized Peoples, but the bill uses the terminology 'act' several times as to refer to already passed bills. As such, I felt it neccesary to keep in some loose definition of what the bill considers to be an Act and what it considers to be a Bill.
As not to interfere with Legislative Resolution 051 the Congress Regulation Act, or any other prospective laws, the bill makes it explicitly clear that these definitions apply to this bill only.
I request a Senator to sponsor this amendment.
The Islamic Country Of Honour
I sponsor this amendment.
Brototh
I support the bill and amendments
I went through the amendments one last time (will do so once more before voting) and I have no objections to the content. I would like to ask all my fellow Senators, and the author Brototh, if it will be feasible and okay to add a registry containing all sorts of motions, because some of the motions, like the ones for hearing, will not qualify as a bill as it requires the assent of a singular Chamber.
I feel that something like this should require a separate bill, and I think we could probably just do that anyway unilaterally like we did with the treaty index, so it feels unneccesary and I would definitely oppose piling it in with these amendments.
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Closing of the Debate on The LR 039 and Opening of the Vote on the Amendments
Since none of the Senators have expressed any intent to continue debating, I am hereby closing the debate on the Amendments to the LR 039.
We are now voting on the amendment originally proposed by Brototh, and sponsored by The Islamic Country Of Honour
[spoiler=Amendment A]
Adds to Article I, Article II, all removals in italics and additions in bold,
Amends Article I Section II to read as follows,
Section II - All bills that pass through Congress (that are not vetoed by the Prime Minister, in the event it does not receive a 2/3 majority) turn from Bills into Acts when they are signed off by Congress. Bills become law as soon as both chambers of Congress approve them, and in limited circumstances, the Prime Minister must choose not to veto it. When a bill passes through Congress, fulfilling legal requirements to become law, it shall lose the suffix of 'bill', to be defined as legislation that has not yet been passed through Congress, and gains the suffix 'Act', to be defined as the opposite. This shall be reflected in the name of the law in the Registry.
Section IIa - Constitutional Amendments shall not be considered 'acts' for the purpose of this Act only, as so that they are not included in the Law Registry.
Amends Article II Section II to read as follows,
Section II - All bills that pass through Congress and are signed into law by the Prime Minister turn from Bills into Acts when they are signed off by Congress. Bills become law as soon as both chambers of Congress approve them, and in limited circumstances, if a referendum that the bill requires passes, or the Prime Minister must pass it into law. When a bill passes through Congress, fulfilling legal requirements to become law, it shall lose the suffix of 'bill', to be defined as legislation that has not yet been passed through Congress, and gains the suffix 'Act', to be defined as the opposite. This shall be reflected in the name of the law in the Registry.
Section IIa - Constitutional Amendments shall not be considered 'acts' for the purpose of this Act only, as so that they are not included in the Law Registry.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Senators]
Creckelenney[/spoiler]
Aye
Aye
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Aye
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Aye
The Islamic Country Of Honour
Aye
Aye
Closing of the vote on the amendments to the amendments to LR39 and opening of the vote on the amendments to LR39
We are now voting on Amendments to LR39 https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1572368
[spoiler=Senators]
The Islamic Country Of Honour[/spoiler]
"Amendments to LR 49" :really:
also that dispatch is like outdated gimme 5 minutes ill update it
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Edited the post to make it LR39 :p also sorry for not pinging on discord
Aye
Closing of the vote on Amendments to LR 39
Aye:
Did not vote:
The amendments to LR39 have passed 6-0-1
Opening of debate on the Deputy Minister Reform Act
We are now debating the following https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1579168
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment A]Article I is amended to:
Section I - Ministers shall each have the authority to appoint any number of Deputy Ministers, one of whom is designated a Senior Deputy Minister. A Deputy Minister must be approved by the Prime Minister.
Sub-section I - Deputy Ministers shall serve at the pleasure of their Minister and the Prime Minister and shall have the authority to conduct tasks delegated to them by the Minister.
Section II - A Senior Deputy Minister shall become the Acting Minister under one of the following conditions:
Sub-Section I - The Minister temporarily gives the Deputy Minister permission to act on behalf of the Minister.
Sub-Section II - The Minister resigns, is dismissed by the Prime Minister, is ejected from the region, or otherwise loses their citizenship. Should a Minister lose their job through any of these means when there is no Deputy, the Prime Minister shall be allowed to select a Thaecian Citizen to be Acting Minister.
Sub-Section III - The Minister is inactive for more than 3 days without prior announcement- this shall be determined by their last verifiable post in Discord or any Thaecian RMB
Section III - Should the Senior Deputy Minister hold the position of Acting Minister for a period of longer than 7 days, the Senate shall hold a simple majority confirmation vote for the Acting Minister. Should they pass the confirmation vote, the following shall happen:
Sub-Section I - If they became Acting Minister as per Section II, Sub-Section I, they shall be allowed to continue serving as Acting Minister until the Minister returns.
Sub-Section II - If they became Acting Minister as per Section II, Sub-Section II, they shall become the Minister.
Sub-Section III - If they become Acting Minister as per Section II, Sub-Section III, they shall be allowed to continue serving as Acting Minister until the Minister returns. If they then further hold the position of Acting Minister for an additional 14 days, they shall become the Minister[/spoiler]
My reasoning for the amendment is that it's better to give the ministers the authority to appoint as many deputies as they like because all ministries conduct different tasks at once, and it makes no sense to restrict deputy numbers (particularly in the MoFA where Senior Diplomats serve as deputies). I did include the position of Senior Deputy which will allow easy appointment of the Acting Minister
I request that this bill do not be put on vote for another twenty four hours to allow me to receive legal advice from the Justice Minister Cerdenia who has voiced several concerns on the constitutionality of the bill. I plan to propose an Amendment to this bill to allow it to become constitutional again, show it to Cerdenia, and go from there. At this current moment in time, the bill must not be put to vote.
I would simply remove offending sections from the bill, but I believe it requires practically a total rework to continue to make sense or have any point in existing once much of the sections are removed.
I agree with Sevae's amendment, and will propose one of my own:
[spoiler=Amendment B]Section II:
Sub-Section III - The Minister is inactive for more than 3 days without prior announcement - this shall be determined by their last verifiable post in Discord or any Thaecian RMB.
Section III:
Sub-Section III - If they become Acting Minister as per Section II, Sub-Section III, they shall be allowed to continue serving as Acting Minister until the Minister returns. If they then further hold the position of Acting Minister for an additional 14 days if the Minister they are taking the place of did not announce their leave, or an additional 28 days if said Minister did announce their leave they shall become the Minister.[/spoiler]
This is to stop an edge case where a minister refuses to give up power to the deputy (or Senior Deputy if Seva's amendment passes) after announcing a temporary LOA.
This bill is tabled until the issue with the Constitution is cleared up
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1581520
We are now debating the Amendments to LR15 Thaecian Bar Association Act
Please let us know your thoughts
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
In my opinion this is a pretty straightforward fix to allow public defenders to opt out of a case in case of bias towards one of the parties
Can I be sponsored to speak in this debate as an MP and Attorney of the Bar? I have a strong opinion against these amendments.
I will sponsor you to speak in this debate.
Thank you, Senator.
I will start by saying that these amendments are absolutely awful. Here are my reasons why.
1) It basically allows Public Defenders to get out of any case, by claiming "bias." Thinking about it logically, any case a PD would want to get out of could almost certainly be construed as bias. Honestly, claiming bias is incredibly easy, and could allow any PD to get out of any case.
2) It goes against the spirit of Public Defenders. The whole reason we have PDs are if the defendant can't find anybody else who isn't a PD to take their case. That is the legal definition of when PDs should have to take cases. If we allow PDs to reject cases on bias, why even have PDs?
3) I implore you, Senators, to think what would happen if someone did something so heinous that every non Public Defender wouldn't take the case. That is effectively the only scenario in which this article would be used, since if non Public Defenders want to take the case, the defendant will probably accept their help. In this scenario, in what universe would PDs not have reason to reject the case because of "bias?" These amendments create a scenario where someone could be forced to go with representation.
These amendments, from my position as an MP and Attorney of the Bar, are unacceptable. If, despite my given reasons, the Senate decides to pass these horrible amendments, I will do everything in my power to make sure they die a quick death in the House. I will happily take questions from the Senators, I believe I've said all I need to say at this point in time.
Thank you for the comments Alto. I think I have done my best to remedy the possible issues with the bill, I have changed Section II to the following:
Section II - Article III Section I of LR15 shall be amended to read the following:
Section I - In the event that a defendant wants legal representation, but cant find an attorney, the Justice Ministry shall be obliged to provide an attorney, called a Public Defender. Attorneys may volunteer to serve as a public defender; if they do so, they may serve as long as they like, pending good behavior. By serving as a public defender, the nation waives their right to choose or refuse clients assigned to them by the Justice Ministry for reasons other than obvious conflict of interest.
From:
Section II - Article III Section I of LR15 shall be amended to read the following:
Section I - In the event that a defendant wants legal representation, but cant find an attorney, the Justice Ministry shall be obliged to provide an attorney, called a Public Defender. Attorneys may volunteer to serve as a public defender; if they do so, they may serve as long as they like, pending good behavior. By serving as a public defender, the nation waives their right to choose clients, except for reasons of bias.
The idea is not, and never was, to allow PDs to get out of defending cases they find objectionable. It is to allow a PD who is obviously biased (say an accuser of the defendant or someone who claims harm from their actions) to recuse themselves from a case and allow the defendant to receive proper defense. I'm happy to work with you further to improve the law.
This change fixes point 1 and 2, but it does nothing to remedy the most important point. If a case were to involve Public Defenders, then it is highly likely that other non-PD members of the bar have already refused.
"Section I - In the event that a defendant wants legal representation, but cant find an attorney, the Justice Ministry shall be obliged to provide an attorney, called a Public Defender."
The L.R.015 clearly states that they can't find an attorney, which means over half of the members of the Bar are biased or have conscientious objections to the defense. This means it is highly likely for most of the region, PDs included, to be biased or have "obvious conflicts of interest" towards the case. If we allow PDs to refuse cases, even for obvious conflicts of interest, we create a scenario where it is entirely possible for someone to be unable to receive legal representation, which would be unconstitutional. That is unacceptable. PDs should remain forced to take any case the JM sends their way, and if they can't remain neutral and do the job to the best of their ability, then they shouldn't be Public Defenders. This is precisely why I'm not a Public Defender.
Finally, the law currently allows for the possibility for the JM to handicap the defense of individuals that they potentially are prosecuting by assigning a PD that is unreasonably biased. This is something we should seek to avoid.
I'll quote the relevant section again.
"Section I - In the event that a defendant wants legal representation, but cant find an attorney, the Justice Ministry shall be obliged to provide an attorney, called a Public Defender."
Public Defenders are already only mandated to take a case when the Justice Ministry assigns them a case. At the moment, the ONLY TIME the Ministry can do that is if, quote, the defendant "can't find an attorney." The only way that can happen is if every attorney is biased or has an objection. Under the scenarios prescribed by L.R. 015, it is not an "unattainably high bar." Furthermore, the constitution doesn't really care if it's an extreme scenario. Take the most recent court case, that you yourself prosecuted! In my understanding, the quorum scenario you laid out has never happened, yet the High Court found the laws unconstitutional. PDs must not be allowed to deny a case.
As for your final comment, the constitution only guarantees representation. It in no way guarantees unbiased representation. While I agree that something needs to be done, in my opinion that isn't unconstitutional.
If, by your own words, there is no IC crime where no non-PD attorneys would take the case, then PDs will never be used, since the defendant will be able to find an attorney. At that point, why not just remove PDs entirely?
Furthermore the current Constitution does not provide for a right to representation, but the new one will. Perhaps we can rectify this situation by adding in a provision to the effect of a public defender must take a case where they have a conflict of interest if all public defenders have one.
Let me give you a bit of math. There 6 attorneys and 3 PDs. If every single attorney had a bias, with big names like Prime Minister Xernon, Associate Justice Bannersville, and Electoral Commissioner Mardis, then I would bet serious money that all of the PDs would have a bias too.
As for your comment about the constitution, I am aware. Given the likelihood of passage, I was basing my comments off of that.
As for your solution, that is something I would grudgingly accept. Perhaps a roll of the dice should determine who the unlucky PD would be, given that the current JM happens to be a Public Defender.
However, I am still struck by how incredibly, totally, and completely unnecessary this entire amendment is.
This entire thing would only have an effect if the following sequence of events happened.
A) Someone commits a crime so heinous that no attorney wants to represent them.
B) It then goes to the PDs. Right now the process ends here when one is selected by the JM. With your amendments, it now slowly goes through all the PDs until the JM finds one who is unbiased against this horrible criminal, or the JM determines none of them are unbiased.
C) Once all of the PDs are determined to be biased, the JM then rolls a die, and that PD is forced to take on a case he's biased against.
Your amendments get the same result with more, unnecessary steps. Is it constitutional? Yes. Is it at all something that should be added for no apparent reason? No.
Something you don't seem to be understanding is that there is no protocol yet written for the JM to choose a PD. As such, what would most likely happen without these amendments is as follows.
A) Someone commits a crime so heinous that no attorney wants to represent them.
B) The JM talks to the PDs as a whole, and sees if anyone wants to volunteer.
C) If someone does, they're selected. If not, the JM is forced to pick a biased PD.
It is my firm opinion that even if your amendment is constitutional, which at the moment it isn't, it is useless and a waste of time.
I think I've laid out why these are needed pretty well. Currently the Justice Ministry, a Ministry that may be prosecuting a case, can purposely assign a blatantly biased defense council, potentially sinking a case.
Furthermore, the Constitutionality argument is bogus. Under your contention if there was no Public Defenders for whatever reason, that would be unconstitutional. The Court would figure out a way (presumably assigning defense themselves) if the JM was unwilling or unable anyways.
I've added the following:
Sub-section I - If all Public Defenders have a conflict of interest, the Justice Ministry may assign one with a conflict of interest and the public defender assigned may not refuse.
Great to see some discussion! Well, I'll start the vote given that some time has passed, and nobody else seems interested in the bill. I support it because Peeps has made many necessary changes, and I agree with the premise of this bill.
Please cast your votes:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1581520
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
My vote is Aye
Nay
Nay
Aye
Arf Arf
Aye
The bill has passed 3-2-2
Aye: Sevae, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Baobab in Thaecia
Nay: Emazia, Nova Anglicum
Did not vote: Ashlawn, Creckelenney
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
The next business will be announced shortly
Opening of the Debate Period on the Fourth Constitution of Thaecia Act
I have come out of my LOA temporarily since I wanted this to start as soon as possible, and was free at the time of writing. I'll let you all know when I am prepared to return full-fledged to the Senate and other Executive works Insha'Allah.
Senators, we are now debating the Fourth Constitution of Thaecia Act.
Since this is an important bill that will almost certainly have a massive impact on the region over the coming months or years, I urge you all to express any concerns you have on the floor of the Chamber.
Take note of the requirement of this Act to receive a two-third majority vote for it to pass.
And also massive thanks to Sevae, for carrying out the duties of the Chairman while I have been away and I have trust in them to continue doing so effectively until my full-fledged return.
[spoiler=Senators]
Creckelenney[/spoiler]
Sevae
I think you guys all know this but I cannot support this without a citizen's recall clause.
I urge all of you, regardless of party affiliation, to vote this through in the name of democracy. We must let the people's will preside - even if you are against it, defeat it at the ballot box of the citizens not here in the exclusive halls of the Senate.
I've reconsidered and will vote Aye to allow the people to decide it via referendum and not in the Senate
I am sorry for this little recess, will be more active next time. I support the Constitution, of course
"The people may, by a petition signed by a number of Citizens totaling at least 1/3rd the number of votes in the last regularly scheduled House of Commons election or 20, whichever is higher, start a recall referendum on one or more members of either Chamber of Congress."
I have serious concerns about the threshold. To me, the threshold for the recall vote is very high to be even attempted. One of the main reasons we are going to have a recall in place is because if there a significant number of people discontent with a legislator, they should be able to attempt to fix it rather than just criticising, and worth noting, we have at most a highly-active citizen base of 30-35, and 20 among them is quite a high number, and even then, this is just the minimum. What if there is a significant number of votes the previous elections (for example, in the July 2020 elections, we had 85 votes), that means we'll need atleast 28 members to even attempt to do the recall, mind it, just to even attempt it. Given how the threshold is structured, it gives me the feeling that there has to be a concensus among all the voting members that the legislator is indeed bad, and this is not how a recall should work. A recall can also be a way of making the legislators answer to their constitutents the reason behind their continued disappointment in the Congress. They were elected by the people, and should not the people be also given the chance to officially present their concerns with their representative? By removing it from the Constitution and then making the threshold so high that the recall method is bound to fail, and then the opponents to the idea can vouch for the removal of this method, to me, this is more of an attempt to appease the proponents in favour of the recall method while preparing grounds for it to fail, rather than ensuring a method which has the potential to improve our means of accountability, and I want a way that gives the recall method a chance to prove itself as an effective method.
You might argue, but TCU or TGP has 10-15 members, I am sorry to say but we must consider these citizens as individuals rather than one single political entity in a Democracy, and if 10-15 citizens are concerned with a particular legislator, I personally have serious misgivings about that legislator and that legislator does need to be held accountable.
I would propose trickling down the threshold to 15 and in order to avoid this way to be abused, I also prefer a cap on it, though the details of which have to be planned and proposed meticulously in order to avoid creating any loopholes and to avoid reducing its effectively.
I would like to speak and discuss with my fellow legislators before proposing an amendment.
I disagree. I think the threshold is fine, you just have to campaign hard for the recall petition. But it's not unreasonable to have it at 20 or so
But, if for say, there's a candidate backed by the largest party, consisting of 15 members, and has fairly good equations with parties consisting of 5-6 members, but their performance raises concern and some concerned non-partisan individuals have legitimate concerns with the person, but the individuals lack something-support from the parties, which is at times, needed to muster up such a high number (20). I am not of the opinion that we have to campaign hard to even attempt a recall. The votes of the people are what got the people into the office in the first place, why should they have to pass some huge odds to hold these same legislators accountable
So, while I very much desire an amendment to the recall process to ease the threshold, among various issues, I would like the recently-elected House to decide whether or not they are in favour of an amendment. I am of the opinion that even if I have the numbers in the Senate to pass such an amendment, this might not be the case in the House of Commons, and thus, it will result in the Constitution being stalled for an indefinite period of time, harming the region in the process. So, I strongly believe the House should be given an option first to decide if it has the numbers to pass such an amendment, and should they have it and they pass it, I strongly believe the Senate will be prepared to sign off on any such amendments, providing the amendments do not have any serious flaws. So, I am prepared to open the voting on the Constitution, so that if the House does not have any amendments, they can pass the constitution without having it returned to the Senate again.
Closing of the Debate Period on and Starting of the Voting Period on The Fourth Constitution Act
Senators, we are now voting on The Fourth Constitution Act
Be informed that this Act requires a two-thirds majority in order for it to pass the Senate.
[spoiler=Senators]
Creckelenney[/spoiler]
I am honoured to be the first vote, and will cast my vote in favour.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.