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: Senate Resolution 222: Restoration of Government Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Federal Independent Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 3077
Description[?]:
| SR 222: ROGA |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The title of the head of government, who chairs the cabinet.
Old value:: Premier
Current: Governor
Proposed: Senate Warden
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:20:39, February 04, 2011 CET | From |  Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 222: Restoration of Government Act |
| Message | Put Lord Protector in as the Head of State and we will support |
| Date | 06:23:48, February 04, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 222: Restoration of Government Act |
| Message | "Mr. Premier, The Whigs might as well be the FHE in their obstruction of tradition. I yield the floor." Aaron Redman, CPS Chairman |
| Date | 06:57:04, February 04, 2011 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 222: Restoration of Government Act |
| Message | Ideally to the Social Democrats, we would prefer Chancellor, to best reflect the current nature of the government as a Federal Republic. As to the motion on the floor, we prefer Premier for its more common association with head of government without any mention of the Senate specifically. However, as this is simply a matter of amending Senate rules and not a matter of policy, we will support the motion as a matter of senatorial courtesy to our comrades currently in the ruling coalition. Ryan Fay Social Democratic Leader |
| Date | 15:08:12, February 04, 2011 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 222: Restoration of Government Act |
| Message | "The Unionists do believe that Senate Warden is preferable to Premier as a matter of ceremonial traditionalism. However, we also believe that the role of the Protectorate in the last 50 years of modern history, should be respected. There is nothing to prevent us from bestowing both titles to the office; Senate Warden and Lord Protector. The Office would therefore guard the Senate, keep Protectorship over Solentia's legislature in balancing Senatorial Sovereignty and Supreme Executive/Presidential power. We formally move that the SHC restore the Supreme Presidency and combine it with a restored Senate Warden who will also carry the title Lord Protector. We are, after all, no longer a broken state and both governments need to meld." Lysander Seymour, Chancellor of the Unionist Party |
| Date | 16:04:18, February 04, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 222: Restoration of Government Act |
| Message | The question I pose is where did this "Lord Protector" originate from? How is it deserving to be implemented? Is 50 years of controversial and less than bi-partisan existence enough to trump an office brimming with history and importance with a longevity of over 500 years? What does Lord Protector even mean? It alludes to some grand noble ruling over his fiefdom guarding the many serfs who amount to slave labor working in the plantations at his discretion, earning their safety from the sweat that bleeds through their brow. The Senate Wardenship existed for multiple centuries, nearly all of which the Unionists and Whigs, or at least their predecessors, supported vibrantly without qualms. It has been an office that has united, not divided. This current inflammation has done nothing but divide, with little rationale behind the side of those who support silly jesters and bubonic plagued peasants. The fusion of these titles amounts to nothing but a clunky, confusing, dissociative identity disorder. FIP Minority Leader Gordon Sutton |
| Date | 16:06:18, February 04, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 222: Restoration of Government Act |
| Message | We thank Senator Fay for his support of years of traditional, sensible government, and for putting aside his own agenda to work towards a goal with unity in mind. FIP Minority Leader Gordon Sutton |
| Date | 17:46:15, February 04, 2011 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 222: Restoration of Government Act |
| Message | To put it in another way, if we do not see Regency issues respected, the Whigs might feel the need to join whatever alliance it can with whatever parties it must, even if it cracks tradition like an apple. Keep it in mind . Lord Belisarius |
| Date | 18:07:29, February 04, 2011 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 222: Restoration of Government Act |
| Message | "That's an interesting idea of Protectorship that the FIP has there. In our minds, the Protector served to protect the Senate from the overbearing arms of the Executive. He was designed to be a protector of the people from tyranny during a monarchy OR a democracy. It was initially a compromise to a full monarchy and served to guard the Senate, legislature and voice of the people from any form of tyrannyical governance. The fact that it would be additional title to the 500-year-strong Senate Warden would mean that it did not "trump" that office, as the FIP suggest, but rather would be an additional duty; to watch out for tyranny, nuncirism, absolute monarchism, communism and other forms of dictatorship and protect the Senate and people from it. This would allow the Executive to be Supreme and strong, as we all wish to see, however not at the expense of the legislature's sovereignty. It would act as a safeguard. Besides anything else, an extra title would not deter the Senate Warden from acting in the traditional understanding, as he always has done." Lysander Seymour, Unionist Chancellor |
| Date | 22:28:11, February 04, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 222: Restoration of Government Act |
| Message | "Mr. Premier, The Senators from the FIP, CPS, SDPS, and IP are surely capable of watching for tyranny themselves, so our rejection of a Lord Protector is doing the very thing that the Unionists propose the Lord Protector would do. Monarchist hypocrisy is certainly entertaining, but most certainly divisive, as the FIP has stated. I yield the floor." Aaron Redman, CPS Chairman |
| Date | 01:07:41, February 05, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 222: Restoration of Government Act |
| Message | The Whig Party, per usual, exercises what it is stellar at: brevity. This however is not opposed by the Senators of this party as the more long-winded the Whigs are the greater the misfortune this chamber is forced to endure. Pointless threats and stubborn thought processes are characteristics of such a bloc. Mr. Seymour, allow me to inquire of you this: what does "Lord" mean? Why is there a need to put a title of nobility, superiority, hierarchy, or glorified ceremony before the word "Protector"? I am legitimately confused by this; it is not out of sarcasm, political maliciousness, but simple intrigue. I am of the mindset that the Unionists are enthralled by these titles. There has never been a threat of tyranny chronicled in the text books of Solentia that I remember studying as a lore-hungry youth that couldn't be addressed by the Senate Warden and competent system this nation has devised. I don't see what is advantageous of tossing "Protector" into the title of Senate Warden when the Senate Wardenship has displayed its ability to perfectly govern the system. I want to work hand-in-hand with those I digress with most on this issue, but crafting a schizophrenic office that knows itself as two titles smashed into one just does not make sense to me. FIP Minority Leader Gordon Sutton |
| Date | 14:37:55, February 05, 2011 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 222: Restoration of Government Act |
| Message | "Mr. Seymour has returned to Calydon to accept his role as Lord Protector alongside the Unionist front bench team. I am instructed to inform the House that the Unionists have nothing more to discuss with the FIP or CPS on this issue of 'Restoration' as long as opposition to single governance is based entirely on inflexibility and obsession over Bailenism." Peter Jier, Chairman of the 2616 Committee |
| Date | 01:07:45, February 16, 2011 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 222: Restoration of Government Act |
| Message | SOLENTIA DOES NOT CARE WHAT TITLE A POSITION HAS. GROW UP. That's how Sue C's it. Sue Sylvester. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 127 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 264 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 34 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not approve a Cultural Protocol request within the first 48 hours of it being requested. This is in order to give other players a chance to query the proposed changes, if they wish to do so. Moderation may be approached for advice on a proposed change, but any advice proffered should always be understood under the provisio that no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval. |
| Random quote: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud |