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: Checks On Executive Power
Details
Submitted by[?]: Indirect Action Arm
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: May 2354
Description[?]:
| Attacking presidential power seems to be very popular right now, here are my proposed reforms. These are an amendment, and require 2/3s approval to pass. These aren't anti-RFP, these should be put in place anyway. Article 1) See proposals Article 2) The President is bound by law to bring a bill proposing the appointment of a new cabinet after every election and before the one following it. Article 3) The Parliament has the power to impeach the president, forcing his resignation, if he is found guily of any violation of the law or constition. For this to happen, first the evidence must be brought before the Parliament to decide whether the impeachment trial may commense. If a majority of the Parliament approve going forward with a trial, then a second bill will be proposed to decide whether the president will be impeached. This bill must pass a 2/3s majority. Article 4) No single man or woman may seek a presidential term after their third regular length term, or an equivalent number of years in office (presidently 9 years). This applies to all terms, non-consecutive or consecutive, during the career of the President. Article 5) Any failure of the President to comply with either of these amendments will cause automatic censure as outlined in that really old censure amendment I can't find, and in the case of Article 1 will constitute a case for impeachment. -- I think that these provides a strong enough check on the President that he should be allowed to keep sole control of appointing the cabinet. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The constitutional right and responsibility to propose a cabinet to the legislature.
Old value:: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Current: Only the largest party can propose a cabinet.
Proposed: Only the Head of State can propose a cabinet coalition.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:51:58, January 25, 2007 CET | From | Revolutionary Freedom Party -- KEG SLAM | To | Debating the Checks On Executive Power |
| Message | 1 and 3are fine. I'm wary about #2. It sounds like those RPs where people tried to kick meout of Kalistan (Sorry guys, my space bar is not reliable) |
| Date | 23:48:47, January 25, 2007 CET | From | Indirect Action Arm | To | Debating the Checks On Executive Power |
| Message | it doesn't kick you out, it just ends that politician's career. It doesn't even involve early elections. |
| Date | 08:01:43, January 26, 2007 CET | From | Revolutionary Freedom Party -- KEG SLAM | To | Debating the Checks On Executive Power |
| Message | Were you here during the "Crimes of the Two Marcus" thing? I know you were here when William_Reynolds tried to get me kicked out of Kalistan |
| Date | 21:40:43, January 26, 2007 CET | From | Indirect Action Arm | To | Debating the Checks On Executive Power |
| Message | Well, I think that the best way to do things is to give the President back sole cabinet making power, but make it so that the parliament has the ability to remove the president. My two ideas are: 1) Parliament can vote by 51% to begin trial proceedings against a president if they think he failed to forfill his duty or broke the law. If 66% find the president guilty he must resign. 2) A vote of no confidence can be held, which is just like a call for early elections, except that the bill stipulates in its description that if it passes the presidential candidate must change. This doesn't really work, because the bill goes to work as soon as it passes, so it'd be hard for the presidential party to change it so fast. Basically, if that vote came up, you'd have to change your candidate until the vote was over, just to be safe. I'm adding two parts to this... -President gets the right to form cabinets (now that parliament has a check on the president) -President cannot serve more than three terms (cosmetic) As for william reynolds....he's an asshole, but that's how politics is. Things like that happen in real politics all the time. Of course, whenever he did that to me I just left, so I'm not one to be talking. If I can ever find that censure amendment, I think it can be put into effect if someone's being a dick like that. |
| Date | 11:13:15, January 28, 2007 CET | From | Revolutionary Freedom Party -- KEG SLAM | To | Debating the Checks On Executive Power |
| Message | Hmmmm I'll think about it. |
| Date | 00:41:48, January 30, 2007 CET | From | Indirect Action Arm | To | Debating the Checks On Executive Power |
| Message | I'm putting this up to vote, as a straw poll, since it'll be reset by the election. |
| Date | 00:44:39, January 30, 2007 CET | From | Indirect Action Arm | To | Debating the Checks On Executive Power |
| Message | I just realized that there's a loophole in the cabinet rule, because the president only has to PROPOSE a cabinet, he doesn't have to get one through or have an honest try at it. If a bloc had the parliament and presidency, formed a cabinet, and then lost parliament but kept the presidency, the president could create a dud cabinet proposal to furfill his obligation, let it fail (if not vote against it himself), and keep the minority in the cabinet. |
| Date | 01:45:34, February 02, 2007 CET | From | Indirect Action Arm | To | Debating the Checks On Executive Power |
| Message | Given the number of cabinets, and cabinet failures, I think will help prevent...anarchy... |
| Date | 04:03:59, February 02, 2007 CET | From | TomasianDouglasian Party | To | Debating the Checks On Executive Power |
| Message | Article 2 as it stands is wishy-washy and does presents too large a loophole. It should be amended to read: The President has 18 months following the election to successfully ratify a Cabinet. If he/she does not succeed, they must resign. Failure to do so would entail a non-confidence vote in the form of a Call for Early Elections. |
| Date | 04:04:40, February 02, 2007 CET | From | TomasianDouglasian Party | To | Debating the Checks On Executive Power |
| Message | Make the change to article 2 and we will support the next iteration of this bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 192 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 349 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 74 |
| Random fact: After 3 days (72 hours) your account will be inactivated by Moderation. If you want to be reactivated you can request reactivation located here: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4360 |
| Random quote: "If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nailbiters." - Anita Bryant |