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: Separation of Powers Act of 3408
Details
Submitted by[?]: Chann National Party (CNP)
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: November 3518
Description[?]:
| (OOC: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY UPPERCASE LETTERS INDICATE AMENDMENT CHANGES. A COMPLETE DRAFT IS PROVIDED AT BOTTOM - This bill seeks to rid the SPPCA of dangerous and undemocratic ambiguity.) (IF AMENDMENTS ARE MADE, WILL LOOK LIKE THIS:) Article 7 ~ This Sovereign Senate, realising that such is not always possible through legislation by nature of the partisan Senate and opposition in Senate, allows the power of Executive Decree to be granted to the Supreme President. a) The Supreme President of the Federal Republic of Solentia is only permitted to use Executive Decree in situations during which the stability of the nation is threatened by domestic insurrections or coups involving paramilitaries and/or privately funded militias / during times of FOREIGN INVASION. b) The Supreme President of the Federal Republic of Solentia is only permitted to use Executive Decree for a limited time-scale that must be outlined when the decree is given and is to remain in effect for the duration of the term of the Supreme President issuing the decree. (1) Executive Decrees can be extended by a 2/3rd's majority of the Senate or by the re-issuance of the decree by the new Supreme President. (2) Executive Decrees extended by the Senate or by the incoming Supreme President remains in effect for the duration of incoming Supreme President's term in office. c) The Supreme President of the Federal Republic of Solentia’s Executive Decrees may be overridden by a Senatorial Majority of 2/3rds. OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF ACT: An Act to AMEND Article 7 (a) of the Supreme Presidential Powers Clarification Act of 2786 (NOTE: ONCE PASSED, FIP IS DIRECTED TO APPLY THE AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF LAW) Be it enacted by the Supreme President's most Excellent and Lawful approval, by and with the advice and consent of the Senators elected and their peers appointed, in this present sovereign Senate assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows___ Article 7 ~ This Sovereign Senate, realising that such is not always possible through legislation by nature of the partisan Senate and opposition in Senate, allows the power of Executive Decree to be granted to the Supreme President. a) The Supreme President of the Federal Republic of Solentia is only permitted to use Executive Decree in situations [STRIKE LANGUAGE >]during which he/she believes that his/her democratic mandate may be threatened by the Senate [<STRIKE LANGUAGE]/ during which the stability of the nation is at risk [CHANGE TO READ: "... is threatened by domestic insurrections or coups involving paramilitaries and/or privately funded militias / during times of war [CHANGE TO READ: "during times of FOREIGN INVASION"]. b) The Supreme President of the Federal Republic of Solentia is only permitted to use Executive Decree for a limited time-scale that must be outlined when the decree is given and cannot exceed a maximum time of five years. [CHANGE TO READ: ".... and is to remain in effect for the duration of the term of the Supreme President issuing the decree." (1)(ADDITION) Executive Decrees can be extended by a 2/3rd's majority of the Senate or by the re-issuance of the decree by the new Supreme President. (2) (ADDITION) Executive Decrees extended by the Senate or by the incoming Supreme President remains in effect for the duration of incoming Supreme President's term in office. c) The Supreme President of the Federal Republic of Solentia’s Executive Decrees may be overridden by a Senatorial Majority of 2/3rds. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:43:10, December 10, 2012 CET | From | Chann National Party (CNP) | To | Debating the Separation of Powers Act of 3408 |
| Message | "Madam Senate Warden, I move to present the Separation of Powers Act before the Senate of the Millenial Republic of Solentia. We of the Democratic Party, thanks to the recent invocation of the Supreme Presidential Powers Clarification Act of 2786 (LINK: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=257919 ), have found Article 7 of the SPPCA, which pertains to Executive Decrees, to be undemocratic in its ambiguity and hereby call upon the sovereign senate to address this potentially dangerous clause. By ambiguously giving the Supreme President the power to issue an executive degree when he/she feels that their "Democratic mandate is threatened by the Senate", the Senate is essentially giving the SP the power to override the actions of the legislative branch. Who is to say the the democratic mandate of the SP is more of a mandate than that given to the Senate by the people of Solentia? The representation of the people as a whole cannot be consummated in the vestige of the Supreme President... to assume so is to allow the Supreme President the assumption that they have the backing of 100% of Solentian's. The Senate is comprised of both the Majority and the Minorities. To place the Supreme President (who represents a segment of the population) above both the majority in the Senate and the various minorities is to subvert our Democracy and the very Democratic Mandate given to the Senate by the people. Therefore, I call upon the Senate to vote yes on this bill and to strengthen our Democracy and the Separation of Powers that serves as a sacred guardian of our Republic. I yield." Sen. Gaius Catan Majority Leader Democratic Party of Solentia |
| Date | 06:46:45, December 10, 2012 CET | From | Chann National Party (CNP) | To | Debating the Separation of Powers Act of 3408 |
| Message | (OOC: We aren't arguing in favor switching cabinet formation powers to Senate, merely addressing the ambiguity in the SPPCA which we stumbled on when I was referencing the post by Unionist, so please don't point to the Dems as supporting changing Cabinet Formulation Powers) |
| Date | 16:12:01, December 10, 2012 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Separation of Powers Act of 3408 |
| Message | "Madam Senate Warden, I rise to thank the Honourable Senator for his proposal. It is vastly important at this time of constitutional unheaval and debate that we seek, as a legislature, to reinforce the principles of our democracy by engaging in healthy discussions such as this. It is also important from time to time that we seek reasoned and measured scrutiny and review of our older pieces of legislation; as is proper and healthy in a modern Solentian democracy. In respect to the Honourable Senators amendments, the Unionist Cooperative lends it's wholehearted support for the alternations to Article 7, Subsection b. It is important that the electoral process be recognised in Executive Orders and that the will of the electorate be respected. That said, we would wish to add two further amendments to this section that would allow for a dismissal of the re-issuing requirement should the new Supreme President be the same as the last , for there is no logic in having to re-issue the Order should the same peron be in office (under this circumstance, we would ask that the 5 year original limit be reinstated into the Bill), and secondly that the re-issuance requirement be OPTIONAL if the new Supreme President is from the same Party as the previous; for again it would give a little flexibility into the system. I hope that the Honourable Senator shall take these amendments on board. I do, however, wish to rise to oppose the first amendment on the table, that is the new wording of Article 7, Subsection a. Firstly, Madam Senate Warden, I find it improper that the mention of national stability should be limited to coups and insurrections. During times of mass economic, social, political or religious crisis for instance, the Supreme President would be rendered powerless by this amendment. For instance, during the mass of Corporate Crime tackled by Executive Order III, under this amendment, those Corporations would have been untouchable by the Supreme President due to a lack of legislative support despite those Corporations obviously being in the wrong. So I ask that the national stability factor be left unchanged, for there are many more types of instability than a mass insurrection or coup. Secondly, I ask that the mention of Foreign Invasion be left as war; for if we are at war yet no troops are yet upon our soil, the Supreme President may require rationing, war powers and so on and so forth that would be needed long BEFORE an invasion took place. So I think it proper and more sensible to leave that in place. Lastly, the Unionists do object to the removal of the ability of a Supreme President to use Exeecutive Order when his/her democratic mandate is undermined. One only needs to look at the complicated matters surrounding the First Monarchy Crisis (that the Unionists and FIP were involved in), the Dual Governance Crisis (that the AGS, FIP and Unionists were involved in) and the Second Monarchy Crisis (that all of the present parties were involved in), to see that oftentimes it is actually MORE undemocratic not to allow a Supreme President to have some level of ability to enact their mandate despite strong Senate objections (it is, after all, not as if the electorate could not elect another at the next ballot should they strongly disagree with the Supreme President). In many of the Crises mentioned, the Supreme President was attempting to restore the Federal Republic and fighting against perceived and popularly-understood tyranny, yet by this amendment would be rendered unable to enact their proper democratic mandate due to tyrannical elements in the legislature. On balance, with the amendments we have supported or added, we find that the SPPCA to be fair and right; the balance between giving the Supreme President the flexibility needed to act and the Senate to power to overrule them, is just and democratic. We urge parties to accept all of these amendments that we ahev supported or added but to reject the changes to Article 7, a in their current form." Jordan Leylabi III, Unionist Cooperative Co-President (Legislative Lead) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 75 | ||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players using inactive accounts and/or accounts from outside nations may only propose bills and/or contribute to discussions, whether IC (in-character) or OOC (out-of-character) with the general consent of the players in the nation. |
| Random quote: "In America today, you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the cops." - Paul Brooks |