Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

Levantx wrote:OPENING VOTE - SCROLL NO 009

S.B.023 SECRET VOTE ACT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1262350

Senators, I invite you for a last time to cast your vote on the senate Floor.

[spoiler=SENATORS]

Paropia

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Indian Genius

Marvinton[/spoiler]

I Abstain

Levantx wrote:OPENING VOTE - SCROLL NO 009

S.B.023 SECRET VOTE ACT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1262350

Senators, I invite you for a last time to cast your vote on the senate Floor.

[spoiler=SENATORS]

Paropia

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Indian Genius

Marvinton[/spoiler]

Nay

Post self-deleted by The Islamic Country Of Honour.

Levantx wrote:OPENING VOTE - SCROLL NO 009

S.B.023 SECRET VOTE ACT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1262350

Senators, I invite you for a last time to cast your vote on the senate Floor.

[spoiler=SENATORS]

Paropia

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Indian Genius

Marvinton[/spoiler]

Aye

Levantx

{S.B.023 SECRET VOTE ACT - PASSED}

Author: Levantx

[list]

{3} - FOR : Indian Genius Levantx The Islamic Country Of Honour

{1} - AGAINST : Marvinton

{1} - ABSTAIN : Paropia

[/list]

[spoiler={0} - NOT VOTED]

[list]none[/spoiler][/list]

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR

Senators, I am hereby announcing my resignation as Chairperson of the Senate. I would like to honour the coalition agreements struck when I entered in this position.

According to the agreements, it is Paropia who should take over the keys of the office, for the next month and a half.

I formally endorse the Rt. Hon. Senator as Chairperson of the Senate.

I invite United States Of Edingbridge as electoral commissioner to start the election for the next Chairperson. I hereby declare the Senate meetings adjourned.

[spoiler=SENATORS]

Paropia

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Indian Genius

Marvinton[/spoiler]

Marvinton, Snowflame, Paropia, Zon Island

Levantx wrote:MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR

Senators, I am hereby announcing my resignation as Chairperson of the Senate. I would like to honour the coalition agreements struck when I entered in this position.

According to the agreements, it is Paropia who should take over the keys of the office, for the next month and a half.

I formally endorse the Rt. Hon. Senator as Chairperson of the Senate.

I invite United States Of Edingbridge as electoral commissioner to start the election for the next Chairperson. I hereby declare the Senate meetings adjourned.

[spoiler=SENATORS]

Paropia

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Indian Genius

Marvinton[/spoiler]

I will run for the position of Senate Chairman

Levantx

Levantx wrote:MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR

Senators, I am hereby announcing my resignation as Chairperson of the Senate. I would like to honour the coalition agreements struck when I entered in this position.

According to the agreements, it is Paropia who should take over the keys of the office, for the next month and a half.

I formally endorse the Rt. Hon. Senator as Chairperson of the Senate.

I invite United States Of Edingbridge as electoral commissioner to start the election for the next Chairperson. I hereby declare the Senate meetings adjourned.

[spoiler=SENATORS]

Paropia

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Indian Genius

Marvinton[/spoiler]

I will stand for the chair

Levantx, Zon Island

Any other candidates?

Paropia

The choice is between Paropia & Marvinton, please vote now!

Levantx, Paropia

United States Of Edingbridge wrote:The choice is between Paropia & Marvinton, please vote now!

I vote for myself

Levantx, Paropia

United States Of Edingbridge wrote:The choice is between Paropia & Marvinton, please vote now!

I vote for myself, too

Paropia has been elected as the new senate chairman 4-1

Levantx, Fishergate, Paropia, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Congratulations to Paropia for being elected the new Chairman of the Senate!

Paropia

As it has become my duty to take up the mantle of Senate Chairman, I would briefly like to state my desires for the upper house's future. We all realize that the problem with our current bicameralist legislature is that one house ends up confirming the other house's bills. I hope that for the remainder of this session of congress, and possibly into the next one, I will be able to encourage you all the participate in our debate periods and dig deeper into the bills that pass through our chamber. We've all seen how dry our recent debates have been (if there are any at all), and I hope to change that.

I hereby order the senate resumed in it's third session.

Levantx, Xernon

Opening Debate - S.B. 024

Amendments to the Ministerial Hearings Act (L.R. 002)

Sponsored By Senator [Nation]Paropia[/nation]

Written By [Nation]Developing World[/nation]

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Amend Section 1 to: "The purpose of Ministerial Hearings is for Congress to submit questions to a specific Minister in the executive government, to make sure progress and competence is being carried out by the executive branch. All members of the Government are subject to Ministerial Hearings. Members of the Government are defined as the President, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Justice Minister, the Culture Minister, the Roleplay Minister and the Defence Minister. The President is not subject to Ministerial Hearings. Ministerial Hearings will be held on that Houses RMB."

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Amend Section 2 to: "A Ministerial Hearing can be called in the House by having 3 Members of Parliament filing a request for a certain Member of Government to come before the House to a Hearing. If such a request is filed, the Speaker has to stop the usual House of Commons business and start the Hearing. All Members of Parliament can ask questions freely during the Hearing. Ministers may also make statements to the House as separate to answering questions. A certain Member of Parliament can request a Hearing only once every 2 weeks"

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment C]

Amend Section 3 to: "A Ministerial Hearing can be called in the Senators by having 2 Senators filing a request for a certain Member of Government to come before the Senate to a Hearing. If such a request is filed, the Chairman has to stop the usual Senate business and start the Hearing. All Senators can ask questions freely during the Hearing. Ministers may also make statements to the Senate as separate to answering questions. A certain Senator can request a Hearing only once every 2 weeks"

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Amend Section 4 to: "If a Minister does not attend 2 consecutive hearings, this will be grounds for impeachment. Unless they provide suitable a suitable excuse that should be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons & Senate Chairman. If they believe it a poor excuse, they are responsible for organising an impeachment case in the court."

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment E]

Amend Section 5 to: "If over a third of the members of Parliament and Senators request it, a Hearing can happen in a joint session of Congress."

[/spoiler]

----------------

[spoiler=Senators]

[Nation]Marvinton[/nation]

[nation]The Islamic Country of Honour[/nation]

[nation]Levantx[/nation]

[nation]Indian Genius[/nation]

[/spoiler]

Developing World's bill is a very interesting one. I also agree that the Hearings are an important role for the senate and the House in its core function to control the government. I also understand that the current law doesn't allow to the legislator to act on it correctly.

the Bill on the floor however make mention of the different Ministers which where in the third constitution no longer named. That Is why I would like to propose following adjustment to be in line with the constitution.

[spoiler=AMENDMENT A]

Change Amendment A to the following:

[list]The purpose of Ministerial Hearings is for Congress to submit questions to a specific Minister in the executive government, to make sure progress and competence is being carried out by the executive branch. All Cabinet Ministers are subjected to Ministerial Hearings. [/list]

[/spoiler]

I would also like to add a new amendment to the Bill

[spoiler=AMENDMENT F]

Remove L.R.002 Section V and change it by the following:

[list]The Prime Minister and all Cabinet Ministers will have the right to request to speak and explain their policy before the legislator.[/list][/spoiler]

Paropia

Levantx wrote:Developing World's bill is a very interesting one. I also agree that the Hearings are an important role for the senate and the House in its core function to control the government. I also understand that the current law doesn't allow to the legislator to act on it correctly.

the Bill on the floor however make mention of the different Ministers which where in the third constitution no longer named. That Is why I would like to propose following adjustment to be in line with the constitution.

[spoiler=AMENDMENT A]

Change Amendment A to the following:

[list]The purpose of Ministerial Hearings is for Congress to submit questions to a specific Minister in the executive government, to make sure progress and competence is being carried out by the executive branch. All Cabinet Ministers are subjected to Ministerial Hearings. [/list]

[/spoiler]

I would also like to add a new amendment to the Bill

[spoiler=AMENDMENT F]

Remove L.R.002 Section V and change it by the following:

[list]The Prime Minister and all Cabinet Ministers will have the right to request to speak and explain their policy before the legislator.[/list][/spoiler]

I’d like to tweak your suggested change to Amendment A, changing it to “ The purpose of Ministerial Hearings is for Congress to submit questions to a specific Minister in the executive government, to make sure progress and competence is being carried out by the executive branch. All Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are subjected to Ministerial Hearings. Ministerial Hearings will be held on that Chamber’s RMB”

I would also like to bring up concerns with your added amendment. I feel like section five is critical (since joint sessions are very important), and I believe there is already a precedent set for what you’re trying to accomplish. Minister’s regularly start with opening statements.

Thoughts?

[spoiler=Senators]

[Nation]Marvinton[/nation]

Levantx[/Nation]

[Nation]Indian Genius

[nation]The Islamic Country of Honour[/nation]

[/spoiler]

Mr. Chairman, do I have the permission to speak?

Levantx

Paropia wrote:I’d like to tweak your suggested change to Amendment A, changing it to “ The purpose of Ministerial Hearings is for Congress to submit questions to a specific Minister in the executive government, to make sure progress and competence is being carried out by the executive branch. All Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are subjected to Ministerial Hearings. Ministerial Hearings will be held on that Chamber’s RMB”

I would also like to bring up concerns with your added amendment. I feel like section five is critical (since joint sessions are very important), and I believe there is already a precedent set for what you’re trying to accomplish. Minister’s regularly start with opening statements.

Thoughts?

[spoiler=Senators]

[Nation]Marvinton[/nation]

Levantx[/Nation]

[Nation]Indian Genius

[nation]The Islamic Country of Honour[/nation]

[/spoiler]

I agree with the adjustments made in amendment A.

However section V deals with urgent hearings. Which are no longer needed in my opinion because all the hearings introduced in the amendments of Mr. DW are urgent in a way.

Developing World wrote:Mr. Chairman, do I have the permission to speak?

Yes, As you are the author of the bill, I hereby sponsor you.

Paropia wrote:Yes, As you are the author of the bill, I hereby sponsor you.

Thank you. I think it is obvious why this bill was written in the first place, because in its current form MHA is impossible to be applied so to make it appliable, I came up with this. I would like to talk about Levantx's amendments. I believe his 1st amendment is good, but the President should also be included to the Hearings. His 2nd amendment feels a bit useless to me, as a Cabinet member can just ask for a Hearing from the MPs, and it would potentially as a way for the Executive to stall the activity of the Legislative.

Levantx

Developing World wrote:Thank you. I think it is obvious why this bill was written in the first place, because in its current form MHA is impossible to be applied so to make it appliable, I came up with this. I would like to talk about Levantx's amendments. I believe his 1st amendment is good, but the President should also be included to the Hearings. His 2nd amendment feels a bit useless to me, as a Cabinet member can just ask for a Hearing from the MPs, and it would potentially as a way for the Executive to stall the activity of the Legislative.

Okey, indeed the President should also be included.

On the second, there are two different issues.

1) removal of section V the actual law. Do you or do you not agree to remove section 5 from the law.

2) changing the removed section into a "right to be heard" for the government. I can indeed follow your resigning that governments can try to filibuster the order of the legislative. I can agree with that assessment. However a strong chair or speaker should prevent that, as it is a right not an obligation to be heard.

Levantx wrote:Okey, indeed the President should also be included.

On the second, there are two different issues.

1) removal of section V the actual law. Do you or do you not agree to remove section 5 from the law.

2) changing the removed section into a "right to be heard" for the government. I can indeed follow your resigning that governments can try to filibuster the order of the legislative. I can agree with that assessment. However a strong chair or speaker should prevent that, as it is a right not an obligation to be heard.

Thank you. I agree with them this way.

If there are no other concerns, I will open the voting period in a few hours.

[spoiler=Senators]

Marvinton

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Levantx

Indian Genius

[/spoiler]

Paropia wrote:Opening Debate - S.B. 024

Amendments to the Ministerial Hearings Act (L.R. 002)

Sponsored By Senator [Nation]Paropia[/nation]

Written By [Nation]Developing World[/nation]

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Amend Section 1 to: "The purpose of Ministerial Hearings is for Congress to submit questions to a specific Minister in the executive government, to make sure progress and competence is being carried out by the executive branch. All members of the Government are subject to Ministerial Hearings. Members of the Government are defined as the President, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Justice Minister, the Culture Minister, the Roleplay Minister and the Defence Minister. The President is not subject to Ministerial Hearings. Ministerial Hearings will be held on that Houses RMB."

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Amend Section 2 to: "A Ministerial Hearing can be called in the House by having 3 Members of Parliament filing a request for a certain Member of Government to come before the House to a Hearing. If such a request is filed, the Speaker has to stop the usual House of Commons business and start the Hearing. All Members of Parliament can ask questions freely during the Hearing. Ministers may also make statements to the House as separate to answering questions. A certain Member of Parliament can request a Hearing only once every 2 weeks"

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment C]

Amend Section 3 to: "A Ministerial Hearing can be called in the Senators by having 2 Senators filing a request for a certain Member of Government to come before the Senate to a Hearing. If such a request is filed, the Chairman has to stop the usual Senate business and start the Hearing. All Senators can ask questions freely during the Hearing. Ministers may also make statements to the Senate as separate to answering questions. A certain Senator can request a Hearing only once every 2 weeks"

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Amend Section 4 to: "If a Minister does not attend 2 consecutive hearings, this will be grounds for impeachment. Unless they provide suitable a suitable excuse that should be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons & Senate Chairman. If they believe it a poor excuse, they are responsible for organising an impeachment case in the court."

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment E]

Amend Section 5 to: "If over a third of the members of Parliament and Senators request it, a Hearing can happen in a joint session of Congress."

[/spoiler]

----------------

[spoiler=Senators]

[Nation]Marvinton[/nation]

[nation]The Islamic Country of Honour[/nation]

[nation]Levantx[/nation]

[nation]Indian Genius[/nation]

[/spoiler]

I don't like Amendment D, suppose if only the Chairman thinks that the excuse is good but the other senators don't, that's not fair. I propose an amendment to the amendment.

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Amend Section 4 to: "If a Minister does not attend 2 consecutive hearings, this will be grounds for impeachment. Unless they provide a suitable excuse that should be determined by at least half the Senators/MPs. If they believe it a poor excuse, they are responsible for organising an impeachment case in the court."[/spoiler]

Indian Genius wrote:I don't like Amendment D, suppose if only the Chairman thinks that the excuse is good but the other senators don't, that's not fair. I propose an amendment to the amendment.

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Amend Section 4 to: "If a Minister does not attend 2 consecutive hearings, this will be grounds for impeachment. Unless they provide a suitable excuse that should be determined by at least half the Senators/MPs. If they believe it a poor excuse, they are responsible for organising an impeachment case in the court."[/spoiler]

Thank you for your input, actually this is the part taken from the original bill, not written by me. I feel this excuses might be voted based on partisanship if they get on the floor, so the current solution might be the best actually.

Indian Genius

Developing World wrote:Thank you for your input, actually this is the part taken from the original bill, not written by me. I feel this excuses might be voted based on partisanship if they get on the floor, so the current solution might be the best actually.

Do you mean mine or yours?

Indian Genius wrote:Do you mean mine or yours?

Mine was taken from the current bill. It required an amendment because I removed things from the same section it was.

Post self-deleted by Indian Genius.

Yes I am in favour of this bill. First of all, the Bill allows the Congress to track the progress of the respective ministries, and moreover, the Congress, after evaluating the ministers, can propose laws to fix the shortcomings of the ministries. In my opinion, there is no negative aspect of this bill and will thus approve the bill.

Indian Genius wrote:I don't like Amendment D, suppose if only the Chairman thinks that the excuse is good but the other senators don't, that's not fair. I propose an amendment to the amendment.

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Amend Section 4 to: "If a Minister does not attend 2 consecutive hearings, this will be grounds for impeachment. Unless they provide a suitable excuse that should be determined by at least half the Senators/MPs. If they believe it a poor excuse, they are responsible for organising an impeachment case in the court."[/spoiler]

I can agree on both versions, I think that a speaker and chairman should in normal circumstances always represents half of the MP's or senators.

He represents a coalition majority, so that should be the case in normal circumstances. But for me it doesn't really matter. The new version can however be more Impractical tho.

Developing World

Closing Debate/Opening Voting - S.B. 024

Amendments to the Ministerial Hearings Act (L.R. 002)

Sponsored By Senator [Nation]Paropia[/nation]

Written By [Nation]Developing World[/nation]

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Amend Section 1 to: "The purpose of Ministerial Hearings is for Congress to submit questions to a specific Minister in the executive government, to make sure progress and competence is being carried out by the executive branch. All members of the Government are subject to Ministerial Hearings. Members of the Government are defined as the President, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Justice Minister, the Culture Minister, the Roleplay Minister and the Defence Minister. The President is not subject to Ministerial Hearings. Ministerial Hearings will be held on that Houses RMB."

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Amend Section 2 to: "A Ministerial Hearing can be called in the House by having 3 Members of Parliament filing a request for a certain Member of Government to come before the House to a Hearing. If such a request is filed, the Speaker has to stop the usual House of Commons business and start the Hearing. All Members of Parliament can ask questions freely during the Hearing. Ministers may also make statements to the House as separate to answering questions. A certain Member of Parliament can request a Hearing only once every 2 weeks"

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment C]

Amend Section 3 to: "A Ministerial Hearing can be called in the Senators by having 2 Senators filing a request for a certain Member of Government to come before the Senate to a Hearing. If such a request is filed, the Chairman has to stop the usual Senate business and start the Hearing. All Senators can ask questions freely during the Hearing. Ministers may also make statements to the Senate as separate to answering questions. A certain Senator can request a Hearing only once every 2 weeks"

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Amend Section 4 to: "If a Minister does not attend 2 consecutive hearings, this will be grounds for impeachment. Unless they provide suitable a suitable excuse that should be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons & Senate Chairman. If they believe it a poor excuse, they are responsible for organising an impeachment case in the court."

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment E]

Amend Section 5 to: "If over a third of the members of Parliament and Senators request it, a Hearing can happen in a joint session of Congress."

[/spoiler]

----------------

Additionally, we have amendments proposed by [nation]Levantx[/nation], [nation]Paropia[/nation], & [nation]Indian Genius[/nation],

[spoiler=Amendment F]

Remove L.R. 002 Section V and change it by the following:

The Prime Minister and all Cabinet Ministers will have the right to request to speak and explain their policy before the legislator.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment to Amendment A]

Change Amendment A to "Amend section 1 to: "The purpose of Ministerial Hearings is for Congress to submit questions to a specific Minister in the executive government, to make sure progress and competence is being carried out by the executive branch. All Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are subjected to Ministerial Hearings. Ministerial Hearings will be held on that Chamber’s RMB""

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment to Amendment D]

Change Amendment D to "Amend Section 4 to: "If a Minister or the President does not attend 2 consecutive hearings, this will be grounds for impeachment. Unless they provide a suitable excuse that should be determined by at least half the Senators/MPs. If they believe it a poor excuse, they are responsible for organising an impeachment case in the court.""

[/spoiler]

----------------

[spoiler=Senators]

[Nation]Marvinton[/nation]

[nation]The Islamic Country of Honour[/nation]

[nation]Levantx[/nation]

[nation]Indian Genius[/nation]

[/spoiler]

Personally, I'm voting Aye, Nay, Aye & Nay, respectively.

Paropia, can Amendment D include the President, like Levantx, its writer, said it will?

Levantx

Developing World wrote:Paropia, can Amendment D include the President, like Levantx, its writer, said it will?

I agree, I consented with that change

My vote shall be

- amendment F: 'Aye'

- amendment to A: 'Aye'

- amendment to D: 'Nay'

Aye to all except Amendment D. Nay to Amendment D

Point of Order, Mr. Chair

One of our fellow senators publicly announced his resignation. I would like to ask the chair (Paropia) if he has already received a formal notice of a resignation of one of the senators. If so I would like to ask when it is in order, to not ask the Electoral commissioner to organise by-elections for the vacated seat.

I think if we approve a motion in the House, where a majority of the senate agrees to have that seat vacant up until the next elections that would not be a problem. Constitution expects us to organise elections when a seat has been vacated. However it doesn't mention that is has to be immediatly.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

point of Order

Paropia, I hope proceedings will re-awekended soon. It is important that the Senate becomes active again to follow up the House workings.

I would like to ask the Chair to end the current vote and debate on the floor and proceed with our workings.

I also urge my fellow senators to consider a recall or impeachment of the Chair if inactivity by the chair continues. The deputy chair should also step up and preside over the senate.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

I am hereby withdrawing my amendments from consideration on the Senate's floor.

Levantx, The Islamic Country Of Honour

NOTE TO THE NEXT CHAIRPERSON

I'm keeping the factbooks up-to-date, in the event you are elected as chairperson, you can just start your proceedings without having to write dispatches of work ;).

TG or DM, so that I can give you the password for the puppet account. Transfer of power means also having access to all information.

Order.

I now open the chamber of the Senate to inaugurate all Senator-elects of this great chamber

The following people now serve as Senators:

Catlin

The Bigtopia

Antenion

Cydoni

Indian Genius

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Asean Nations

Order.

Levantx, The Bigtopia, Catlin, Asean Nations

Order.

Does any Senator wish to stand for the position as chair?

I wish to run for Chair

The Bigtopia wrote:I wish to run for Chair

I endorse Bigtopia’s Position of Senate Chairman

Titanne, The Bigtopia

Who is a member of the UNI or TAP

Catlin wrote:Who is a member of the UNI or TAP

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1252388

I want a coalition with my fellow party member The Bigtopia and the ALT member Cydoni plus last but not least Asean Nations of the TAP if you think it's a good idea let me know

Catlin wrote:I want a coalition with my fellow party member The Bigtopia and the ALT member Cydoni plus last but not least Asean Nations of the TAP if you think it's a good idea let me know

Do this in TGs

I wish to run for Chair

Marvinton

We would like to announce the PCT-TPU-ALT coalition

Levantx, Antenion, The Bigtopia

Post self-deleted by Antenion.

Antenion wrote:I wish to run for Chair

Nvm I Withdrawl

Order.

The Senate shall commence a chairman election. The candidates are The Bigtopia & The Islamic Country Of Honour

The vote shall close in 7 hours and 40 minutes

Antenion

United States Of Edingbridge wrote:Order.

The Senate shall commence a chairman election. The candidates are The Bigtopia & The Islamic Country Of Honour

The vote shall close in 7 hours and 40 minutes

I vote for Bigtopia to become the new chairman of the senate

United States Of Edingbridge wrote:Order.

The Senate shall commence a chairman election. The candidates are The Bigtopia & The Islamic Country Of Honour

The vote shall close in 7 hours and 40 minutes

How do I vote?

BTW I'm voting for The Bigtopia

How do I vote?

The Bigtopia

Catlin wrote:How do I vote?

BTW I'm voting for The Bigtopia

How do I vote?

Never mind I know

I'm voting The Bigtopia

The Bigtopia

Post self-deleted by Asean Nations.

Order.

If there are no objections, the vote shall be extended until Cydoni has cast their vote

I vote for The Bigtopia

The Bigtopia

Order.

The votes for The Bigtopia are 4 and the votes for The Islamic Country Of Honour are 3. Therefore The Bigtopia is duely elected the Chairman of the Thaecian Senate.

Order.

Levantx, Antenion, The Bigtopia, Catlin, Cydoni, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Fellow Senators, I would like to call the fourth session of the Thaecian Senate to order. If you have legislation to submit, do so by telegraming this account or my regular (The Bigtopia). To begin this term, we will be debating the House legislation passed over the last term, starting with the amendments to LR. 009 (third reading).

Levantx, The Bigtopia, Catlin

OPENING DEBATE FOR:

Amendments to LR. 009

[url]https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1189836#09[/url]

IN THIRD READING

Author: Developing World

Sponsors: Indian Genius and Marvinton

As Amended by: Fishergate

[spoiler=PREAMBLE]In respect to the new Constitution and the Court Ruling 0.0.2., as well as to make the law more practical, the following amendments are submitted to the attention of the Senate.;[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT A]Change Article I to read as follows:

"The Process whereby a Recall is initiated against a member of Congress may be initiated by three members of Congress or by a Thaecian resident with the sponsorship of three members of Congress."[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT B]Change Article II to read as follows:

"A Recall will be enacted after it has the support of two-thirds of Senators and two-thirds of Members of Parliament. If a member of Congress is facing a Recall vote, they are prohibited from voting on their own Recall."[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT C]Change Article III to read as follows:

"After a member of Congress is recalled, a by-election will take place for the seat, unless the recall happens two weeks or less before the election for that particular chamber - in which circumstance the by-election will be merged with the regular elections. The by-election will be open to any and all candidates legally valid to contest a regular Congressional member, including the recalled member if they wish to contest their former seat. The by-election will be organised by the Electoral Commissioner."[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT D]Remove Article IV - Recall Elections[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT E]Rename Article V to Article IV and change it to read as follows:

"A Recall may only be enacted against a member of Congress if they are deemed to have broken the laws of Thaecia or of NationStates, repeatedly subverted the official Procedures of their respective chamber, or endured a prolonged period of inactivity (one week of not voting) without prior justification. If the member cannot be found guilty of any of the aforementioned wrongdoings, a Recall may not be enacted against them."[/spoiler]

I open the floor to senators willing to debate these amendments

We will vote in 24 hours

[spoiler=SENATORS]Asean Nations

Indian Genius

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Cydoni

Antenion

Catlin

The Bigtopia[/spoiler]

Levantx, Catlin, Asean Nations

An impressive start by our new Honourable Chairman! This sets a proper guideline abput what to do in the case of a recall however, I would like to change one thing from " a prolonged period of inactivity(one week of not voting)" to "a prolonged period of inactivity(2-3 weeks of not voting). I believe one week is too harsh and so 2-3 weeks will be a perfect time period! It also pains me to say that the author of this amazing law is no longer in Thaecia and I wish he returns to Thaecia ASAP Insha'Allah

Indian Genius, The Bigtopia, Catlin

Post self-deleted by Catlin.

The Bigtopia wrote:OPENING DEBATE FOR:

Amendments to LR. 009

[url]https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1189836#09[/url]

IN THIRD READING

Author: Developing World

Sponsors: Indian Genius and Marvinton

As Amended by: Fishergate

[spoiler=PREAMBLE]In respect to the new Constitution and the Court Ruling 0.0.2., as well as to make the law more practical, the following amendments are submitted to the attention of the Senate.;[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT A]Change Article I to read as follows:

"The Process whereby a Recall is initiated against a member of Congress may be initiated by three members of Congress or by a Thaecian resident with the sponsorship of three members of Congress."[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT B]Change Article II to read as follows:

"A Recall will be enacted after it has the support of two-thirds of Senators and two-thirds of Members of Parliament. If a member of Congress is facing a Recall vote, they are prohibited from voting on their own Recall."[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT C]Change Article III to read as follows:

"After a member of Congress is recalled, a by-election will take place for the seat, unless the recall happens two weeks or less before the election for that particular chamber - in which circumstance the by-election will be merged with the regular elections. The by-election will be open to any and all candidates legally valid to contest a regular Congressional member, including the recalled member if they wish to contest their former seat. The by-election will be organised by the Electoral Commissioner."[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT D]Remove Article IV - Recall Elections[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT E]Rename Article V to Article IV and change it to read as follows:

"A Recall may only be enacted against a member of Congress if they are deemed to have broken the laws of Thaecia or of NationStates, repeatedly subverted the official Procedures of their respective chamber, or endured a prolonged period of inactivity (one week of not voting) without prior justification. If the member cannot be found guilty of any of the aforementioned wrongdoings, a Recall may not be enacted against them."[/spoiler]

I open the floor to senators willing to debate these amendments

We will vote in 24 hours

[spoiler=SENATORS]Asean Nations

Indian Genius

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Cydoni

Antenion

Catlin

The Bigtopia[/spoiler]

I agree with everything except for having 3 members of congress initiant. I think it should be a simple majority in at least one house of congress

Titanne, The Bigtopia

Besides what fellow senator Catlin has mentioned, I agree with what the bill offers

Titanne, The Bigtopia, Catlin

Catlin wrote:I agree with everything except for having 3 members of congress initiant. I think it should be a simple majority in at least one house of congress

Antenion wrote:Besides what fellow senator Catlin has mentioned, I agree with what the bill offers

I agree, three is too little. What if we amend the amendment to five, now that we have an expanded legislature?

The Bigtopia wrote:Three is too little. What if we amend the amendment to five, now that we have an expanded legislature?

Simple majority in either house is the best way to go because communications between houses are scarce as far as I know

The Bigtopia

Catlin wrote:Simple majority in either house is the best way to go because communications between houses are scarce as far as I know

That wouldn't especially matter, communication isn't required. It's just to initialize the recall, so actually having three would be fine. It still would need to pass through two thirds of each legislature.

The Bigtopia wrote:That wouldn't especially matter, communication isn't required. It's just to initialize the recall, so actually having three would be fine. It still would need to pass through two thirds of each legislature.

3 is two little only 1/6 of the congress has to agree to initiated an recal. That is way to little. A simple majority vote in one chamber is fair and equal. It allows for flexibility and fairness.This will prevent Minority rule.

Catlin wrote:3 is two little only 1/6 of the congress has to agree to initiated an recal. That is way to little. A simple majority vote in one chamber is fair and equal. It allows for flexibility and fairness.This will prevent Minority rule.

If I may interject, one sixth of all Congress IS 3, so how about instead of 1/6th we boost the number up to 1/3 of all members in congress... unless if that 1/6th rule applies for the individual house then I support the Simple majority.

The Bigtopia, Catlin

Antenion wrote:If I may interject, one sixth of all Congress IS 3, so how about instead of 1/6th we boost the number up to 1/3 of all members in congress... unless if that 1/6th rule applies for the individual house then I support the Simple majority.

This is the bill's third reading though and the number of people it takes to begin the process really doesn't matter much.

The Bigtopia wrote:This is the bill's third reading though and the number of people it takes to begin the process really doesn't matter much.

So shouldn’t the people be required to give evidence and place it under review or the Leader(s) of the respective house say that it’s enough to call a vote for recall?

Antenion wrote:So shouldn’t the people be required to give evidence and place it under review or the Leader(s) of the respective house say that it’s enough to call a vote for recall?

Article V explains that the recall cannot happen unless they've been found guilty. This and the 3 congressional approvals will begin the vote, held by the Chair in the Senate and the Speaker in the House.

The Bigtopia wrote:Article V explains that the recall cannot happen unless they've been found guilty. This and the 3 congressional approvals will begin the vote, held by the Chair in the Senate and the Speaker in the House.

Ah, In that case.... I have no opposition towards the bill

The Bigtopia, Asean Nations

I am 100% with the bill. It has no wrong thing.

The Bigtopia, Asean Nations

Antenion wrote:Ah, In that case.... I have no opposition towards the bill

3 members is not enough, we need at least 6 members to initiate say no to minority rule

Catlin wrote:3 members is not enough, we need at least 6 members to initiate say no to minority rule

I agree with that part

Catlin wrote:3 members is not enough, we need at least 6 members to initiate say no to minority rule

I would argue, 3 members is enough to make a recall

The Bigtopia

Asean Nations wrote:I would argue, 3 members is enough to make a recall

Agreed. As I said, it doesn't matter much how many members it takes for the recall since the recall cannot be initiated until the accused party is found guilty. That is enough of a check-and-balance that 3 is fine. Plus, this bill is on its third reading. Why not just pass it? It's fine as is.

Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Announcement from the Chair

In order to make sure that all senators have an opportunity to state their opinion and debate this bill, voting will begin 24 hours from now.

[spoiler=SENATORS]Indian Genius

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Asean Nations

Catlin

Cydoni

Antenion

The Bigtopia[/spoiler]

Levantx, Asean Nations, Cydoni, The Islamic Country Of Honour

I commend the decision taken by the Chairman

The Bigtopia

All my initial questions were answered by the due diligence of you fine Senators. I have no objection.

The Bigtopia, Asean Nations

Announcement from the Chair

Senate schedule:

From now until 10 am Wednesday EST: Debate on Amendments to Recall of Elected Representatives Act

10 am EST Wednesday until approximately 2 pm EST Thursday: Voting on aforementioned act

2 pm EST Thursday to 3 pm EST Thursday:Hearing for Deputy Justice appointee Al0Neforever

3 pm EST Thursday until 10 am EST Friday: Voting for Deputy Justice Appointee

10 pm EST Friday until 2 pm EST Saturday: Begin Debate on Amendments to Parliamentary Procedures

This is subject to change and is not set in stone.

[spoiler=SENATORS]Indian Genius

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Asean Nations

Catlin

Cydoni

Antenion

The Bigtopia[/spoiler]

OPENING VOTE - Scroll No 023

S.B. 022 Amendments to LR. 009 Recall Rep

--------------------------------------------------

[url]https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1189836#09[/url]

[spoiler=PREAMBLE]In respect to the new Constitution and the Court Ruling 0.0.2., as well as to make the law more practical, the following amendments are submitted to the attention of the Senate.;[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT A]Change Article I to read as follows:

"The Process whereby a Recall is initiated against a member of Congress may be initiated by three members of Congress or by a Thaecian resident with the sponsorship of three members of Congress."[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT B]Change Article II to read as follows:

"A Recall will be enacted after it has the support of two-thirds of Senators and two-thirds of Members of Parliament. If a member of Congress is facing a Recall vote, they are prohibited from voting on their own Recall."[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT C]Change Article III to read as follows:

"After a member of Congress is recalled, a by-election will take place for the seat, unless the recall happens two weeks or less before the election for that particular chamber - in which circumstance the by-election will be merged with the regular elections. The by-election will be open to any and all candidates legally valid to contest a regular Congressional member, including the recalled member if they wish to contest their former seat. The by-election will be organised by the Electoral Commissioner."[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT D]Remove Article IV - Recall Elections[/spoiler]

[spoiler=AMENDMENT E]Rename Article V to Article IV and change it to read as follows:

"A Recall may only be enacted against a member of Congress if they are deemed to have broken the laws of Thaecia or of NationStates, repeatedly subverted the official Procedures of their respective chamber, or endured a prolonged period of inactivity (one week of not voting) without prior justification. If the member cannot be found guilty of any of the aforementioned wrongdoings, a Recall may not be enacted against them."[/spoiler]

Additional amendments:

[spoiler=AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT E]Author: The Islamic Country Of Honour

Amend Amendment E and change to read as follows:

"A Recall may only be enacted against a member of Congress if they are deemed to have broken the laws of Thaecia or of NationStates, repeatedly subverted the official Procedures of their respective chamber, or endured a prolonged period of inactivity (at least two weeks of not voting) without prior justification. If the member cannot be found guilty of any of the aforementioned wrongdoings, a Recall may not be enacted against them."[/spoiler]

I invite all Senators to vote on these amendments. Voting will end 2 PM EST Thursday

[spoiler=SENATORS]Asean Nations

Indian Genius

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Cydoni

Antenion

Catlin

The Bigtopia[/spoiler]

The Islamic Country Of Honour

I vote Aye to Amendments A-E and Nay to the Amendment to Amendment E. One week of unannounced absence is pretty significant and proceedings should begin then in order to replace the inactive congress member as quickly as possible and to maximize productivity.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

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