5th Term National Assembly

[Craig Ashley]

Mr. Speaker, I must protest and appeal to your common sense. How can a bill be properly discussed, debated, and considered if the author of the bill cannot defend, expound, or clarify his reasoning behind it? How can it be amended by the debate if the author cannot give his feedback on proposed changes? What you are attempting to do is curtail the powers of the Presidency by placing undue restrictions upon the office's powers concerning legislation.

Secondly, though I believe the NA is in need of formal procedure and floor rules, I do not think these should be imposed upon the body. Rather, the body should meet, discuss, and vote upon the floor rules. Otherwise, the floor rules are apt to change with every election - hardly an ideal circumstance.

As to Deptuy Speaker Borgman's proposed changes, I can allow the language regarding infractions committed near schools and playgrounds to go. If this body will not seek to protect children from gun violence, I shall not stand in its way. The second propsoal is far too restrictive. I would agree to language to the effect that the holder of a Junior Firearms License could only operate a firearm in the presence and under the supervision of an adult who has a Firearms License in good standing.

Thank you

-Jake Langley, President

 

[Amric]

The problem with the language pertaining to guns near schools is that how can we deny people the right to have a gun in their own home? There are homes within the limit of the proposed bill. Even if they don't have children, which would keep young people from possibly getting it and shooting themselves or something else. Gun owners who currently live inside the proposed limit would be forced to get rid of them, if I am reading it correctly.

 

[Craig Ashley]

The section that is under debate did not ban possession of firearms near schools. It allowed for the penalty for any gun related crime to be doubled if it was committed near a school. Certainly, I have no wish to infringe on anyone's right to own a firearm.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

Upon further thought I agree with those who have reservations about the Guns near schools provision. While our children deserve extra protection that is not the wy to do it.

-Dr. Jonathan Glasser

 

[Amric]

Mr. President, I stand corrected. I misunderstood the wording. I apologize.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

Mr. President you are once more out of order. I am organizing debate in the National Assembly and during this debate you do not have the privledge of speaking. I ask that you please do not force an unpleasant situation and that you remove yourself from the floor of the NA immeadiatley. If you wish to speak you may ask for that privledge as can all citizens of Eutopia.

Thank you.

-Dr. Jonathan Glasser, Speaker of the NA

 

[unmerged(4021)]

Let me just further remark that I feel it no slap in the face should the President or any concerned citizen bring this before the AG for High Court review. This fight is about the seperation of powers and I would welcome the High Court and AG using their powers in this matter.

-Dr. Jonathan Glasser, Speaker of the National Assembley

 

[Craig Ashley]

In the interest of not making a spectacle of these hallowed halls, I will be taking my leave. However, I have every intention of filing a petition before the High Court. It is vital that the President be able to explain and expound upon the bills he has personally created and proposed. With the right to propose legislation, comes the right to debate that legislation. Otherwise, the President's legislative powers, which are granted by the Constitution, become functionally useless.

Good day!

 

[unmerged(4021)]

Thank you Mr. President. I look foward to the Supreme Court's ruling on this matter, should Attorney General O'Flonnin agree that they should hear this case as we both expect.

Do MNA's have feelings on the currnet pieces of legislation before this chamber?

-Dr. Jonathan Glasser, Speaker of the National Assembley

 

[phelbas]

I think the idea the taht anyone other than MNA's may speak in this chamber is ridiculas. The US president proposes legislation but isn't permited into the chamber, like our president he has his party to do that. I can't understand why our President can't use his parties MNA's to speak for him in this chamber, or even speak to members of his coalition outside the assembly in order to get them to assent to or propose changes.

Also in the specific casse of this peice of legislation there was no president to ask as he was unavailable.

[occ, i know it was RL trouble, but we still had ot go on here and what the deputy speaker did seemed reasonable]

 

[Josephus I]

Mr. Speaker, can you please clarify. Which Gun Control Bill is under discussion; President Langley's or Deputy Speaker Borgman's--which is the only one that has been seconded?

I am content with the wording of Deputy Speaker Borgman's Bill, although I do think we should look in the future, of banning all firearms from private possession; but for the moment I am happy to approve this Bill.


Josephus

 

[Josephus I]

One other thing, Mr. Speaker, and I hate to beat a dead horse. I know the matter regarding President Langley's appearance in the NA is before the esteemed Attorney General.

Precedent has shown in the past that presidents and ministers need to be invited to discuss their bills or any thing else before the NA. When I was a Minister and proposed a Bill, I asked the speaker if I may make a presentation before the Assembly. I believe President Langley himself used this procedure at least once before regarding the WTO; so he's well aware of the rules.

It is highly uncommon that the Speaker refuses the president or the minister access to the National Assembly. If Langley goes by the rules, he knows he'll get his chance. In any case, president Langley was asked by the National Assembly to speak about a number of issues recently -- such as CIA infiltration of Eutopia and the Farpoint occupation--and he has refused to do so. So if he choses to ignore the NA when it suits him, I suggest we keep that in mind.

Josephus

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

so you are going to make me present his speaches here then? ok fine i will make sure my schedule is clear since you propose shutting out the president.

 

[Erc]

Personally, I think that if the President has the right to propose bills, he has, at the very least, the right to say whether he accepts proposed changes to his bill or not (changes can of course be forced upon him, as always); otherwise it would just be a complete mess (as shown by Per Josephus' confusion). Actual participation in the debate is a bit more dicy...but in any event, it's before the courts now, it's their ball, not mine, and I'm not going to contribute any more to making a mountain out of this molehill.

 

[Erc]

I would like to bring to this body's attention §XXXIII of the Constitution:

XXXIII. [Continuing operation] If the National Assembly does not pass a budget within two months after a term begins, expenditure and revenue provisions for the current term will automatically be identical to those of the previous term in order to guarantee the integrity of government services.

The two months passed a bit over a week ago. Yet again, the Presidential Office has failed to produce a budget. I must strongly condemn their repeated gross negligence in this matter; we cannot continue to run this country on the Term 3 budget.


I withdraw my second for Dr. Glasser's budget bill, as §XXXIII renders it unnecessary.

 

[Josephus I]

In every other country in the world, failure to pass a budget is immediate grounds for a vote of no confidence. Well, I won't be the one to present it this time, but I will second it if someone else puts such a motion forward.

Josephus

 

[phelbas]

Fine, if Mr. Josephus doesn't feel he can take that action I will.

Mr. Speaker I would like to propose the commencement of impeachment proceedings against President Langley under article XV of the constitution. The President has failed to present a budget to this house for consideration. It is one of the core responsibilities of the executive in our system, and it is the president who is at the head of the executive. If individual ministers were not carrying out their responsibilities then the President should have taken action to ensure the drafting of the budget.

It is even more unacceptable, due to the current situation. We have had the President tell us how we need cuts due to our current economic circumstances, yet we are now stuck with last year’s budget. This could cause long term harm to the economy, make recovery more difficult and painful in the long run and hurt the services that we can provide to the people of this nation.

This is not acceptable and this house must hold the president to account for this failure.

 

[Erc]

As President Langley's recent statement on the budget is obviously as a result of my most recent statement on the same topic, I feel that I should respond to it.

Although there has certainly been some negligence involved in the failure to pass the ESHTA, and I again exhort either Dr. Glasser or Mr. Borgman to put it up for a vote. I must state, however, that I had not been informed at any time before the President's press release that the budget was pending the passage of the ESHTA. Certain of my colleagues more privy to the President's highly confidential budget secrets may have known this, of course, but neither I, nor, at the very least, my colleagues in the CC, CRE, or ESRP, had been told this. Although obviously the ESHTA should have been passed several weeks ago, how was this body to know that a budget would not be presented without a decision on the ESHTA if we were not informed? Telepathy? Divination? Eyebrow gestures in the President's infrequent Press Conferences?

However, it is, ultimately, the President's responsibility to present a budget. If something occurs that is not expected, he must account for it. "The Buck Stops Here," President Truman once said, and I believe that is equally applicable to our presidency. Ultimately, it is the President's responsibility to present a budget, and he has failed to do so in the time allotted by the Constitution. No budget will pass this term, and this country will continue to use the Term 3 budget, because no budget was ever submitted to this body.

 

[Erc]

Let me point out before these deliberations proceed that although the President is indeed culpable for not submitting a budget, replacing him will not serve to allow a budget to be instituted for this term.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

lets see, if he is impeached someone from your party takes office. i think that i smell a little something else going on then you thinking langley is doing a bad job.

excuse i must be going. i would say more... but my head hurts. hopefully its not this odd virus, course it is the flu season now.