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 Law
Details
Submitted by[?]: Meritocratic Alliance
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2787
Description[?]:
| A bill to refresh Heads of State and Senate on the status of Cabinets Ministers and Heads of Government.: We hold it self evident that power comes from the people, and that the people create the law. We are a republic of laws, therefore, not people, and the law must therefore be impartial in all things. This bill then clarifies and makes certain the law be understood under penalty: Cabinets are voted upon in the Senate. While the methof of proposing a Cabinet may change based on law, the fact of the Cabinet's existance is a matter of vote. Cabinet positions which are empty may be filled temporarily, but they are unoffiical pro-tempor position. Cabinet positions which are filled, are filled based upon a vote by Senate and not by executive order. If the Head of State does not approve of these parties, he or she may propose a new cabinet, but until such a new cabinet is voted upon, the Ministers and/or Head of Government currently in place remain in place. The above does not prevent the Head of State from creating secondary administrative bodies, nor from seeing matters of state done where need arises, but serves to clarify the powers of the Head of State, the Legislative Body, and the Cabinet. Vote of affirmation to this ruling shall carry the weight of law. Any Head of State of this nation who violates it, shall be guilty of a felony. The sentence of which shall be decided by trial in the Senate, unless the Head of State resigns. Vote of affirmation carries by simple majority of votes. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:17:39, July 14, 2009 CET | From |  Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | Do our esteemed colleagues in the CMP believe the Supreme Presidency to rule unbounded? Know this, there has been since centuries only the FIP and it's lapdogs, countered by whatever opposition can hardscrabble an existence. When the FIP runs justly, the situation was workable, and to some shame our antecedants went along with FIP hedgemony. No longer shall we do so, however the fact remains: there must be a check on the powers of the Supreme Presidency. |
| Date | 18:32:29, July 14, 2009 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | "The CMP has prepared our own proposal that we feel is much more appropriate. The Office of the Supreme President should remain respected and we shall fight to ensure that it is, no matter who obtains control of it." Margaret Took (C: Sh) CMP Leader |
| Date | 18:33:29, July 14, 2009 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | We will, of course, look at your proposal. |
| Date | 18:39:25, July 14, 2009 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | "To clarify, the major issue the CMP takes with this particular proposal is found below. 'Cabinet positions which are empty may be filled temporarily, but they are unoffiical pro-tempor position.' We believe that the Supreme President should hold the power to appoint perminant replacements to cabinet positions and therefore have created our own Act. We believe our own proposal to be an adequate compromise." Margaret Took (C: Sh) CMP Leader |
| Date | 19:06:13, July 14, 2009 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | We believe your bill in turn allows too much power to the executive, though we do appreciate it's attempt. Perhaps we can work on a third attempt which will work. Gentlemen can reach an agreement. |
| Date | 19:39:53, July 14, 2009 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | I agree here with the meritocratic party. It is unfair for the President to hold this much power, no matter who is our president and who holds this office. The FIP speaks regularly about how we shouldn't change the constitutional history of our country. Well by law and constituion we have always had the president coming to this senate to appoint ministers, no other way. I am against the CMP modification and in favour of the Meritocratics. Lady Gaga |
| Date | 22:34:03, July 14, 2009 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | I suppose I fail to see the logic in denying the Supreme President the right to fire those who do not fit the needs of his cabinet. It is possible for the Supreme President to make a mistake in a single choice of his cabinet; need he replace the entire thing to remove one unfit piece? Andrew Thomas SHP Chairman |
| Date | 22:45:15, July 14, 2009 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | He does not have the right to fire his cabinet. It isn't "his" cabinet. It is the people's, and the people are represented by way of the Senate, which I remind you, and more especially Mr Vedrini, votes in the cabinet. It is not a body of appointees. |
| Date | 22:52:00, July 14, 2009 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | So then, if the Senate were to wish an entirely VRP cabinet into effect under a CMP Supreme President, and the hostility and incompatibility of the two parties stopped any progress from being made, you would still not allow any resolution to the issue? |
| Date | 23:06:23, July 14, 2009 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | We've had lousy cabinets in the past (In all fairness to the VRP, however, they occupied half the seats on a recent cabinet and did just fine) . When you have a lousy cabinet, you get a new one. If you can't agree to that, that would be something of a crisis, a sign that something must be done. Simply becoming a tyrand and ruling by executive decree is too easy an option. Liberty or Death. |
| Date | 23:12:41, July 14, 2009 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | "When you have a lousy cabinet, you get a new one." So why is it that the brownshirts see fit to oppose this capability for the Supreme President at every turn? In our hypothetical, in order to get the VRP into every seat, they must hold a majority in the Senate. They will stop any attempt to create a workable cabinet by the CMP executive, and nothing happens. Solentia will stagnate under partisan politics, this tyranny of indirectly elected Cabinet politicking is worse than the 'tyranny' of a Supreme President mandated by a majority of Solentians in a direct election. |
| Date | 01:45:11, July 15, 2009 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | I fail to see your point. I am of the opinion that the senate must approve the President selection of cabinet places and if a minister resigns, then they are replaced by a temporary ACTING MINISTER, until the senate approves the next one. This is the most reasonable i will get. Lady Gaga |
| Date | 01:47:33, July 15, 2009 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | "It is not a subject for you to be 'reasonable' on." |
| Date | 01:53:05, July 15, 2009 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | Lady Gaga, allow me to make myself more clear: I understand what happens when a minister resigns, and I do not believe that that circumstance is the issue at the heart of this debate. This legislation, as it is drafted, would not allow the Supreme President any say at all in the termination of Cabinet members who prove themselves to be unfit for service after they have already been selected for the position initially. The current example, where FIP-SRNP relations soured in the midst of an already approved Cabinet, is the issue. How is it logical or efficient to expect Supreme President Vedrini to continue working with a Cabinet full of those who refuse to cooperate with him? He must have the ability to replace said ministers if their position there becomes unworkable for whatever reason. Andrew Thomas SHP Chairman |
| Date | 02:20:56, July 15, 2009 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | Duchess Belisarius is continuing to fulfill her duties, as are the other members of the cabinet in the SRNP. They took oathes of office and they honor them. |
| Date | 03:51:25, July 15, 2009 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | Duchess Belisarius wishes the people of Solentia to believe that it is possible for a cabinet to function effectively (if at all) with members that refuse any and all interaction with the Supreme President or his party? |
| Date | 03:53:55, July 15, 2009 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Cabinet Law |
| Message | OOC: "...comprised of some members that refuse to engage in..." Dumb phrasing. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 176 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 249 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When your party holds the foreign affairs department, you can create new treaties. However, before writing anything new, it is a good idea to search for existing treaties which already accomplish what you desire. |
| Random quote: "The use of solar energy has not been opened up because the oil industry does not own the sun." - Ralph Nader |