Mr. Attorney General,
Attached, please see our response to President Langley's recent brief in
Langley v. Glasser. We hope these comments are not too tardy to escape your consideration as you prepare to present this case to the High Court.
Respectfully,
~Hawkton J. Tilly, Esq.
Craig Ashley said:
President Langley does not contest that the President must be invited to speak on matters not concerning legislation introduced to the NA by the President.
Speaker Glasser fails to see why the President should be able to force the National Assembly to hear him on legislation he has introduced, but in no other circumstance. This is particularly true when the Speaker is given sole responsibility under the Constitution for managing debate before the National Assembly. Any ruling which permits the President to address the National Assembly at a whim is destructive of this constitutional responsibility.
Craig Ashley said:
Secondly, the President has spoken before the NA on numerous occasions regarding legislation he has introduced without explicite invitation while Deputy Speaker Borgman presided over the body.
It is unclear what relevance this point has to the instant case. How Mr. Borgman chose to manage the National Assembly during his tenure as its Speaker is his constitutional prerogative, just as it is Speaker Glasser's constitutional prerogative to manage the National Assembly as he sees fit now.
Craig Ashley said:
Any legislator, President, MoNA, or city councilman attempts to draft and present a polished, complete bill. However, with only a limited number of perspectives looking at the proposed bill and language, it is not only possible but likely that some item, large or small, will be overlooked. Furthermore, language that may seem perfectly clear to the author(s), may seem ambigious, unclear, or even contradictory to the intent of the bill to others.
Speaker Glasser does not dispute the fact that President Langley takes considerable care in the drafting of his legislation. However, Langley's initial brief makes clear that MNAs have been confused by the wording of his bills in the past. Clearly, these misunderstandings are a necessary part of the legislative process, and through rational debate can be resolved. However, equally clear is that they should be minimized wherever possible so as to prevent the National Assembly from being bogged down in minutiae, and instead encourage them to remain focused on the greater issues underlying the legislation they consider. In this regard, we wonder how, if MNAs – whose job it is to deal with legislation on a daily basis – are regularly confused by President Langley's bills, the common people can be expected to understand them once they are passed into law.
Nor does President Langley's response deal with our second point, that broad-based support can be built before a bill is ever introduced. In addition to making this bill more palatable to all parties once it is up for a vote, many of the problems with confusing language can be avoided altogether if the problems can be identified in advance. In other words, President Langley is perfectly capable of encouraging the broadening of perspectives that consider his work before ever submitting it as legislation to the NA, thus obviating the very problems of which he complains.
Craig Ashley said:
Mr. Glasser's lawyer seems to assert that changes and debate to a bill is an undesireable thing. However, the Constitution clearly outlines the need for debate. It is mentioned twice in regards to both legislation proposed by a member of the NA and legislation proposed by the President. It requires not just debate, but sufficient debate.
President Langley is mistaken on two counts. Speaker Glasser values changes and debate as a necessary and fruitful part of the legislative process. However, what
is undesirable is unnecessary changes, and this ties again to the importance of having legislation as polished and widely acceptable as possible when it is first submitted to the NA. It detracts from the NA's role as the
vox populi if they must expend their valuable time serving as the president's editorial staff rather than pursuing their constitutional mandate of debating legislation.
This flows directly to the second mischaracterization in the above; debate is mentioned only in Section IX of the Constitution, which refers to the legislative powers of MNAs. President Langley wishes to extend that power to Section II, respecting the legislative powers of the president. However, by the rules of constitutional interpretation, this is impermissible. The inclusion of additional legislative powers in Section IX, and the fact that those same powers are not echoed in Section II while the power to introduce legislation is, suggests that the president was expressly intended NOT to have access to the powers of debate.
Craig Ashley said:
We argue that sufficient debate cannot be held without the author of the bill. It is undeniable that the author of the bill is extremely familiar with the wording of the proposal and the issues that it attempts to address. In most cases, the author is often the most informed about the issue(s) once the debate begins has he has put considerable time and effort into researching the issue. We have also clearly established that President Langley consistently puts forth time and effort into his bills and has a clear grasp of the issues they address. It is equally undeniable that the author of the bill is the only one who can fully explain and address the reasoning, logic, conviction, and spirit of the bill. Without having these vital elements perefectly clear, how can sufficient debate occur?
Each of the benefits that might accrue from the involvement of the president in the consideration of legislation involve what he might know about the topic at hand or the choice of language used in the bill. These benefits do not necessitate the extension of the president's legislative power to actual debate. Since President Langley was so kind as to grace us with his knowledge of Merriam-Webster, I shall utilize his definition: debate is “to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments”. None of the above benefits which the President lists has any direct bearing on discussion. Rather, the benefits are indirect; through better understanding the reasoning and language of a bill, it is hoped that the National Assembly will be better equipped to discuss it. Thus, the President's presence is valuable only insofar as he can shed light on certain facets of a bill, and is unnecessary (and indeed undesirable and potentially disruptive) during the actual debate on a bill.
By his own arguments, President Langley recognizes this fact, yet he persists in attempting to secure to himself the powers of a Member of the National Assembly. Under Section XXIX(1), this is impermissible. Further, there are times when the President's input is unnecessary, and a bill perfectly understood by the MNAs considering it. Given this fact, and the importance of the President's other duties as Chief Executive, it seems patently unnecessary to have the President on hand during the discussion of any bill he may have introduced to provide elucidation. Rather, the procedure of invitation which we outlined in our initial brief is a preferable means of permitting the National Assembly to conduct its business in an orderly fashion whilst simultaneously permitting the president to pursue his other duties.
Craig Ashley said:
However, Mr. Glasser's camp goes beyond arguing that the President is not required to sufficiently debate his own propsoals. His response indicates that debate and changes made due to that debate are not the desired method for the legislative process. They have argued against allowing compromise in the legislative process.
President Langley's attempt to characterize Speaker Glasser as undemocratic would be laughable if the charge were not so serious. However, it is also patently false; as President Langley goes on to point out, Speaker Glasser has just recently recognized the value of debate in the contest over the President's impeachment. Nor is this indicative of some new embrace of democratic principles on the Speaker's part; the current National Assembly is one of the most active in recent memory. To reiterate again, Speaker Glasser believes strongly in the value of free and open debate in the consideration of legislation. However, he also recognizes that this power of debate is limited by our Constitution to the MNAs which President Langley so freely quotes, and expressly excludes the president himself.
Craig Ashley said:
As the purpose of legislation is to find a solution, and our Constitution demands debate or the “consideration of opposed arguments” before legislation or a solution can be passed, it would seem that the Constitution not only allows for, but encourages compromise between legislators.
Again, we agree wholeheartedly with the President on this point, but would go on to point out that the president is not a legislator. No matter the president's power to introduce legislation, the Constitution is quite clear on this point; Part A, detailing the powers of the president, is entitled "National Executive", whilst Part B is entitled "National legislature".
Craig Ashley said:
Looking specifically at the RoFA, due to the President's debate with MoNA's Talbott, Vilms, Borgman, and Stewart, President Langley has introduced several changes to the bill including: Junior Firearms License, provisions for antiquated weaponry, a Class E or Dealer's Permit, and the implementation of fees pertaining to certain licenses and permits.
We would also remark that the President's argumentative behavior before the National Assembly resulted in a disruptive discussion which delayed the good order of the National Assembly for several days and resulted in this litigation. This is the very reason why it is imperative that the President be allowed to address the National Assembly only on the permission of the Speaker of that august body. In addition, we would submit that, had the President followed our suggestions for preparing legislation prior to its submission, the RoFA – which has now been under consideration for several months – would have long since been passed into law.
Craig Ashley said:
In no way, shape, or form has the President attempted to claim himself to be the equivilent of a MoNA. President Langley has not demanded the right to debate legislation he has not proposed.
What the President
has demanded is the right to debate at all – which our Constitution expressly reserves to MNAs. This is tantamount to making the president the equivalent of a Member of the National Assembly with respect to legislation he has introduced, which is in direct contravention of Section XXIX(1).
Craig Ashley said:
President Langley has not contested Dr. Glasser's ruling that a hostile amendment and the required 2/3 vote may force a change in a proposed bill. President Langley has stated that he would prefer if the floor rules of the NA were discussed and affirmed by the members of the NA themselves and not simply handed out, but he has not contested this ruling.
We are pleased to see that President Langley has acknowledged Speaker Glasser's constitutional mandate to govern the National Assembly as he sees fit. Surely, then, he must also acknowledge Speaker Glasser's right to require the president request permission before addressing the National Assembly on any topic.
Craig Ashley said:
This is a means, but it is unduely cumbersome, and gives a Speaker, particularly a Speaker in opposition to the bill or the government as a whole, extreme power over the President and the fate of the legislation he proposes, as he can simply deny access without reason or cause. This power not given to the speaker over a proposal made by any other individual that the Constitution grants the power to propose legislation.
More so, the President should not have to request permission for what is clearly his Constitutional right.
There is no suggestion that Speaker Glasser would have refused such permission in the instant case, and as President Langley chose not to pursue this means of having his voice heard in the Assembly, the Court need not now decide whether the Speaker must grant permission if it is requested. We would suggest that, in the interests of avoiding the very sorts of conflicts President Langley mentions, and in the spirit of good governance, such a request should be honored. However, the Speaker should retain the right to decide the time and manner by which the president can address the NA. This 'manner' prong would extend to preventing the president from entering into an unconstitutional debate on a bill he has proposed, for again, the right President Langley mentions is not his at all – rather, it is one reserved to the legislature alone.
Craig Ashley said:
Again, this is a possibility, but it overly cumbersome and is not a restriction placed on any other individual the Constitution grants the power to propose legislation.
To be a restricted, one must necessarily have a power and be refused the use of it. As we have submitted repeatedly, President Langley has no power to debate, and thus cannot be restricted from doing so. Rather, what we suggest is an alternative means by which the President may pursue his desire to address confusion about legislation he has introduced. That this means is not required of any other individual to whom the Constitution grants the power to propose legislation is because all other individuals with the power to propose legislation are MNAs, who
do have the power to debate said legislation before the National Assembly.
Craig Ashley said:
We will concede this is another possible means, but again it is no sure means. It is possible and even likely that within a given party there can be differences of opinion on certain matters. One example would be that President Langley and Charles Morgan, while both belonging to the NPP, have both been on record in sharp opposition to each other on the issue of WTO membership. The MNA in question may not desire to speak on the President's behalf due to personal disagreements ove the issue.
President Langley's example is hardly relevant in the instant case. There is no suggestion that Charles Scott Morgan or any other NPP MNA disagrees fundamentally with the RoFA, which indeed furthers one of the fundamental platform goals of that party. Even if this were a case regarding the WTO, the NPP possesses several NA seats, and an individual such as Mr. Lundgren could echo the President's opinions in the NA debates. If the President finds himself in a situation where all the MNAs in his party oppose a piece of legislation he has drafted, then it would appear that the legislation either requires further revision before having any hope of passing, or the President is in a party which does not reflect his views.
Craig Ashley said:
The overall problem with each of these “alternative means” is that they place undue restictions on the President's ability to sufficiently debate his own proposals. They also raise significant barriers to the possibility of the President's proposals actually passing in the NA, when the framers of the Constitution made no mention of the President's power to propose legislation being less than the power of a MoNA to propose legislation.
We state once more that the president possesses no constitutional right to debate his own proposals, and thus his right to debate cannot be restricted. As we have submitted from the beginning of this contest, the presidential power regarding legislation extends no further than the right to propose legislation to the NA. We are willing to concede that the President's input may be valuable in clarifying the intent or the language of a particular proposal, and for this reason the Speaker should, on terms of his choosing, permit the President to address the National Assembly to answer questions regarding legislation he has submitted. But this "explanatory" power of the president does not arise from any textual or implied provision of Part A of the Constitution. Rather, it arises from the
legislature's power to fully and completely discuss and consider a bill, as described in Section IX. We agree fully with President Langley that the author's insight may be necessary to explain certain provisions of proposed legislation. We disagree, however, that this means the president is empowered to debate that legislation on par with a Member of the National Assembly. This has the effect of making the president an MNA, and this our Constitution expressly forbids. That this effect is only temporary and only extends to debate is of no moment. Debate is a power expressly reserved to MNAs and expressly denied to the President, and we would ask the High Court to preserve that distinction by dismissing the President's complaint.
]
