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: Supreme Presidential Authority Debate
Details
Submitted by[?]: Coalition for National Unity [CNU]
Status[?]: passed
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: January 2986
Description[?]:
| "The Centre ϻoderate Party, speaking on behalf of the Solentian Democratic Alliance, bring forth a motion to the Chamber to debate the Supremity bestowed upon the Supreme President of our Republic. The CMP and SDA for some time have been concerned with the extensive powers of the Supreme President. To be more specific, we are concerned with the Supreme President's sole right to propose cabinet coalitions. Whilst the SDA believes that the Supreme Presidential ability to form Executive Decrees is also undemocratic and questionable by nature, the CMP is not willing to question such powers at this time. Instead, we would like to focus this debate on the Cabinet creation and on the nature of "Supreme" Authority in our realm. It seems to us, that whilst the Supreme President does hold extensive powers, that these powers are granted at the expense and pleasure of the Senate. We wish to confirm this belief, if the Senate-assembled concurs with our assesment, in title. We propose, following debate, that we use this place to outline a change in title for our Head of State and Legislature. We feel it would be more appropriate that the "Supreme" prefix, be assigned to the Senate rather than the Presidency. We feel that based on Democratic Principle, as long as the Senate may legislate freely and without binding and the Senate Warden Chairs the cabinet, that the true power in our realm lies in Senate and that the Titular Usage within our Federal Republic recognises this. Our Head of State would therefore be styled; President of the Federal Republic and our Legislaure; Supreme Senate of the Federal Republic. On note of the Cabinet powers, we propose that full power be granted to Senate to create Cabinet's and Governments without the Presidency constitutionally having a monopoly of compromise. The Law would instead state that the Senate may propose cabinets freely, however that the Supreme President by convention and protocol SHOULD offer a suggestion first, though it wouldn't be enforced. It would simply be a convention. We open the floor to dicussion on these 2, potentially three, issues." Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:37:41, August 15, 2010 CET | From |  Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | On item one, a change of title would mean absoulutly nothing and is a waste of the senates time. On item two, I believe we proposed a similar idea a few years ago and you were adament that it was wrong and you opposed it. Coleen Power Deputy Conservative Leader Shadow Justice Minister Political Reform, Equality and Religious Spokesperson |
| Date | 19:45:43, August 15, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "So you have no opinion at all on whether Authority constitutionally belongs in the Legislature or the Executive? Very well. On Item two, are we to understand you still support Senate authority in cabinet creation?" Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 19:48:56, August 15, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | We believe the Senate should approve Cabinet yes. As for item one, you can change the titles and create nice fluffed up titles if you like, it will make no difference to the actual functions and duties the legislature and executive would hold. Coleen Power Deputy Conservative Leader Shadow Justice Minister Political Reform, Equality and Religious Spokesperson |
| Date | 19:53:00, August 15, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "I belive this debate has happened before. I shall remind you, that if we change the law to remove exclusive government-forming power from the Head of State, the office shall no longer be 'Supreme' constitutionally as the Senate would have overtaken the functions and authorities of governance. It is therefore logical to also change title and transfer Supremity to the Senate to match the functions. As a matter of interest, can I ask if the Conservative Party supports Executive Decree?" Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 19:55:50, August 15, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "I belive this debate has happened before. I shall remind you, that if we change the law to remove exclusive government-forming power from the Head of State, the office shall no longer be 'Supreme' constitutionally as the Senate would have overtaken the functions and authorities of governance. It is therefore logical to also change title and transfer Supremity to the Senate to match the functions. As a matter of interest, can I ask if the Conservative Party supports Executive Decree?" Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 19:58:25, August 15, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | We support all parties being allowed to form coalition governments, but we feel the largest party should be allowed to do that first. That is our party position on the issue, but it doesn't work out like that in theory as the President still gets to decide. Interestingly, when we proposed a change to this exact law of recent, the CMP opposed. U turns, hypocrisy and STILL no backbone! No changes there then. Coleen Power Deputy Tory Leader |
| Date | 20:02:49, August 15, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "I believe former-Senate Warden Lehres explained at the time that we would be reassessing the situation in the future and be supporting when it becomes of bennefit to the electorate. We feel that in the present climate, that time is now. That is not a U-turn, that is a policy of about a decade in age." Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 22:46:05, August 15, 2010 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | A powerful executive brings stability. We can only support these changes IF the monarchy is established, making the office of Head of State largely ceremonial. |
| Date | 22:49:52, August 15, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "Perhaps, the Crown Party would explain how such a system would work. For instance, who would be our "Monarch"? How would we select them? What realistic limitations would be placed on their power? We are open to the idea of a Monarchy provided that it renders the Head of State ceremonial and places real power in the Senate. We feel that would actually be more democratic." Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 00:57:57, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | The CMP once again is losing another debate. If you perhaps proposed some real change rather than just constant debates and hot air, we may get somewhere. Look, have the guts to propose some changes with articles, this debate isn't going anywhere. Present your legislative change, put your case, or clear the floor. Coleen Power Deputy Conservative Leader Shadow Justice |
| Date | 01:02:57, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | Senator Holm, The subject of a Monarchial heir would be a complicated matter on its own, but we believe the royal pretenders of the line of House House Hessex-Kansar are stll appropriate. |
| Date | 01:05:23, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | An elected Head of Government and an appointed Head of State of Monarch approach, would be supported by us. Coleen Power |
| Date | 01:23:06, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "However, this cannot be rushed. The correct person needs to be found, confirmed and the titular changes would need to take place. A full Act would need to be written. My Lord Belisarius, who is the current leading Pretender of Hessex?" Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 01:25:11, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | Someone outside of politics should fill the role. Coleen Power |
| Date | 01:26:42, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "You mean a Commoner?" Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 01:30:12, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | I mean someone outside of political party persuasion. I heard you and the Crown party suggesting people for the role from your own parties before, to my knowledge. This is something which won't suceed, people would want an impartial in the role. Coleen Power |
| Date | 01:32:09, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "The CMP have no Royal heirs in our party, only Nobility. As do the Crowns, we understand. We are refering to an old line, the Hessex-Kansar line, they are the rightful inheritors of all Greater Quanzar I believe." Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 01:35:39, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | Are they without party persausion? Coleen Power Deputy Conservative Leader |
| Date | 01:43:50, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "You would need to ask them such a question." Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 01:45:38, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | I would think not. I will not support a reform of the system which allows people to put their own people forward for Head of State. Coleen Power |
| Date | 01:48:13, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "Aren't the Royals everyone's "people"? The House of Hessex-Kansar has the best interests of Greater Quanzar at heart." Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 01:51:10, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | Hessex-Kansar? Where was this created and by whom? I won't have a system where people put forward a political representative or someone they have 'knighted' using fake titles. Coleen Power Shadow Justice |
| Date | 02:53:13, August 16, 2010 CET | From |  Nuncpart Supreme Congress | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "Nuncpart shall not participate in debates concerning the provision of false legitimacy to the usurper democratic forces." Joseph Garton-Seldon Voice of Deus |
| Date | 06:17:39, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | Hessex-Kansar has been a house, albeit dormant of late, that has been accepted by the IML for some time. They were the ruling house of Quanzar, but were accepted by some Solentian nobility as rightful heirs of a Southern Majatran nation. |
| Date | 12:55:49, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "I am rather confused as to why the Conservative Party feel that titles, nobility royalty and the likes are fake. Or why the haven't heard of the House of Hessex-Kansar. Doesn't anyone in their party have a History degree?" Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 12:58:17, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "Perhaps, if a King cannot be found, Solentian Parties would consider a Lord Protector?" Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 14:05:08, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Social Justice Party | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | The SDLP in simple terms supports a weaker, constitutional Executive and a stronger Legislature. We, like the Moderates believe cabinet coalitions can be better negotiated within the chamber as noted by the SDLP's earlier introduction of a bill to allow any party within cabinet to propose an alliance. We are however, as always willing to negotiate with our fellow parties. John Laylor SDLP Special Secretary of State |
| Date | 15:04:39, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | We believe in any party forming cabinet coalitions also. We would like to see an elected Head of government and a hereditory head of state though. Coleen Power Deputy Conservative Leader Shadow Religious, Political and Equality Spokesperson Shadow Justice Minister |
| Date | 15:55:09, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "We ask for comments on the above changes, with a potential Monarchy being discussed in another chamber." Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 16:35:50, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | We would support a Lord Protector until a recognized (IML) monarchy could be established. |
| Date | 16:44:32, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | ooc: Sent to vote to log. |
| Date | 17:24:11, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Social Justice Party | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | The SDLP believes this is a sensible move towards a stronger Solentian democracy. SDLP National Committee |
| Date | 17:34:01, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Social Justice Party | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | However the committee has come to the decision that we cannot support a hereditary heir. We could however support a ceremonial president, who would not necessarily have to be elected and could be appointed by parliament. |
| Date | 17:46:21, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "That situation can be found in the SDA Legislation II: Commonwealth Proposal Act. The Lord Protector, whilst in theory hereditory, would be removable by Senate." Senator Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead on behalf of the Solentian Democratic Alliance. |
| Date | 17:57:16, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | What is the vote on? |
| Date | 17:59:18, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Authority Debate |
| Message | "It is a confirmation of the debate that was held and a resolution that we felt the debate was productive and benneficial to Solentian political development." Senator Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead on behalf of the Solentian Democratic Alliance. OOC: When debates are closed, they are traditionally sent to vote just to log them so the IC debate is not lost. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 72 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 18 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 10 |
| Random fact: Hundreds of vessels were lost while traversing the cold waters of the Sea of Lost Souls. It is located between Seleya and Majatra. |
| Random quote: "You know what's interesting about Washington? It's the kind of place where second-guessing has become second nature." - George W. Bush |