Post Archive
Region: The Thaecian Senate
I would make my own statement, but I agree with the above Senators, in the voting aye, and in getting it over with quickly, as it is clearly something that has great support.
Pap Sculgief
I'm tired to see all those amendments pass and the house practically removed nothing, so let's just get to the vote already.
Imagine being in the House of commons
This post was made by the senate gang
Islonia
There is nothing I have to say to this, honestly needless, Amendement that is worth taking up time of an official debate.
Islonia
Are you calling the debate or amendment needless :c
[B]Voting - Snap Election Constitutional Amendment
Snap Election Constitutional Amendment
As amended by: Dizgovzy
We have now begun voting on the Snap Election Constitutional Amendment, as amended by the House.
My vote is Aye
[Spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Dizgovzy, Pap Sculgief
Aye
Aye
aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
[B]Results of Voting on the Snap Election Constitutional Amendment
Snap Election Constitutional Amendment
As amended by: Dizgovzy
Aye (7): Islonia, Brototh, Dendrobium, Andusre, Pap Sculgief, World Trade, Marvinville
The Senate has passed this constitutional amendment, again, unanimously.
(Sorry for the ping, Diz, my mistake, just ignore it).
Dizgovzy, Pap Sculgief, Marvinville
Opening of Debate on the Congressional Toolbox Act
Sponsor: Islonia
We've now begun debating the Congressional Toolbox Act.
[spoiler=Senators]
Marvinville[/spoiler]
Pap Sculgief, Islonia, Marvinville
I don't know why, but I find this bill really smexy.
Dizgovzy, Pap Sculgief
At the request of the regional Thot (Brototh), I made a minor wording edit on the bill to prevent confusion.
Before:
Article II -Section II - A hearing may only be called on for members of the government or a past government. The following positions shall be defined as member of a government: President, Prime Minister, Minister, Deputy Minister, Secretary of Roleplay, Ministerial and Departmental Staff (excluding the Roleplay Administration).
After:
Article II - Section II - A hearing may only be called on for members of the government or a past government. For the purpose of this bill, the following positions shall be defined as member of a government: President, Prime Minister, Minister, Deputy Minister, Secretary of Roleplay, Ministerial and Departmental Staff (excluding the Roleplay Administration).
Indian Genius, Brototh, Marvinville
I support this bill but I will be writing a few minor amendments that I see fit.
Thanks Andy for doing that for me!
Indian Genius
I'd just like to propose arguments in favour of this bill in case anyone has doubts:
-First of all the Bill repeals the much hated House Committees Act LR 028 and can be argued to fix a lot of issues with the Congressional Oversight Act LR 029.
-Something I believe that may tick people off is Article II Section II of the bill in which the text states 'A hearing may only be called on for members of the government or a past government.' As I discussed with Islonia when he was polishing off the bill, this line of text exists for, in the case that someone may have done something in Government that Congress seek answers about, however are no longer in government-- due to a resignation, being fired, a new government, etc.-- the Bill allows for Congress to call on previous members of the Government if they believe it may it may assist, 'in an ongoing investigation.' as outlined by Section I of Article II.
-As the Hon. Islonia has amended the bill with my advice, a minor note is that it does not define those positions as being the only members of Government as if it did, it could be interpreted that because of this Act a member of Congress could be argued as not being a member of Government, which is a debate that nobody is interested in going through with.
--This addition also allows for future bills to define members of Government within their own bill instead of being restricted to this one.
-This bill expands on the previous definition of a member of Government from the LR 029 Congressional Oversight Act and will allow Congress to question more peoples if need be.
-The bill also fixes an issue with LR 029 Congressional Oversight Act that states in Article IV 'A Hearing can also be called on simply to quiz someone on some aspect of their work or a policy they have passed in order to just obtain more information. If called upon for no valid reason, the Speaker of the House may elect to throw the proposition out of the docket.'. LR 029 allows for the Government to call on someone because they don't understand something-- a matter that can be better resolved within one of the regional Discord servers, within a Telegram, or direct message instead of bringing someone to government because they are confused on something. It also practically defines 'valid reason' as at the end of Article IV as when a member of the Executive Branch is failing to fulfill their job and/or executing it poorly, or to do with a crisis. This is widely better than LR 029 which allows for someone to be quizzed about their work which will take up valuable Congressional time.
-The proposed bill also completely removes the line 'the Speaker of the House' because that only gives powers to the House Speaker, now all powers are in hands of the unbiased, impartial and arguably underworked Court (although, that is a good thing).
-The bill, as stated previously strikes the LR 028 House Committees Act, something that multiple Congresspeople campaigned to remove if they were elected. As stated by Islonia in direct message on the Discord, 'the House Committees were useless because it needed permanent committees to do oversight.' Instead this oversight can be achieved with a motion. 'This is a tool that can be used not only for oversight'.
-Overall this bill cleans up LR 028 and LR 029 and proposes a much more simple solution to Congress calling upon a Member of Government. I intend to vote aye.
Islonia, Indian Genius
I would like to propose these 2 amendments.
[spoiler=Amendment A]
To amend Article II, Section II
Section II - A hearing may only be called on for members of the government or a past government. For the purpose of this bill, the following positions shall be defined as member of a government: President, Prime Minister, Minister, Deputy Minister, Electoral Commissioner, Deputy Electoral Commissioner, Secretary of Roleplay, Ministerial and Departmental Staff (excluding the Roleplay Administration).
[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment B]
To amend Article II, Section IV
Section IV - Hearings can be called on when a member of the government that has been neglecting their duties or is executing them poorly. executive branch is/has been seen as not doing his duties or when he seems/seemed to execute them poorly. A hearing can also be called to receive explicit information on an ongoing or past crisis. A crisis will be defined as an important event hurting in any way negatively impacting the community or the reputation of the region.
[/spoiler]
Also a question for Islonia. I dont believe the bill describes this, or I may just not be reading it correctly, but can a motion for a hearing be called by any congress member at any time? Or would it need to be submitted to the Speaker or Chair for further action?
Indian Genius, Brototh
First of all, thank you for the EC & DEC addition and the wording fix. I'm in favor of both A & B.
As for the question, any member of congress can call for a hearing, as I did not specify only the speaker could. Obviously the speaker still decides the docket, so he/she will have to either table the ongoing business or make it the next one.
Pap Sculgief, Indian Genius, Brototh, Marvinville
[B]Voting - Amendments
[B]Amendment A
Author: Marvinville
[spoiler=Amendment A]
To amend Article II, Section II
Section II - A hearing may only be called on for members of the government or a past government. For the purpose of this bill, the following positions shall be defined as member of a government: President, Prime Minister, Minister, Deputy Minister, Electoral Commissioner, Deputy Electoral Commissioner, Secretary of Roleplay, Ministerial and Departmental Staff (excluding the Roleplay Administration).
[/spoiler]
[B]Amendment B
Author: Marvinville
[Spoiler=Amendment B]
Section IV - Hearings can be called on when a member of the government that has been neglecting their duties or is executing them poorly. executive branch is/has been seen as not doing his duties or when he seems/seemed to execute them poorly. A hearing can also be called to receive explicit information on an ongoing or past crisis. A crisis will be defined as an important event hurting in any way negatively impacting the community or the reputation of the region.
[/spoiler]
We have now begun voting on the two amendments proposed to the Congressional Toolbox Act.
I vote Aye to both.
[Spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Indian Genius, Brototh
Aye, aye, senate chair
World Trade, Andusre, Indian Genius
Aye to both
Indian Genius
Aye to both
Indian Genius
Aye to both
Indian Genius
Aye to both
Aye and Aye
Results - Amendments
Sponsor: Islonia
[B]Amendment A
Author: Marvinville
[spoiler=Amendment A]
To amend Article II, Section II
Section II - A hearing may only be called on for members of the government or a past government. For the purpose of this bill, the following positions shall be defined as member of a government: President, Prime Minister, Minister, Deputy Minister, Electoral Commissioner, Deputy Electoral Commissioner, Secretary of Roleplay, Ministerial and Departmental Staff (excluding the Roleplay Administration).
[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Vote Results]
Ayes (7) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief, World Trade
Nays (0)
Abstentions (0)
[/spoiler]
[B]Amendment B
Author: Marvinville
[Spoiler=Amendment B]
Section IV - Hearings can be called on when a member of the government that has been neglecting their duties or is executing them poorly. executive branch is/has been seen as not doing his duties or when he seems/seemed to execute them poorly. A hearing can also be called to receive explicit information on an ongoing or past crisis. A crisis will be defined as an important event hurting in any way negatively impacting the community or the reputation of the region.
[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Vote Results]
Ayes (7) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief, World Trade
Nays (0)
Abstentions (0)
[/spoiler]
Both amendments proposed to the bill has passed the Senate.
Pap Sculgief
Voting - Congressional Toolbox Act
Sponsor: Islonia
As amended by: Marvinville
We have now begun to vote on the Congressional Toolbox Act, as amended.
My vote is Aye
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Pap Sculgief
Aye
aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Results - Congressional Toolbox Act
Sponsor: Islonia
As amended by: Marvinville
Ayes (7) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief, World Trade
Nays (0)
Abstentions (0)
The Congressional Toolbox Act, as amended, has passed the Senate and will now move to the House of Commons for further action.
[spoiler=House Speaker]
[/spoiler]
Dizgovzy, Pap Sculgief, Islonia
I approve of the bill in its current form, and it provides necessary amendments. Despite this, I do have an amendment for this bill, that covers something that hasnt been covered in the bill.
[spoiler=Amendment A]Adds to Article 1 of LR.022:
1.11 - The Electoral Commissioner and their deputy are unable to run in an election while holding a position in the Commission.[/spoiler]
From what Ive seen in LR.022 and this bill, technically members of the EC can still run in elections, and they would be able to do that legally, and therefore they wont be able to be impeached for it. This amendment seeks to fix the loophole we have. I encourage the Senators to support my amendment, and I am open to questions and concerns
Dizgovzy, Fishergate
Thank you for having me at the Senate Floor.
Pap Sculgief, I very much appreciate the thought you have put into your response. I helped the late MPs Zanaana and Xernon with this bill whilst I was Electoral Commissioner. The EC and DEC are forbidden from holding other positions in government, and the AECs may, with the stipulation that they may not preside over an election they themselves are participating in.
Thus I give my support to Senator Sculgiefs Amendment- whereas this loophole would never be exploited by a commissioner, I still believe it be in our best interests to tie up this loophole. As well, I have sponsored Senator Sculgiefs bill that is essentially this amendment- let me note the fact that it is currently last on the docket. Shall this amendment pass I will remove the bill from the docket.
Once again, I appreciate being able to speak here, and to speak on behalf of my late colleagues.
Dizgovzy
Speaker of the House
Member of Parliament
Pap Sculgief, Islonia
Thank you for your support Mr Speaker. I completely agree with your points. While the loophole is something that I sincerely doubt and hope no commissioner will do, the threat is still there for it to happen. I thank you for understanding my amendment, and I encourage once again for my fellow senators to support the amendment
Dizgovzy
I support the amendment & the bill. Nothing much to say except this.
Smexy bill btw.
Pap Sculgief
The President an PM can only hold one position at a time, Ministers and Secretaries can only hold one position at a time, MP's and Senators can only hold one position at a time; so it is only natural the same goes for the Electoral Commission. It is good this loophole is taken care of, but I think there is one small flaw in this Amendement. Just like anyone else can only hold one position at a time, as a precaution for abuse of powers or unjust priorities, the same should go for Assistant EC's.
While in this Amendement it is clearly stated that they are not allowed to supervise elections they themselves are involved in, the Assistant EC's still have access to matters taken care of in the Electoral Commission. Besides that, if someone choses to take up a certain official position, be it as part of the Electoral Commission or not, they are expected to prioritize said position, and not to take up other "secondary" tasks that end up with a lack of attention.
However, no-one should be seperated from their Thaecian right to run for an official governmental position. The same goes for members of the EC. That is why I propose Amendement B:
[spoiler=Amendement B]The Electoral Commissioner, and Deputy Electoral Commissioner and Assistant Electoral Commisioners may hold no other positions in government, while Assistant Electoral Commissioners are allowed to. The Electoral Commissioner, Deputy Electoral Commissioner and Assistant Electoral Commissioner may be a candidate in elections for positions in government but may not supervise any election in which they are a candidate. If said member of the Electoral Commission is elected, they must formally give up their position within the Electoral Commission.[/spoiler]
Obvioulsy I am open to suggestions if someone has remarks on Amendement B, since in a way it extends on both Amendement A and the original Amendement.
Both Amendment A and B both seem to contradict each other in achieving their goals. I support Amendment A more than I do with B. With the bill, I don't support making the election time to be at most 7 days. I think that is an awfully long time for an election to be held. I understand that the EC's could end the election earlier but what worries me is that there is no minimum time the election must be held for. I like the way it is in the current form, but it does need slight modifications.
Pap Sculgief
Technically no law can actually prevent someone from being able to run in any election, regardless of their status as government official. The law only has the ability to prevent someone from holding multiple offices in government, or only a set amount, etc. This is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, thus Amendment A (specifically are unable to run in an election) is unconstitutional.
The original bill achieves the same thing, all it does is prevent them from holding positions in government. Nobody would actually run in an election for a position they legally cannot hold. The Constitution guarantees the right to run for public office and in elections, but not necessarily hold it. Amendment A is a resounding nay from me, and if for whatever reason it passes I'll be headed to the High Court to resolve this issue.
Constitution Article VII - Rights
- The right to run for public office, provided they are citizens.
- The right to run and vote in elections, provided that they are a citizen.
(Note it does not say hold)
Amendment B, meanwhile, accomplishes the same thing as Amendment A, however, constitutionally. There's no right to supervising elections in the Constitution, if you remove the legal right to be able to supervise elections in which one is a candidate, then the bias aspect is removed anyway. Again in conclusion, amendment A does not have the ability to deny anyone the right to run in an election, as it is a constitutional right. I encourage the Rt. Hon. Chair Marvinville to not put this amendment to vote.
Pap Sculgief, Islonia, Dendrobium
Post self-deleted by Pap Sculgief.
I completely agree with Senator Brototh, and I apologise for not really thinking things through. I guess well have to live with the loophole being in the law, but hopefully no EC will dream of using it.
Edit: Id like to publicly remove Amendment A from being voted on
Islonia, Brototh, Marvinville
Well, we have the Positions Restriction Act, which already prevents people from holding too many positions/certain combinations of positions, so I guess it doesn't really matter
Amendment B achieves the goal anyway
Pap Sculgief, Islonia, Dendrobium
Yeah, Amendment B just prevents the EC from supervising the election and Ill support it.
Islonia, Brototh, Dendrobium
I would like to propose this amendment. Please let me know your opinions on it
[Spoiler=Amendment C]
Article II:
Amend Article II, Section II, Sub-Section 2.5 to say the following : The Election must commence no later than 5 days before inauguration date, and last between 3 and 5 days. no more than 7 days
Article III:
Amend Article II, Section III, Sub-Section 3.5 to say the following : The Election must commence no later than 5 days before inauguration date, and last between 3 and 5 days. no more than 7 days
Article IV:
Amend Article III, Section IV, Sub-Section 4.5 to say the following : The Election must commence no later than 5 days before inauguration date, and last between 3 and 5 days. no more than 7 days
Article V:
Amend Article IV,Section V, Sub-Section 5.5 to say the following : The Election must commence no later than 5 days before inauguration date, and last between 3 and 5 days. no more than 7 days
[/spoiler]
With the amendment... 'The election must commence no later than 5 days....and last between...5 days'
Lolwut? Marvinville
In its current form, elections can go longer than the planned inauguration date.
I have decided to drop Amendments C
[B]Voting - Amendment B
[B]Amendment B:
Author: Dendrobium
[spoiler=Amendement B]The Electoral Commissioner, and Deputy Electoral Commissioner and Assistant Electoral Commisioners may hold no other positions in government, while Assistant Electoral Commissioners are allowed to. The Electoral Commissioner, Deputy Electoral Commissioner and Assistant Electoral Commissioner may be a candidate in elections for positions in government but may not supervise any election in which they are a candidate. If said member of the Electoral Commission is elected, they must formally give up their position within the Electoral Commission.[/spoiler]
We have now begun voting on Amendment B to the bill that Amends L.R. 022
My vote is Aye
[Spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Abstain
[B]Results - Amendment B
[B]Amendment B: (PASSED)
Author: Dendrobium
[spoiler=Amendement B]The Electoral Commissioner, and Deputy Electoral Commissioner and Assistant Electoral Commisioners may hold no other positions in government, while Assistant Electoral Commissioners are allowed to. The Electoral Commissioner, Deputy Electoral Commissioner and Assistant Electoral Commissioner may be a candidate in elections for positions in government but may not supervise any election in which they are a candidate. If said member of the Electoral Commission is elected, they must formally give up their position within the Electoral Commission.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Vote Results]
Ayes (6) - Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief, World Trade
Nays (0)
Abstentions (1) - Andusre
[/spoiler]
Amendment B has passed the Senate.
World Trade
Voting - Amendments to L.R. 022
Authors: Zanaana, Dizgovzy & Xernon
Sponsor: Zanaana
As amended by: Dendrobium
We have now begun voting on the Amendments to L.R. 022, as amended by the Senate.
My vote is Nay
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
aye
Aye
Results - Amendments to LR 22
Authors: Zanaana, Dizgovzy & Xernon
Sponsor: Zanaana
As amended by: Dendrobium
AYE (6): Dendrobium, World Trade, Islonia, Brototh, Andusre, Pap Sculgief
NAY (1): Marvinville
The bill has therefore passed the Senate 6 votes to 1.
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Dizgovzy, Pap Sculgief, Brototh
Opening the Debate on Amendments to LR 18
Author: Brototh
Sponsor: Brototh
Senators, we've now begun debating the above.
[spoiler=Senators]
World Trade[/spoiler]
Brototh
I was next on the docket? Pretty cool, just like the author. Basically removes the requirement to have to obtain the previous rank before getting the next one. I spoke with the original author, Korsinia, who agrees with the changes. This is because the original Order of Thaecia is feeling quite deflated, and it's very hard to climb up the ranks. Some people objectively deserve G.T, such as Andusre and Xernon considering they are the founders of this region, however, Andusre only has the OT, and will find it hard to climb the entire list.
Also removed the Thaecian citizen requirement, so that residents such as Xernon can be celebrated for their achievements within the region. Removed the requirement to post a discord announcement, in face of some presidents like Titanne, who, up until recently, were unable to access discord.
Really, I don't know what else to say, I am open to suggestions. Most people supported reforming the Order of Thaecia, here it is.
Korsinia, World Trade, Islonia
Senators, real life circumstances make it so that it is currently difficult to fully commit to my duties as a Senator. Therefore, whilst I won't be resigning, I do notify the Senate of my intention (in advance, as defined by Section X, Article III of LR 6) to vote in the following ways:
Amendments to LR 18 - Aye
Repeal of the Petitions Bill - Aye
Culture Ministry Recognition Act - Nay
The Prevention of Inappropriately Early Snap Elections Constitutional Amendment - Aye
If it should be added to the docket, the motion to call a snap election for the 2 added seats in time for the Midterms - Aye
Please note these votes are invalid if amendments are made to the bills.
I'm unsure of when I'll be able to fully commit again but will make this as soon as I possibly can.
Korsinia, World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Islonia, Brototh, Marvinville
Seems pretty smexy to me, I'm gonna vote aye on that. Not much more to say about it.
Brototh
Good amendments, I will be voting aye.
Brototh
Senators, there has been a very minor amendment to the bill.
Where it originally said:
"Nominations of a Thaecian citizen by another Thaecian citizen..."
Now, for easier visibility, it says:
"Nominations of a Thaecian citizen by a another Thaecian citizen..."
It was a minor clerical error so I did not propose it as an amendment.
World Trade, Marvinville
Seems fine to me, but one question just for clarification: will it be the President alone who decides or will others have a say in it as well, since there must be an anouncement in the RMB I assume this is both for informing Thaecia and asking for some sort of public opinion on the matter?
The original LR 018 bill left the decision entirely down to the President of Thaecia. The amendments haven't struck that part away from them. As the President has to make an announcement saying what rank was proposed, etc., Thaecian citizens can submit their thoughts on the matter in the meanwhile before the President makes their second announcement informing Thaecia of their decision. It is ultimately down to the President who does and does not receive the award- but I'm pretty sure if the public came with backlash to the nomination the President would reject.
Dendrobium
Voting - Amendments to L.R. 018
Author: Brototh
Sponsor: Brototh
We have now begun voting on the Amendments to L.R. 018
My vote is Aye
[spoiler=Senators]
World Trade[/spoiler]
Aye
aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Results - Amendments to L.R. 018
Author: Brototh
Sponsor: Brototh
Ayes (7) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief, World Trade
Nays (0)
Abstentions (0)
The Amendments to L.R. 018 has passed the Senate and has now moved to the House for further action.
[spoiler=House Speaker]
[/spoiler]
Opening Debate - Senate Vacant Seats Snap Election Bill August 2020
Senate Vacant Seats Snap Election Bill August 2020
Author: Brototh
Sponsor: Brototh
Shall the Senate pass this bill, it will call for a snap election on the two vacant seats given to the Senate in the Congressional Expansion Act of July 2020. The election for these two seats would be during the Midterm election.
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Long name lol
World Trade, Senate Chair Marvinville
I support the bill, as it allows for the congressional expansion act to be brought in soon.
Everyone supports it so let's just head to the vote
World Trade, United Faith Kingdom
Voting - Senate Vacant Seats Snap Election Bill August 2020
Senate Vacant Seats Snap Election Bill August 2020
Author: Brototh
Sponsor: Brototh
We have now begun voting on this motion
My vote is Aye
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Brototh
Aye
Brototh
aye
World Trade
Aye
World Trade, Brototh
Aye
World Trade, Brototh
Aye
World Trade, Brototh
Results - Senate Vacant Seats Snap Election Bill August 2020
Senate Vacant Seats Snap Election Bill August 2020
Author: Brototh
Sponsor: Brototh
Ayes (7) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief, World Trade
Nays (0)
Abstentions (0)
This motion has passed the Senate and there will be a special election to fill the two vacant seats in the midterms.
[Spoiler=EC]
[/spoiler]
Hulldom, Brototh
Repeal of LR.012*
I would prefer we could replace LR 012 with something, but repealing it is better than keeping it.
Pap Sculgief
I think the idea is that it will, at some point be replaced, but I agree that if that is currently not possible, the bill's repeal is our best course of action.
Brototh
I think that repealing the bill will give more scope for a new one, and so I support the bill
L.R. 012 isn't perfect but I am opposed to fully repeal it until a proper replacement for the bill is proposed. So far there seems to be an agreement that it should eventually be repealed to make place for a better version, but until there actually is a better version proposed to take the place of L.R. 012 I don't think that is valid argument. If something like that is added to the docket I will gladly vote "Aye" on repealing the current L.R. 012.
[B]Voting - L.R. 012 Thaecia Government Petition System Repeal Bill
[B]L.R. 012 Thaecia Government Petition System Repeal Bill
Author: Islonia
Sponsor: Islonia
We have now begun voting on this bill.
My vote is Aye
[Spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.