We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Cabinet Proposal of December 2645
Details
Submitted by[?]: Lodamun National Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill presents the formation of a cabinet. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. Traditionally, parties in the proposal vote yes, others (the opposition) vote no. This bill will pass as soon as the required yes votes are in and all parties in the proposal have voted yes, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2646
Description[?]:
Proposals
Article 1
As per the Constitution, the President of the Commonwealth chairs the cabinet.
Article 2
The responsibilites of Science and Technology will be conducted by the Free Peoples Party
Article 3
The responsibilites of Food and Agriculture will be conducted by the Lodamun National Party
Article 4
The responsibilites of Environment and Tourism will be conducted by the Lodamun National Party
Article 5
The responsibilites of Trade and Industry will be conducted by the The Liberal Party
Article 6
The responsibilites of Foreign Affairs will be conducted by the The Liberal Party
Article 7
The responsibilites of Internal Affairs will be conducted by the The Liberal Party
Article 8
The responsibilites of Finance will be conducted by the Free Peoples Party
Article 9
The responsibilites of Defence will be conducted by the Free Peoples Party
Article 10
The responsibilites of Justice will be conducted by the Lodamun National Party
Article 11
The responsibilites of Infrastructure and Transport will be conducted by the Free Peoples Party
Article 12
The responsibilites of Health and Social Services will be conducted by the The Liberal Party
Article 13
The responsibilites of Education and Culture will be conducted by the Lodamun National Party
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:52:14, October 02, 2008 CET |
From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | *FPP keep doing that. Anyway the LNP can't count. This bill will fail 75-75. The URP may support if the LP are not given any of the following positions: Head of Government, Foreign Affairs, Internal Affairs, Finance, Defense, or Justice. The URP would also prefer if the FPP were given the HoG position and the URP held at least 2 cabinet posts. |
| Date | 22:30:44, October 02, 2008 CET |
From | Holy Eliyahu Confession | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | we would consider the URP joining a Nationalist cabinet an act of betrayal on their part.
We would propose a unity cabinet, with all parties represented in order to break the deadlock of this parliament. |
| Date | 23:08:40, October 02, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | We would happily agree with that but then there is the problem of who gets what. As you can see, the URP doesn't want us in the cabinet and we don't want them either. So, there's a bit of a problem there, don't you think? If we could work something like that out, great. |
| Date | 00:01:04, October 03, 2008 CET |
From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | The URP recognizes the concerns of the CLL however blocking a LNP cabinet with a possible 75-75 vote would potential destabilize the Republic. A single seat changing hands in the next election may make the installation of LP Ministers in key positions impossible to avoid. The URP is willing to support the LNP only if key ministries remain out of LP hands and the CPP also participates.
We would support a unity cabinet, however the Liberals as always must not be allowed to assume any of the key posts. |
| Date | 00:24:06, October 03, 2008 CET |
From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | If I was stubborn I wouldn't negotiate at all. It's not really the Liberals' place to dictate their posts anyway - it's up to the President. I'm merely telling him what I will and will not support. If he choses to ignore my requests as he has done in the past, I will vote as I have in the past and block the cabinet. |
| Date | 01:30:33, October 03, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | OOC: PLEASE, PLEASE, speak in character. It is ANNOYING when you combine OOC and IC.
IC: Don't try to make yourselves look better. You are, if not the most partisan party, close to being the most partisan party in this country. You don't care about the people or ayone else, just about you, you, and no one other than you. You are not negotiating, you are bullying your way through.
We will recommend the President to fire some Ministers and appoint some Acting Minister shall this proposal not pass. |
| Date | 05:03:44, October 03, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | Don't blame them. They have tried, you and the others on your side have either blocked it or have tried to sabotage it by requiring certain votes on certain bills. That's dirty politics. If you are going to put a blame on someone, put it to all of us in this Senate and in the government. We are all responsible for it. |
| Date | 15:22:32, October 03, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | This is how the law works: If there is no law making it illegal, then it is legal.
OOC: Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there were no laws about alcohol, none at all. Now, if I start drinking beer, for example, is that illegal even if there is no law saying it is illegal? |
| Date | 21:04:21, October 03, 2008 CET |
From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | That's a personal right. There is no dispute that areas with no specific laws the people obviously retain rights, however government is a social contract in which people give up certain rights, but retain most for themselves. Like all contracts the government only has the power that is clearly expressed - not whatever it chooses simply because it wills it. There is a mechanism for changing the cabinet - it's called proposing a new cabinet. Under the constitution the President nominates and the Senate confirms. This is a shared power between the President and the Senate so the President cannot simply claim the right to fire Ministers by some unnamed "right." The President must follow the procedures followed by every other President and propose a new cabinet with consent of the Senate. |
| Date | 21:48:19, October 03, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | Have you ever heard of implied powers? If you have, good for you. The Constitution states two things: The executive power is vested on the President, and the Cabinet is there to advice the President. That is what we based our opinion on: implied power of firing a Minister. We must make this clear: Acting Ministers can be replaced whenever necessary and will never obtain the formality of Ministers. Again, implied powers authorize the President to fire Ministers at his will. |
| Date | 21:57:22, October 03, 2008 CET |
From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | It is well known that the liberals believe "executive powers" can be expanded to a virtual dictatorship, however implied powers can't exist in this case because there is an explicit procedure for appointing a cabinet. |
| Date | 22:27:12, October 03, 2008 CET |
From | Holy Eliyahu Confession | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | if a ministers appointment is subject to approval by this chamber, what makes the Liberals believe a minister can be removed against his will without this chambers consent? |
| Date | 00:27:43, October 04, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | The fact that the President has full control over executive power.
OOC: Let me give you an example that you can relate to URP. Can the President of the United States of America fire a member of the cabinet? Yes. Who confirms the cabinet members? Congress. Does Congress need to approve the firing of a cabinet member? No.
Get it now? |
| Date | 00:30:02, October 04, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | OOC: Confirming the cabinet has nothing to do with firing a cabinet member. Just because there is a procedure to confirm cabinet members, it doesn't mean anything towards the issue of firing a cabinet member. The Constitution clearly says that the Senate has to approve any appointee to the cabinet but it doesn't say that there is a need for Senatorial approval to fire a Minister. |
| Date | 04:01:05, October 04, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | OOC: Go ahead. By the way, if you expect people to respect, you should respect people as well. Just a little heads up. Trust me, most people do not appreciate disrespect, especially when it is uncalled for.
IC: We'll put it as simple as possible. The President has full control over executive power and he/she is in control of the cabinet (that includes the Prime Minister). Therefore, the President has the power to fire a Minister. We won't keep debating this because both arguments are simply interpretations of the law. If the President fires a Minister, the URP is more than welcome to call for impeachment if they want to. |
| Date | 22:16:08, October 04, 2008 CET |
From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | Unfortunately no. Let's say we changed the law so that any part could propose a cabinet. That cabinet is installed by vote of the Senate? Under your reading of the constitution, the President could just fire them and replace them with his own people. I don't think I need to explain why that's insane.
ooc: you've claimed in the past that roleplay requires agreement. I do not agree therefore game mechanics rule. My ministers will not leave their posts and I doubt any other parties will leave their posts. Rather than the Liberals or Nationalists actually negotiating with the URP as I said I was open to, the Liberals continue to poison the waters. URP Ministers will retain their posts regardless of any supposed "authority" the Liberals claim. |
| Date | 22:28:51, October 04, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | OOC: By the way, it seems to me that you still don't understand the difference between firing a Minister and arresting a Minister. Firing of your Minister will not require your consent as it does not harm or incapacitate your character. Arresting your Minister is something different because it will be incapacitating your character. In that case, it would require your consent or agreement by roleplaying. |
| Date | 02:13:27, October 05, 2008 CET |
From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | ooc: Well you can take that logic to the mods then. Maybe he'll use his power to remove the current minister and replace them with an all Liberal cabinet - but I doubt it. In the meantime the current ministers will continue to administer their respective departments. |
| Date | 02:50:33, October 05, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of December 2645 | | Message | OOC: Did you even read the message one of the mods left in our nation's page? And stop so ignorant and childish. There is no need to contact anyone as nothing has happened but, of course, you are always complaining. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 75 |
| no | Total Seats: 75 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Periodically, it is a good idea to go through your nation's Treaties and arrange to withdraw from any that are unwanted. |
| Random quote: "Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science." - Dr. Martin Keeley |