Post Archive

Aye to both. I once again implore the Chairman to table the discussion of this bill until after the justices are confirmed. At the time I submitted the bill, it was my understanding that it would be proposed AFTER justices are confirmed, so this bill was not intended for now. Developing World

THE NOMINATION OF Saint Ryvern FOR CHIEF JUSTICE - HEARING

We have received the nominations for justices and we are putting them on the floor! Our dear PM decided to nominate Saint Ryvern for the post of Chief Justice, so he will go through hearings. The Senators will ask him questions on the judicial system and he must answer them. Please tell your questions to the nominee as soon as possible!

Cerdenia

Titanne

Greater Conexus

Albianis

Saint Ryvern what is your stance on offensive speech, not abuse or harassment, but speech that certain people may find offensive? Do you believe it should be dealt with and if so how?

I will allow the question

I know. It is up to the Chairman if a question is appropriate, and given that this one was debated, I made my opinion known. And I for one agree with the principle of activist judges rather then strict constitutionalists

Saint Ryvern, what would you do in the case of no clear rulings presenting themselves?

Consulting is key, working with the other justices to read and apply the law to its highest degree is necessary. My singular opinion or my singular approach shouldn’t limit court proceedings. Part of this question is that it’s easy to imagine now due to the lack of laws detailing court procedures or criminal law in the region at large. One of my main goals as Chief Justice will be to work with the other justices (when they are appointed), other officials, and the citizens of the region draft and pass court proceedings and laws that will minimize the occurrence of the hypothetical situation you’ve proposed.

However, if a situation is so extreme, if there’s an absolute lack of evidence, or evidence has been mishandled or egregiously misrepresented, or if something went terribly wrong in the proceedings, a mistrial would be declared and the trial would restart. I can’t see that happening in this region, but it’s similar to real life, and that’s a good model to follow.

I’d treat them like the dogs they are. Just kidding, of course. I will treat them with respect, as duly appointed officials of the region. Constitutionally and in title, I’d have a different, perhaps “higher” role than them, but as my previous answer reflects, their judicial opinions and insight will be treated with the utmost respect and gratitude. I won’t be able to do this job alone, and I look forward to having the help of whoever my associate justices are.

Thank you for your questions, Senator.

I've never abandoned a region. Anytime that I've moved on from a region it's been because of the region's deterioration or outright death. There's absolutely no reason to believe Thaecia will crumble or fall anytime soon, so there's no imaginable reason that I'd leave the region and abandon the people I've been appointed to serve.

Labels can be tricky, so I'm going to avoid directly branding myself with one of the terms you've used, however I will reply to your question, of course. It will not be my duty to legislate from the bench, that is the job of the Senate and the House of Commons. It is my job to interpret and apply the law, the highest law of the region being the Constitution. In my own judicial philosophy, the Constitution is viewed as an expansive, living document that has the express purpose of serving the Thaecian people, as it is tasked with representing them. At times, that may mean that the Constitution's reach will grow because of some rulings, or parts of it may be further refined due to other rulings. Exact cases and situations will determine what approach is more appropriate, but in cases where the constitutionality of laws is being discussed, what I've stated will be most relevant and applied.

Of course, it is not my sole judicial philosophy that will affect the rulings of the Court, but the prevailing decision and opinion of all the justices. However, these philosophical underpinnings will guide my decision making within the Court.

Saint Ryvern, Lemonadia submitted the following question:

"How would you handle criminal cases to minimize the chances of a false decision?"

I

I would like to thank Saint Ryvern for answering the questions we have asked so far.

I have one more: does the nominee agree with me that a solid constitution is the foundation of any good democracy, and hence will the constitution be the basis of all legal descions he may make?

Thank you again, Saint Ryvern. I have one last question for you, if you do not mind. How would you treat any disputes between political parties?

The CONFIRMATION of the Chief Justice nominee - Saint Ryvern - VOTING

AYE: Developing World (TPU)

NAY:

ABSTAIN:

Cerdenia

Titanne

Greater Conexus

Albianis

Aye

I proudly announce that the Chief Justice nominee Saint Ryvern has been confirmed by the Senate! Congratulations and good luck!

Along the lines of MPs and Senators as we do not run a Proportional Representation system in our democracy, and Senators and MPs are elected as individual candidates I see no reason for this section of the Bill.

Other than that I agree with most of this bill.

This is part of the party system. Party's back candidates, usually those candidates are party members, but it is still the individuals seat not the party's.

I oppose every single word of this bill. It would cause instability and chaos for nothing. People vote the individual, not the party. If he switches parties he will be judged by the voters at the next election

I am opposed to the bill as well, we have managed to run our Congress without party defections so far, if the people see a Senator/MP switched party for personal gain, the same person likely won't get support on the following election. So basically, the people already have a way to stop power grabs involved in party switching, and that is their votes. At the same time, if we don't place any restrictions to it we can keep justified party switching, here is an example: let's say a Senator's party starts to collapse, poor leadership is leading the party to perform really badly, however the Senator is performing his duties well and contributing to the region, in this situation I wouldn't see party switching as something bad. I prefer to keep our high freedom and less restrictions, and this bill personally would only benefit me, as I am the Chairman of the Pirate Party, however I will still stand against restrictions to freedom.

Can I put my proposed bill through here?

S.B.006 - PARTY LOYALTY ACT - AMENDMENT PHASE

You can now propose amendments to this bill.

Cerdenia

Albianis

Titanne

Greater Conexus

I will work to amend to your point, Cerdenia.

I am still opposed to the idea in general, even if this passes I am planning to vote against the bill.

Amendment A

Author: Titanne

MPs and Senators, shall they switch parties, will be re-confirmed by their fellow members. If they are re-confirmed by their fellow members, they shall keep their seats, if not a snap election shall be called for their seat.

Aye:

Nay: Developing World (TPU)

Abstain:

Amendment B

Author: Titanne

Every month an approval poll shall be held, having all Government officials as subjects. It is recommended this poll takes place in a Google Forms format.

Aye: Developing World (TPU)

Nay:

Abstain:

Cerdenia, Titanne, Albianis,

Greater Conexus

Please vote as soon as possible!

Nay to both. I plan to vote nay for the overall bill so there is really to point in voting aye here. Also I can't see how amendment B is related to the current bill at all.

Statement by the Chairman of the Senate

My fellow Senators,

Today a legal conflict happened, after the Speaker decided to re-vote on a bill the House already approved once, taking this away from the Senate. I strongly disapprove of this intented overreach and I am decided to take it to Court. While I am Chairman, I will defend the right of Senators to have a say. When I demanded to the Speaker officially to stop this vote until the Court can decide, he decided to shut down the permision for Senators to speak on the House RMB. That was an undemocratic behaviour and I strongly condemn it. This Senate has certain legal, constitutional powers, and I won't give them up while I am Chairman.

Thank you

Now we will let the Court make an investigation and decide this dispute, I personally made myself available with any information I have to the Chief Justice and we will have to see the results. Now, Amendment A failed and we are waiting for Senator Albianis to vote on Amendment B so we can vote this bill and move to other things on our agenda

S.B. 006 - Party Loyalty Act - VOTING

AYE: Titanne (TPU)

NAY: Developing World (TPU)

ABSTAIN:

Please vote as soon as possible, so we can advance with our agenda!

Cerdenia

Greater Conexus

Albianis

NAY

S.B. 006 - Party Loyalty Act had FAILED.

S.B. 007 - Senate Procedures Act - DEBATING

Author: Cerdenia

Sponsor: Cerdenia

[spoiler=Preamble]

To define the proceedings of the Senate, and enshrine them into law. Hereby enacts the following: [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Debates]

i) The purpose of the debate stage is for Senators to share and discuss their opinions of the bill in question.

ii) Bills are entitled to a minimum of 12 hours debate and a maximum of 5 days debate. It is up to the Senate Chairman how long a bill is debated for.

iii) All bills are entitled to a debate, as long as it complies with Article VIII. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendments]

i) Amendments can be put forward by any Senator at anytime during the debate process.

ii) Amendments can change either part or all of the bill on the floor.

iii) Amendments shall be debated during the debate stage of the main bill.

iv) For each Amendment submitted, an additional 12 hours can be added to the maximum debate time set out in Article I, Section II. However, if the overall debate time is longer than 3 days, new amendments cannot be submitted. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Votes]

i) The voting stage shall occur after debating has been ended by the Senate Chairman.

ii) If any amendments have been submitted, the Senate Chairman can choose whether to put any of these to vote.

iii) If the Senate Chairman does choose amendments to go to vote, all amendments shall be voted on at the same time.

iv) Time spent voting on amendments must last a minimum of 6 hours and a maximum of 2 days.

v) If any amendments are voted in favour, the main bill will be changed in accordance with that amendment.

vi) Once amendment voting is complete, the main bill is voted on. If the main bill has been successfully amended, this must be displayed by stating: “As Amended By: [Senator's Name]” under “Author” & “Sponsor”.

vii) Votes on the main bill must last a minimum of 24 hours and a maximum of 5 days.

viii) Senators can cast either an “Aye”, “Nay”, or “Abstain” vote. "Aye" represents a vote in support on the bill, "Nay" represents a vote in opposition to the bill, "Abstain" represents an abstention from voting, and shall not have any effect on deciding wether the bill passes or not.

ix) If a Senator does not vote it is automatically recorded as an Abstention.

x) A Senator may be allowed to cast their vote for a bill in advance should they signal that they might not otherwise be available during the regular voting period, provided no amendments pass on the bill. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Chairman of the Senate]

i) It is the role of the Chairman of the Senate to set the agenda, run debates & votes and maintain order in the Senate.

ii) It is the duty of the Chairman of the Senate to maintain the legislative docket and law registries relating to the Senate.

iii) The Chairman of the Senate has other rights which are set out throughout the rest of this Act.

iv) There can only be one Chairman of the Senate at any given time. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Deputy Chairman of the Senate]

i) The Deputy Chairman of the Senate (or Deputy Chairmen if more then one) position(s) should only ever be filled in the event of a Majority Coalition.

ii) The Deputy Chairmen of the Senate are appointed by the Chairman of the Senate.

iii) The number of Deputy Chairmen of the Senate must be the same as there is coalition parties, not including the Chairman of the Senate's party and there cannot be more than one Deputy Chairman of the Senate from each party. A Senator from the Chairman of the Senate's party cannot be appointed Deputy Chairman of the Senate.

iv) Deputy Chairmen of the Senate can take over the Chairman of the Senate's role only if given direct permission from him. In the event this happens Deputy Chairmen of the Senate may exercise the rights set out for the Chairman of the Senate in Article IV. These powers are removed from the Deputy Chairman of the Senate upon the Chairman's return. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=The Shadow Chairman of the Senate]

i) In the event the Chairman of the Senate has been inactive for 7 days or the Chairman of the Senate role has been vacant for 5 days the Shadow Chairman of the Senate (Shadow Chairman) becomes Interim Chairman until the Chairman's return or a new Chairman is selected.

ii) In the event of a Vote of No Confidence against the Chairman of the Senate, the Shadow Chairman of the Senate has the responsibility of running the debate and vote following the procedures set out in Article I and III. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Caucuses]

i) There are Caucuses and sub-caucuses.

ii) Caucuses are party members within the Senate. Parties select a Leader to head their Caucus in the Senate and they shall be known as the “Caucus Leader”.

iii) Sub-caucuses are divisions within a party or the Senate itself. These aren’t seen as official and therefore being apart of them carries no legislative or role benefit. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Proposing legislation]

i) Any citizen of Thaecia can author legislation.

ii) In order for a bill to be put up for debate it must be sponsored by a Senator.

iii) In order for a bill to be legal, it must contain a Bill Name, Author & Sponsor.

iv) It is recommended that bills are written by having headings as “Articles” and subheadings as “Sections” or just numbers. Roman numerals are recommended. World Assembly written bills are acceptable.

v) The Chairman of the Senate may refuse to put a bill on the docket and request the Author rewrite the bill if it does not contain the requirements set out in Section III, is poorly written (e.g. spelling, punctuation & grammar) or contains profanity.

vi) The same piece of legislation cannot be voted or debate on more than once in a term of the Senate, unless the bill was tabled by the Chairman of the Senate (see Article X).

vii) The Chairman of the Senate shall be obliged to put a bill for debating and consequently voting, after debating and voting on the piece of legislation currently in the Senate Floor is over, if the bill has been sponsored by at least 3/5ths of the senators, and the author of the bill requests that it be given priority. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Points of Order]

i) Points of Order are where Senators can ask the Chairman of the Senate a direct question.

ii) The Chairman of the Senate is obliged to respond if the Point of Order is a question and it is made clear that the Senator is making a point of order, unless the Point of Order is clearly a joke or is not related to House business.

iii) In order for a Senator to make it clear they are making a Point of Order, they must say “Point of Order Mr/Ms Chairman.”, and then ask their question. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Tabling]

i) Tabling is where ongoing Senate business is sidelined by the Chairman of the Senate to make way for a more urgent business.

ii) In the event a bill is tabled, its entitled debate & voting times are reset for when it goes back on the floor.

iii) The Chairman of the Senate has the right to table any business at any time. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Adjournments]

i) Adjournments are where the Chairman of the Senate deliberately stops all business for a short period of time.

ii) Adjournments cannot last longer than 3 days if there is business to be put to the floor.

iii) Adjournments can be long lasting if there is no business to be put to the floor. As soon as a business is available it must be put to the floor within 2 days. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Recess]

i) Recess can only be called by the Chairman of the Senate.

ii) Recess must be called 24 hours before Parliamentary elections are held, but this can be sooner at the Chairman's choice.

iii) The Chairman of the Senate can call recess for Public Holidays if they so wish.

iv) The closing of a Parliamentary Session must be announced by the Chairman of the Senate in a closing statement to the Senate. Once this is done the Senate will go into recess.

v) The opening of a Parliamentary Session must be announced by the Chairman of the Senate in a opening statement to the Senate. This can only be done once a majority has been found. Once the opening statement is done business may begin in the Senate.

vi) Recess can be as long as necessary as it is for a reason set out in Article XIII, Sections II & III.

[spoiler=RMB usage]

i) The usage of the Senate Regional Message Board (RMB) shall be restricted to: Senators; The Prime Minister; The President; The Senate Founder Nation; Authors of Bills; Persons being nominated for a position by the Senate (example: Justices) and people sponsored to participate in a debate by a senator.

ii) Senators may be allowed to sponsor citizens to participate in Senate debates, to do so the senator must announce who he is sponsoring on the RMB. A senator may only be allowed to sponsor one individual per debate. If the Chairman of the Senate believes this system is being abused, he shall be allowed to revoke the right of a sponsored citizen to speak on the Senate's RMB.

iii) The usage of the Senate RMB by individuals who do not fall into any of the categories listed above shall be declared illegal and punishable under the law. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amending this Law]

i) This Act is open for amendment as procedures change and adapt.

ii) To avoid abuse of government power, in order for this Act to be amended, it will require 2/3rds majority in the House of Commons and Senate. [/spoiler]

Congrats to Senator Cerdenia for writing this bill. I have my problems with it, but the effort of writing and writing good such a long bill won't go unappreciated.

Please express your opinion as soon as possible!

Titanne

Greater Conexus

Albianis

This decision had absolutely nothing to do with the Speaker, Senator. I reject this unkind accusation. I always stood for more involvment by the nations. But fine, I will restrict it to nation from Thaecia, you are right in that part

I am sorry for that spoiler. Fixed it. Now, I had time to read it when I put all the spoilers, so here is what I think is wrong:

1. Amendments

- Many amendments are about rephrasing or fix a word mistake. Why give 12 hours addition to such things?

- The amendments should be regarded separately of the main bill, as they are a new addition, not be debated with the bill.

2. Votes

- Usually everyone express his/her vote in less than 24 hours. Why not move on if so?

3. Deputy Speaker & Shadow Speaker

- I believe this functions should be merged into one office: one Deputy Chairman. He should keep things in the Senate going if the Chairman asks him to do so, hold that vote the Shadow had to and advise the Chairman in order of organisation and procedure.

4. Proposing Legislation

- The HoC might pass the Petition System Act, which would contradict this bill which claims the requirment of Sponsorship.

5. Tabling

- I think this must be approved by a majority in the Senate.

6. I think we should also use titles like "Honourable Lord" or "Honourable Baroness"

1- Well first of all, the amendment article reads:

"[...]iv) For each Amendment submitted, an additional 12 hours can be added to the maximum debate time set out in Article I, Section II. However, if the overall debate time is longer than 3 days, new amendments cannot be submitted."

As you can see it says that 12 hours can be added, not that they shall be added, this is up to the Senate Chairman to decide really, if it is a small amendment then adding 12 hours won't be necessary. As for your second point regarding amendments, I can't completely understand what you mean with that, I don't see it as a big deal really, amendments are all related to the main bill so I don't see any need to debate them separately.

2- Valid point, I am hereby submiting the following amendment to article 3 (votes) section 7:

vii) Votes on the main bill must last a minimum of 24 hours and a maximum of 5 days. If all senators have already voted before the end of the minimum of 24 hours for voting, the Senate Chairman may be allowed to close the voting earlier.

3- You reffered to them as "Deputy Speaker" and "Shadow Speaker", I am going to assume you meant to say "Deputy Chairman" and "Shadow Chairman". The roles are different and do different things. The Shadow Chairman is the leader of the opposition (in our current Senate that would be me), while the Deputy Chairman is a function which only exists in situations of Coalitions between parties, and the position is given to Senators from parties in a coalition (excluding the party leading the coalition). Since our current majority is lead by a single party this position doesen't currently exist yet. Overall I have no plans to make changes to this article.

4- This bill is in regards to Senate Procedures, whatever the House does is not related to this bill.

5 - Tabling doesen't require a majority, however one thing already present on the bill is that Senators may obligate the Chairman to put a bill up for voting if they get a majority of the Senators to sponsor the bill.

Article 8 (proposing legislation):

"vii) The Chairman of the Senate shall be obliged to put a bill for debating and consequently voting, after debating and voting on the piece of legislation currently in the Senate Floor is over, if the bill has been sponsored by at least 3/5ths of the senators, and the author of the bill requests that it be given priority."

So overall because of this I see no need to request a vote for tabling to be allowed.

6- I decided to remove the titles thing from our bill because I've found them to be unnecessary bureaucracy, Senators are still allowed to use titles if they want to, however I opted not to make them look like something extremelly necessary.

Yes, but I don't want to have a situation in which two bills are contradicting each other. It is enough confusion as it is right now

Amendment A

There shall be established the office of Deputy Chairman, who will be only one at a time, no matter wether the Senate is rulled by a coalition or not. He will be appointed by the Chairman and can be dismissed at any time by the Chairman. His attributions include replacing the Chairman at his own direct request and run the Senate, a replacement which will stop when the Chairman returns and advise the Chairman on any matters regarding the Senate. He will also hold the vote of no confidence. This does not affect the office of "Shadow Speaker".

Amendment proposal B

It is enough for 1/2 of Senators to sponsor the bill and the author of it requesting it to be a priority to overrule tabling.

Amendment proposal C

The official titles which must be used during the debates are "Honourable Lord" for male members and "Honourable Baroness" for female members.

Amendment proposal D

For a bill to be put on the floor it must be sponsored by one Senator or use another way that Thaecian law allows to propose it

Amendment A refers to an office in the House of Commons for some reason, and would still be unconstitutional since it alters an office already defined under the constituion (Shadow Chairman).

Amendment B is unnecessary, I already explained on an earlier post how therr already is a way to overrule tabling in my bill.

Amendment C is unnecessary and I don't believe this sort of thing needs to be in our procedures.

Amendment D is poorly written, perhaps I would be supportive of it if it had a better wording.

Also Mr. Chairman, I proposed this amendment earlier

About your Amendment - You can just modify the bill since you are its author.

A. I modified amendnment A so it does not affect that office. And what has the HoC to do with it?

B. It just reduces the number necessary for overrulling tabling from 4 sponsors to 3 sponsors

C. It is just harmless

5. What the hell is poorly written there? It is very clear

A. Shadow Speaker is a position in the House of Commons, not in the Senate.

B. Uh the thing in my bill only requires 3 Senators though...

C. Still not necessary.

D. Not good wording, I'll be voting against it under the current wording, I will vote for it if it's better worded though.

My bill states 3/5ths though:

"vii) The Chairman of the Senate shall be obliged to put a bill for debating and consequently voting, after debating and voting on the piece of legislation currently in the Senate Floor is over, if the bill has been sponsored by at least 3/5ths of the senators, and the author of the bill requests that it be given priority."

Amendments to S.B. 007 - VOTING

Amendment A

There shall be established the office of Deputy Chairman, who will be only one at a time, no matter wether the Senate is rulled by a coalition or not. He will be appointed by the Chairman and can be dismissed at any time by the Chairman. His attributions include replacing the Chairman at his own direct request and run the Senate, a replacement which will stop when the Chairman returns and advise the Chairman on any matters regarding the Senate. He will also hold the vote of no confidence. This does not affect the office of "Shadow Chairman".

Aye: Developing World (TPU)

Nay:

Abstain:

Amendment B:

It is enough for 1/2 of Senators to sponsor the bill and the author of it requesting it to be a priority to overrule tabling.

Aye: Developing World (TPU)

Nay:

Abstain:

Amendment C

The official titles which must be used during the debates are "Honourable Lord" for male members and "Honourable Baroness" for female members.

Aye: Developing World (TPU)

Nay:

Abstain:

Amendment D

For a bill to be put on the floor by the Senate Chairman it must either be sponsored by a Senator or use an alternative way to propose it which the laws of Thaecia allow.

Aye: Developing World (TPU)

Nay:

Abstain:

Cerdenia, Titanne, Albianis, Greater Conexus please vote on the RMB as soon as possible!

Nay

Aye

Nay

Aye

Nay

Nay

Nay

Aye

Voting has ended

Aye

Statement of the Chairman of the Senate

Order, order!

I must announce with deep regret that due to trouble both in my personal life and my Thaecian life, I am resigning from both my Chairmanship of the Senate and my position as a Senator. I hope I was able to make a good, even if small, difference for Thaecia and I hope that the next Chairman will accomplish more than I did. Farewell, my colleagues!

But before that, it is my great honour that in my last act as Chairman, I announce that S.B. 007 has passed!

Good luck!

The numbers were not incorrect, the 5th bill was the one with the Justices which was withdrawn from the table until the Court is confirmed. And I was not allowed to update factbooks for some reasons, so I kept store of the legislation on my puppet's page. I won't interfere much with the Senate but I had to clarify some things

Term Limits Act - H.B. 003 - Debate

Author: Korsinia

Sponsor: Korsinia

As Amended By: Rayekka and Developing World

[spoiler=Preamble]

Understanding that the President and Prime Minister can serve unlimited amounts of terms, with no breaks in between. Justices can sit as long as they like with no election of their positions. Hereby enacts the following:[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Article I: President and PM term limits]

Individual citizens of Thaecia may serve an a maximum of two (2) consecutive terms as Prime Minister and a maximum of two (2) consecutive terms as President.If a Prime Minister or President loses or does not stand for re-election they cannot serve another term in that position at any time. Should the need for impeachment be necessary, it can be done through 2/3rds support in the House of Commons and 2/3rds support in the Senate. Impeachment proceedings can be started by either chamber of Congress. If the President or the Prime Minister retires after one term or loses re election he can not run for this offices for 5 months[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Article II: Defining term]

Defining term to be the period after the day of the Presidential/Prime Minister elections, to the day before the next elections.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Article III: Justice hearings]

The Justices of Thaecia will be re-evaluated through a hearing in the Senate and re-confirmed by the Senate every 6 months. An absolute majority is required to re-confirm a Justice. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Article IV: Justice impeachment]

Should a Justice not be fit for their position, the Senate can impeach them with a 2/3rds majority. Justices are deemed not fit for their position if they have committed a felony in Thaecia or are inactive for 28 days or longer. If the 2/3rd majority for impeachment is not reached, but a 1/2 majority is, the Senate will recomend the resignation of that certain Justice[/spoiler]______________________________________________________________________________________

[spoiler=Senators (4)]

Cerdenia (PPT)

Albianis (TPU)

Titanne (TPU)

Greater Conexus (TSP)

Vacant[/spoiler]

After talking with the Speaker of the House in regards to the House bills which the Senate still needed to vote on, the Speaker informed me that we technically still had to vote on the full version of this bill, as we only approved the individual senate amendments to it, and not the full bill with all amendments. Personally I am opposed to this bill, I don't like the idea of term limits in general not just because of the amendments. If the people like a politician I see no reason as to why they shouldn't be able to reelect him, plan to vote against it.

Cerdenia,

Captain of the Pirate Party of Thaecia

Chairman of the Senate

Deputy Prime Minister

Senator