OOC: This is where members of other government branches and members of the general public can contact the Senate, its members, and its staff.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
An intragovernmental memorandum arrives for Per Williamson, on MDIS letterhead. A copy has been CCed to Per Wellesford.
TO: Fred Williamson, Speaker of the Senate
FR: Hawkton J. Tilly, MDIS
RE: EGGA
Per Williamson,
I am somewhat distressed to hear that you have, in the words of Per Wellesford, "not accepted" the Eutopian Guaranteed Government Act for debate at the Senate. I understand that you were not trained in the law, Per Williamson, so it may have escaped your notice that such an action is a violation of the constitution. Specifically, I note three stumbling blocks:
1) Art. 19(c) of the constitution states: "If a bill secures the approval of at least five MGAs, the Speaker of the General Assembly passes it on to the Speaker of the Senate, who will introduce it for consideration in the Senate" (emphasis mine). This is an affirmative duty imposed by the constitution, not an option.
2) Prior to deciding whether a piece of legislation should be introduced as a bill or as an amendment, it is necessary to make a judgment about the constitutionality of said legislation, and whether it is compatible with the constitution or will need to modify that document. It is not within the purview of the legislative branch to rule on the constitutionality of the bills before it. That might be a legitimate reason to vote against such a bill, or encourage others to do so, but it is not a reason to bypass a constitutional command to consider and vote on legislation. Indeed, our constitution expressly reserves the power of considering constitutionality to the High Court, in Art. 20. I quote: "The High Court shall be charged with resolving any disputes that may arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Constitution."
3) Even if we presume that the Senate has the option of considering legislation before it or not, and even if we assume the Speaker of the Senate may constitutionally determine the constitutional standing of legislation, the particular piece of legislation in this case is constitutional. It is entirely supplemental and serves only to fill gaps in Part VIII of the constitution -- specifically, what happens during the period between the vacancy of the Presidency and an extraordinary election or regular election, and what happens if the Presidency and Vice-Presidency should ever become simultaneously vacant. The fact that a piece of regular legislation should touch upon an area also touched upon in the constitution does not make it unconstitutional, provided it conforms with the constitution's requirements. EGGA does.
This is an important piece of legislation, Per Speaker, and one which our fledgling government needs to replace our the now-defunct PREBA. I hope you will do the right thing and reconsider your decision.
Best regards,
~Hawkton J. Tilly, MDIS
TO: Fred Williamson, Speaker of the Senate
FR: Hawkton J. Tilly, MDIS
RE: EGGA
Per Williamson,
I am somewhat distressed to hear that you have, in the words of Per Wellesford, "not accepted" the Eutopian Guaranteed Government Act for debate at the Senate. I understand that you were not trained in the law, Per Williamson, so it may have escaped your notice that such an action is a violation of the constitution. Specifically, I note three stumbling blocks:
1) Art. 19(c) of the constitution states: "If a bill secures the approval of at least five MGAs, the Speaker of the General Assembly passes it on to the Speaker of the Senate, who will introduce it for consideration in the Senate" (emphasis mine). This is an affirmative duty imposed by the constitution, not an option.
2) Prior to deciding whether a piece of legislation should be introduced as a bill or as an amendment, it is necessary to make a judgment about the constitutionality of said legislation, and whether it is compatible with the constitution or will need to modify that document. It is not within the purview of the legislative branch to rule on the constitutionality of the bills before it. That might be a legitimate reason to vote against such a bill, or encourage others to do so, but it is not a reason to bypass a constitutional command to consider and vote on legislation. Indeed, our constitution expressly reserves the power of considering constitutionality to the High Court, in Art. 20. I quote: "The High Court shall be charged with resolving any disputes that may arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Constitution."
3) Even if we presume that the Senate has the option of considering legislation before it or not, and even if we assume the Speaker of the Senate may constitutionally determine the constitutional standing of legislation, the particular piece of legislation in this case is constitutional. It is entirely supplemental and serves only to fill gaps in Part VIII of the constitution -- specifically, what happens during the period between the vacancy of the Presidency and an extraordinary election or regular election, and what happens if the Presidency and Vice-Presidency should ever become simultaneously vacant. The fact that a piece of regular legislation should touch upon an area also touched upon in the constitution does not make it unconstitutional, provided it conforms with the constitution's requirements. EGGA does.
This is an important piece of legislation, Per Speaker, and one which our fledgling government needs to replace our the now-defunct PREBA. I hope you will do the right thing and reconsider your decision.
Best regards,
~Hawkton J. Tilly, MDIS
Per Tilly,
thank you for your helpful comments. If I may respond in kind:
(1) You choose to overlook the part of Art. 19(c) that reads "Constitutional amendments require the approval of at least six MGAs." EGGA is a constitutional amendment. It did not receive six votes. Therefore, it failed. Therefore, it should not have been submitted to my office. If there was a breach of the Constitution, it consists in the fact that EGGA was submitted to my office despite the fact that it failed.
(2) My decision was based on questions of proper procedure, not on questions about the constitutionality of EGGA's content. There is no "constitutional command" for the Senate to consider legislation that has, in fact, already failed.
(3) Since you are an expert in the law and I, as you note, was not trained in that discipline, I'd be delighted if you could point me to the passage of our Constitution that empowers the Federal Parliament to add to the constitutional provisions about presidential vacancies as it sees fit by way of "supplementary" ordinary bills.
If you feel that EGGA is an important piece of legislation, I'd suggest that the simplest way to get it passed is to reintroduce it in the General Assembly - this time following proper procedure.
Sincerely,
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson
Speaker of the Senate
thank you for your helpful comments. If I may respond in kind:
(1) You choose to overlook the part of Art. 19(c) that reads "Constitutional amendments require the approval of at least six MGAs." EGGA is a constitutional amendment. It did not receive six votes. Therefore, it failed. Therefore, it should not have been submitted to my office. If there was a breach of the Constitution, it consists in the fact that EGGA was submitted to my office despite the fact that it failed.
(2) My decision was based on questions of proper procedure, not on questions about the constitutionality of EGGA's content. There is no "constitutional command" for the Senate to consider legislation that has, in fact, already failed.
(3) Since you are an expert in the law and I, as you note, was not trained in that discipline, I'd be delighted if you could point me to the passage of our Constitution that empowers the Federal Parliament to add to the constitutional provisions about presidential vacancies as it sees fit by way of "supplementary" ordinary bills.
If you feel that EGGA is an important piece of legislation, I'd suggest that the simplest way to get it passed is to reintroduce it in the General Assembly - this time following proper procedure.
Sincerely,
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson
Speaker of the Senate
Per Williamson,
I see no grounds for saying that EGGA should have been a constitutional amendment apart from your assertion that that is the case. To make such an assertion you must necessarily have determined that, if passed as a regular bill, EGGA would be contrary to the constitution, and, ergo, unconstitutional. Such a determination is a de facto ruling on constitutionality of legislation, which is within the purview of the High Court, not the Speaker of the Senate.
Furthermore, doing so is a erosion of the powers of the General Assembly. Implicit in the mandate of Art. 19(a) ("All bills must originate in the General Asembly") is the idea that it is for MGAs, not Senators, to determine whether to introduce a piece of legislation as a bill, or take the added step of introducing that legislation as an amendment. Obviously the relative ease of getting one's legislation passed as a bill rather than as an amendment is offset by the possibility that this legislation will eventually be ruled unconstitutional, but that is a determination solely for the judicial branch. The right of MGAs to determine the nature of the legislation they present is not express in the constitution or in case law, but it has been recognized by members of the National Assembly, the precursor to today's GA. As it regards the EGGA, I should know it wasn't presented as an amendment -- I presented it. That's why I called it an "Act" and not an "Amendment".
As for your question respecting which provision empowers the Assembly to add to the Constitution by way of supplementary bills, I think it's fairly obvious -- Article 12: "All powers of federal legislation shall be reserved to the Federal Parliament." Insofar as the constitution is the supreme law of the Republic, it is necessarily the province and the duty of the General Assembly to add to that base by way of, as you put it, "supplementary" ordinary legislation. That a bill happens to touch upon the same subject matter as a provision of the constitution does not require that it be elevated to the status of a constitutional amendment. It may be advisable if a legislator wants to guarantee that the act survive a constitutional challenge, but that fact does not empower you to make determinations on the constitutionality of such an act or obviate the mandate of Article 19(c), namely that you "will" introduce this measure for consideration before the Senate.
In closing, I must also disagree with your last point. The easiest way to pass the EGGA is not to put it back up for a vote -- that is a waste of time and the taypaxer's money on reconsidering a bill which has already passed. The easiest way to pass it is for you to follow your constitutional mandate and put it up for debate and a vote in the Senate. I ask you once again to do exactly that.
Yours truly,
~Hawkton J. Tilly
I see no grounds for saying that EGGA should have been a constitutional amendment apart from your assertion that that is the case. To make such an assertion you must necessarily have determined that, if passed as a regular bill, EGGA would be contrary to the constitution, and, ergo, unconstitutional. Such a determination is a de facto ruling on constitutionality of legislation, which is within the purview of the High Court, not the Speaker of the Senate.
Furthermore, doing so is a erosion of the powers of the General Assembly. Implicit in the mandate of Art. 19(a) ("All bills must originate in the General Asembly") is the idea that it is for MGAs, not Senators, to determine whether to introduce a piece of legislation as a bill, or take the added step of introducing that legislation as an amendment. Obviously the relative ease of getting one's legislation passed as a bill rather than as an amendment is offset by the possibility that this legislation will eventually be ruled unconstitutional, but that is a determination solely for the judicial branch. The right of MGAs to determine the nature of the legislation they present is not express in the constitution or in case law, but it has been recognized by members of the National Assembly, the precursor to today's GA. As it regards the EGGA, I should know it wasn't presented as an amendment -- I presented it. That's why I called it an "Act" and not an "Amendment".
As for your question respecting which provision empowers the Assembly to add to the Constitution by way of supplementary bills, I think it's fairly obvious -- Article 12: "All powers of federal legislation shall be reserved to the Federal Parliament." Insofar as the constitution is the supreme law of the Republic, it is necessarily the province and the duty of the General Assembly to add to that base by way of, as you put it, "supplementary" ordinary legislation. That a bill happens to touch upon the same subject matter as a provision of the constitution does not require that it be elevated to the status of a constitutional amendment. It may be advisable if a legislator wants to guarantee that the act survive a constitutional challenge, but that fact does not empower you to make determinations on the constitutionality of such an act or obviate the mandate of Article 19(c), namely that you "will" introduce this measure for consideration before the Senate.
In closing, I must also disagree with your last point. The easiest way to pass the EGGA is not to put it back up for a vote -- that is a waste of time and the taypaxer's money on reconsidering a bill which has already passed. The easiest way to pass it is for you to follow your constitutional mandate and put it up for debate and a vote in the Senate. I ask you once again to do exactly that.
Yours truly,
~Hawkton J. Tilly
Per Tilly,
let me respond to your points in sequence.
(1) EGGA is a constitutional amendment because, by your own admission, it "fills gaps" in the Constitution. In other words, it adds to the constitutional order.
(2) Contrary to your assertion, my decision is not a determination of EGGA's constitutionality or unconstitutionality; it is a determination of EGGA's status for purposes of parliamentary procedure, which is well within the purview of the Houses of Parliament. Unless, of course, you wish to argue that we first need to consult the High Court every time we wish to debate a bill.
(3) Your reading of Art. 19(a), strikes me as rather... flexible. As you point out, said Article stipulates that all bills must originate in the General Assembly. That also happens to be all it stipulates. It does *not* stipulate that the Senate has no role in determining the procedural status of bills. You claim this is implicit; frankly, that claim is rather tenuous. What *is* clear from Art. 19 is that the General Assembly and the Senate are two equal and autonomous chambers; your argument is an assault on that principle.
(4) You note that it was your own decision to introduce EGGA as an ordinary bill rather than a constitutional amendment. In that case, you may wish to consider (a) whether the fault for this debacle isn't your own and (b) whether it would be a more fruitful use of both our time to follow my suggestion and reintroduce EGGA in the General Assembly as an amendment.
(5) Your interpretation of Art. 12 strikes me as, shall we say, "novel." Art. 12 does indeed reserve the power of federal legislation to the Federal Parliament; I don't think I need to point out that Art. 19 determines how the Federal Parliament is to *exercise* said power. To my knowledge, there is no passage in Art. 19 that empowers Parliament to fill in alleged constitutional gaps by way of ordinary legislation; there are, however, passages that very clearly state the conditions under which such gaps can be filled.
(6) EGGA doesn't simply "happen to touch" on a subject matter that the Constitution also touches on. It materially adds to the rules laid down in the Constitution. In other words, it aims at amending the Constitution.
(7) Regarding the easiest way to pass EGGA, see point 4. Before advising me to follow my constitutional mandate, you may want to follow yours and take your responsibility as MGA for the constitutional order more seriously.
Considering that we have both made our position on this issue clear, I believe there is nothing further to discuss in this matter.
Sincerely,
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson
Speaker of the Senate
let me respond to your points in sequence.
(1) EGGA is a constitutional amendment because, by your own admission, it "fills gaps" in the Constitution. In other words, it adds to the constitutional order.
(2) Contrary to your assertion, my decision is not a determination of EGGA's constitutionality or unconstitutionality; it is a determination of EGGA's status for purposes of parliamentary procedure, which is well within the purview of the Houses of Parliament. Unless, of course, you wish to argue that we first need to consult the High Court every time we wish to debate a bill.
(3) Your reading of Art. 19(a), strikes me as rather... flexible. As you point out, said Article stipulates that all bills must originate in the General Assembly. That also happens to be all it stipulates. It does *not* stipulate that the Senate has no role in determining the procedural status of bills. You claim this is implicit; frankly, that claim is rather tenuous. What *is* clear from Art. 19 is that the General Assembly and the Senate are two equal and autonomous chambers; your argument is an assault on that principle.
(4) You note that it was your own decision to introduce EGGA as an ordinary bill rather than a constitutional amendment. In that case, you may wish to consider (a) whether the fault for this debacle isn't your own and (b) whether it would be a more fruitful use of both our time to follow my suggestion and reintroduce EGGA in the General Assembly as an amendment.
(5) Your interpretation of Art. 12 strikes me as, shall we say, "novel." Art. 12 does indeed reserve the power of federal legislation to the Federal Parliament; I don't think I need to point out that Art. 19 determines how the Federal Parliament is to *exercise* said power. To my knowledge, there is no passage in Art. 19 that empowers Parliament to fill in alleged constitutional gaps by way of ordinary legislation; there are, however, passages that very clearly state the conditions under which such gaps can be filled.
(6) EGGA doesn't simply "happen to touch" on a subject matter that the Constitution also touches on. It materially adds to the rules laid down in the Constitution. In other words, it aims at amending the Constitution.
(7) Regarding the easiest way to pass EGGA, see point 4. Before advising me to follow my constitutional mandate, you may want to follow yours and take your responsibility as MGA for the constitutional order more seriously.
Considering that we have both made our position on this issue clear, I believe there is nothing further to discuss in this matter.
Sincerely,
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson
Speaker of the Senate
Per Williamson,
Insofar as this is a "debacle", I consider the blame to lie, rightly, with one who would block the passage into law of properly voted-on legislation.
I do agree with one of your points, however, and that is that we have each said our piece. You may expect to be served with papers shortly.
~Tilly
Insofar as this is a "debacle", I consider the blame to lie, rightly, with one who would block the passage into law of properly voted-on legislation.
I do agree with one of your points, however, and that is that we have each said our piece. You may expect to be served with papers shortly.
~Tilly
Per Tilly,The_Hawk said:
do what you must. I'll just observe that the whole point of this exercise is that EGGA was, in fact, not "properly voted-on legislation."
In antici... pation,
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson
Speaker of the Senate
Mr. Speaker,
I present to you for consideration the Eutopian State Secrets Act (ESSA):
"I. Any individual who is required by law to testify in a trial, deposition, hearing, or other judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding may refuse to testify if he or she knows or reasonably believes that the information requested is national security information as defined in Section I(d) of the Eutopian National Security Act, or that, if revealed, the information would compromise Eutopia’s national security or diplomatic interests.
II. The burden shall fall upon the requesting party to show either:
a. that the requested information is not privileged; or,
b. that the requested information has such substantial bearing on the requesting party’s case-in-chief that refusing to override the refusal to testify would be a denial of justice.
III. The court conduct a hearing and shall subpoena such documents and witnesses as the requesting party shall reasonably request in attempting to make this showing. All testimony and documents so subpoenaed shall be considered in camera. Section I of this Act shall not be valid grounds for a refusal to testify in camera during such a hearing.
IV. In the event that:
a. the requesting party meets its burden and shows that the requested information is not privileged information, the individual from whom the testimony is requested shall be compelled to answer in open court.
b. the requesting party meets its burden and shows substantial bearing, the individual from whom the testimony is requested shall be compelled to answer, but shall be permitted to do so in camera.
c. the requesting party fails to meet its burden, the individual from whom the testimony is requested shall not be compelled to answer.
V. Except as outlined in Section III of this Act, no contempt of court or perjury charges shall issue as a result of a refusal to testify under Section I of this Act."
This draft was aproved by the GA with a 7 - 0 majority.
Timothy Wellesford, Speaker of the GA
I present to you for consideration the Eutopian State Secrets Act (ESSA):
"I. Any individual who is required by law to testify in a trial, deposition, hearing, or other judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding may refuse to testify if he or she knows or reasonably believes that the information requested is national security information as defined in Section I(d) of the Eutopian National Security Act, or that, if revealed, the information would compromise Eutopia’s national security or diplomatic interests.
II. The burden shall fall upon the requesting party to show either:
a. that the requested information is not privileged; or,
b. that the requested information has such substantial bearing on the requesting party’s case-in-chief that refusing to override the refusal to testify would be a denial of justice.
III. The court conduct a hearing and shall subpoena such documents and witnesses as the requesting party shall reasonably request in attempting to make this showing. All testimony and documents so subpoenaed shall be considered in camera. Section I of this Act shall not be valid grounds for a refusal to testify in camera during such a hearing.
IV. In the event that:
a. the requesting party meets its burden and shows that the requested information is not privileged information, the individual from whom the testimony is requested shall be compelled to answer in open court.
b. the requesting party meets its burden and shows substantial bearing, the individual from whom the testimony is requested shall be compelled to answer, but shall be permitted to do so in camera.
c. the requesting party fails to meet its burden, the individual from whom the testimony is requested shall not be compelled to answer.
V. Except as outlined in Section III of this Act, no contempt of court or perjury charges shall issue as a result of a refusal to testify under Section I of this Act."
This draft was aproved by the GA with a 7 - 0 majority.
Timothy Wellesford, Speaker of the GA
Mr Speaker I present to you for consideration two pieces of legislation, the Revised Eutopian Guaranteed Government Constitutional Amendment (REGGCA) and the Eutopian Alternative Government Location and Continuity System Act (EAGLCS)
1 - the Revised Eutopian Guaranteed Government Constitutional Amendment (REGGCA):
"Section 1. If the Office of the Presidency is vacant due to --
a. death, resignation, or removal from office;
b. inability, as determined under Article 26 of the Constitution; or
c. failure to qualify,
then the Vice-President shall serve as President until such time as the extraordinary election specified in Article 30 of the Constitution shall occur. If a regular election shall occur within four months, the Vice-President shall hold the position of President until the end of the regular Term.
Section 2. If the Office of the Vice-Presidency is vacant during the execution of Section 1 of this Amendment, then the incumbent of the highest position on the following list shall serve as President until such time as the extraordinary election specified in article 30 of the Constitution shall occur, or for the remainder of the Term if the regular election shall occur within four months of the vacancy. Acting incumbents shall not be considered.
a. The Speaker of the General Assembly
b. Minister of Trade and International Affairs
c. Minister of Defense, Intelligence and Security
d. Minister of the Economy, Resources and Labour
e. Minister of Infrastructure and Domestic Affairs
f. Minister of Environmental and Social Affairs
g. The Attorney-General
h. The Speaker of the Senate
i. The Chief Justice of the High Court
Section 3. If all positions in Sections 1 and 2 of this Act are exhausted, Section 2 shall repeat, in order, with the Deputies of each position.
Section 4. If all positions in Sections 1, 2 and 3 of this Act are exhausted, the member of the General Assembly or member of the Senate with the most cumulative time in that office shall serve as President. In the event that there are two or more individuals with equal time in office who would be eligible to serve as President under this Section, all surviving members of the General Assembly and Senate shall, as a single body, hold an emergency vote deciding between such individuals.
Section 5. If all positions in Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this Act are exhausted, members of the military shall serve as President in descending rank. In deciding between two soldiers of equivalent rank, the most senior shall serve as President.
Section 6. An individual serving as President under this Act shall cease to serve after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to serve, or after a regular or extraordinary election as mandated by Article 30 of the Constitution. "
2 - the Eutopian Alternative Government Location and Continuity System Act (EAGLCS):
"Section I: There are hereby appropriated 50,000,000 ducats to the Ministry of Defense, Intelligence, and Security for the establishment of a continuity of government system and the creation of an alternative governmental location to be determined by the Minister of Defense, Intelligence, and Security."
The REGGCA was presented and passed as being a constitutional amendement with a 7 - 0 majority. The EAGLCS was passed as normal legislation with a 5 - 2 majority.
1 - the Revised Eutopian Guaranteed Government Constitutional Amendment (REGGCA):
"Section 1. If the Office of the Presidency is vacant due to --
a. death, resignation, or removal from office;
b. inability, as determined under Article 26 of the Constitution; or
c. failure to qualify,
then the Vice-President shall serve as President until such time as the extraordinary election specified in Article 30 of the Constitution shall occur. If a regular election shall occur within four months, the Vice-President shall hold the position of President until the end of the regular Term.
Section 2. If the Office of the Vice-Presidency is vacant during the execution of Section 1 of this Amendment, then the incumbent of the highest position on the following list shall serve as President until such time as the extraordinary election specified in article 30 of the Constitution shall occur, or for the remainder of the Term if the regular election shall occur within four months of the vacancy. Acting incumbents shall not be considered.
a. The Speaker of the General Assembly
b. Minister of Trade and International Affairs
c. Minister of Defense, Intelligence and Security
d. Minister of the Economy, Resources and Labour
e. Minister of Infrastructure and Domestic Affairs
f. Minister of Environmental and Social Affairs
g. The Attorney-General
h. The Speaker of the Senate
i. The Chief Justice of the High Court
Section 3. If all positions in Sections 1 and 2 of this Act are exhausted, Section 2 shall repeat, in order, with the Deputies of each position.
Section 4. If all positions in Sections 1, 2 and 3 of this Act are exhausted, the member of the General Assembly or member of the Senate with the most cumulative time in that office shall serve as President. In the event that there are two or more individuals with equal time in office who would be eligible to serve as President under this Section, all surviving members of the General Assembly and Senate shall, as a single body, hold an emergency vote deciding between such individuals.
Section 5. If all positions in Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this Act are exhausted, members of the military shall serve as President in descending rank. In deciding between two soldiers of equivalent rank, the most senior shall serve as President.
Section 6. An individual serving as President under this Act shall cease to serve after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to serve, or after a regular or extraordinary election as mandated by Article 30 of the Constitution. "
2 - the Eutopian Alternative Government Location and Continuity System Act (EAGLCS):
"Section I: There are hereby appropriated 50,000,000 ducats to the Ministry of Defense, Intelligence, and Security for the establishment of a continuity of government system and the creation of an alternative governmental location to be determined by the Minister of Defense, Intelligence, and Security."
The REGGCA was presented and passed as being a constitutional amendement with a 7 - 0 majority. The EAGLCS was passed as normal legislation with a 5 - 2 majority.
Speaker Wellesford,
REGGCA and EAGLCS will be introduced for consideration in the Senate. However, I wish to raise some concerns regarding the vote on a budget proposal currently before the General Assembly. Said proposal was only introduced in the General Assembly a very short time ago, and yet you already put it to a vote today. This hardly seems to allow for the "sufficient discussion" required by Art. 19(b) of our Constitution, and I note that in fact there was no discussion whatsoever. The decision to rush this vote is doubly troublesome considering the magnitude of the legislation in question. I would appreciate it if you would share your rationale for a rush vote, and to what extent it satisfies the conditions of Art. 19(b).
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson
Speaker of the Senate
[EDIT: changed the above to leave more room for player input.
]
REGGCA and EAGLCS will be introduced for consideration in the Senate. However, I wish to raise some concerns regarding the vote on a budget proposal currently before the General Assembly. Said proposal was only introduced in the General Assembly a very short time ago, and yet you already put it to a vote today. This hardly seems to allow for the "sufficient discussion" required by Art. 19(b) of our Constitution, and I note that in fact there was no discussion whatsoever. The decision to rush this vote is doubly troublesome considering the magnitude of the legislation in question. I would appreciate it if you would share your rationale for a rush vote, and to what extent it satisfies the conditions of Art. 19(b).
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson
Speaker of the Senate
[EDIT: changed the above to leave more room for player input.
]
Last edited:
Loic drops by to confer with the P4P Senators, Eva Zabor and Chad Hung about the pending legislation, or their staff if they are on the Senate floor.
"I have real concerns about the Eutopian National Secrets Act ("ENSA") being abused. The worse abuses of the McCarthy 'witchhunt' in the US back in the 1950's were based on similar rules. The Official Secrets Act in the UK, to which it is similar, has mostly been used to keep government snafus secret. Eutopia doesn't need to copy those less than democratic acts of otherwise fine democracies. I urge you to vote against it."
"The REGGCA is a fine idea, but the GAs forgot to re-word it when they made it an amendment, so it still internally refers to itself as an act. Also, it does say exactly where it would go in the constitution, or if any words in the existing constitution are changed, so it could use a technical fix, if you are inclined to do so, but this is a minor matter, that I point out to you because you are busy, not becuase I feel it is important."
"The EAGLCS smells like a MDIS slush fund. There was no consideration of whether 50 million is the right amount or not. We plan to campaign on a partial decentralization of some of the ministries away from Eutopia City, which would make it less important anyway. So I wouldn't mind seeing this one defeated, but my main worry is the ENSA.That is the one that needs to be stopped. Thanks for your time."
"I have real concerns about the Eutopian National Secrets Act ("ENSA") being abused. The worse abuses of the McCarthy 'witchhunt' in the US back in the 1950's were based on similar rules. The Official Secrets Act in the UK, to which it is similar, has mostly been used to keep government snafus secret. Eutopia doesn't need to copy those less than democratic acts of otherwise fine democracies. I urge you to vote against it."
"The REGGCA is a fine idea, but the GAs forgot to re-word it when they made it an amendment, so it still internally refers to itself as an act. Also, it does say exactly where it would go in the constitution, or if any words in the existing constitution are changed, so it could use a technical fix, if you are inclined to do so, but this is a minor matter, that I point out to you because you are busy, not becuase I feel it is important."
"The EAGLCS smells like a MDIS slush fund. There was no consideration of whether 50 million is the right amount or not. We plan to campaign on a partial decentralization of some of the ministries away from Eutopia City, which would make it less important anyway. So I wouldn't mind seeing this one defeated, but my main worry is the ENSA.That is the one that needs to be stopped. Thanks for your time."
Last edited:
General Levarge arrives in the Senate public offices with a classified briefing on continuity of government operations - and the need for $50 million to fund them - for any Senator that might be interested in listening.
Mr. Williamson,
I present to the Senate for consideration the term IX budget:
"Term IX budget"
The Term IX was aproved by a 5 -2 majority.
Speaker, your concern regarding the limited time of discussion for the budget was duely noted, and alleviated at least to my satisfaction by the MGA's by allowing for an extended time to discuss and vote. Because approval of the term IX budget is crucial to the timetables of the government, the budget was 'rushed' into a vote. I am not very proud for the premature nature of that vote. I hope that explaines my actions at that time.
Sincerely, Timothy Wellesford, Term IX Speaker of the GA.
I present to the Senate for consideration the term IX budget:
"Term IX budget"
The Term IX was aproved by a 5 -2 majority.
Speaker, your concern regarding the limited time of discussion for the budget was duely noted, and alleviated at least to my satisfaction by the MGA's by allowing for an extended time to discuss and vote. Because approval of the term IX budget is crucial to the timetables of the government, the budget was 'rushed' into a vote. I am not very proud for the premature nature of that vote. I hope that explaines my actions at that time.
Sincerely, Timothy Wellesford, Term IX Speaker of the GA.
Considering that there was more than ample time left in the Term when the budget was introduced, it does not. Additionally, the way you've chosen to address the issue - announcing in the GA that the deadline would be extended after it already expired, and then only extending it by a short amount of time - compounds the problem rather than solving it. Due to those significant procedural problems, the budget is unconstitutional, and I cannot introduce it in the Senate as is.Timothy said:
I'd recommend that the budget be reintroduced in the General Assembly and, once it's been seconded (and given that it has been discussed in sufficient detail by now), be submitted immediately to a vote by yourself or your Deputy by way of emergency legislation [OOC: reduced voting period of about three days]. Once the budget is re-passed, it will be introduced and considered in the Senate with utmost speed.
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson
Speaker of the Senate
Melanchthon said:
Ample time was taken to study the budget, it was extended by members of the GA with my aproval, and was in fact given so much time that discussion quieted down before the time the GA alloted was expired.
The statement that the voting deadline for the term IX budget was extended after the deadline had passed is a false one. The proposal for extension of the discussion time and the voting time made by Mr. Tilly as a member of the GA was agreed upon by the Speaker, the Minister responsible for the budget as well as representatives of all the factions present in the GA.. As a result, the total voting time for the Term IX budget was even longer than it was compared to any proposal voted on before by the GA. No complaint about the voting time alloted was issued then. I see no reason to consider the procedure followed as 'unconstitutional'
As I see no obstruction of procedure, the submission for consideration of the term IX budget as aproved by the GA stands.
Timothy Wellesford, Term IX Speaker of the GA.
Ample time was taken to study the budget *after* it was put to a vote. That's precisely the problem. The statement that the deadline was extended after it expired is, in fact correct; check the GA-minutes. Who agreed to the extension when, under what circumstances, and with what consequences is irrelevant; it would have been perfectly acceptable to simply cancel the vote and start over, but you chose not to - consequently, the budget was passed in an unconstitutional fashion. If you don't see why that is the case, I encourage you to re-read Art. 19(b).Timothy said:
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson
Mr. Langley,Craig Ashley in UMP campaign thread said:
since the budget has only been submitted to me once so far, I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that I've refused to introduce it in the Senate once before. One submission, one refusal - the math is elementary. As to my alleged attempts at "preventing" this budget: frankly, you have no idea what my opinion on this budget or its merits are, given that I have not yet commented on it, so once again, I'm not sure how you can possibly arrive at that conclusion.
Perhaps more importantly, my procedural concerns are anything but "thinly veiled" attempts at holding up the budget; they are very real concerns for the integrity of our Constitution, which you, Mr. Langley, and others in the GA seem to hold in cavalier disregard. Not that it's the first time I see this regrettable attitude this Term.
Finally, what *is*, in fact, "lowest partisan" politics is to try and ram a budget (or any piece of legislation) through Parliament in a manner that violates the Constitution, and then to try and blame those who insist on proper procedure for its inevitable failure. Last time I checked, my job description as Senate Speaker did not include "scapegoat for other people's policy screw-ups."
I take it it hasn't occurred to you, Mr. Langley, that it's not my "obstructionist" attitude that's to blame for yet another legislative disaster, but the fact that some members of the General Assembly do shoddy work and can't be bothered to act in accordance with the Constitution? If that is so, I fear you and others will continue your questionable practices, and therefore continue to produce legislative disasters. Something Eutopia can ill afford.
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson
Speaker of the Senate
Per Williamson,
There has been no attempt to ram anything down anyone's throats. The GA voted on it, and it passed. It was a clear majority of the entire General Assembly. It was discussed as the Constitution requires. Exactly what your concerns are escape me.
As to your stance on the budget, I don't need to be a mind reader on this one. Your buddies in the GA voted as a bloc against it, and its no incredible leap of logic that you will do the same. After all, its a far left tradition to refuse to vote on a budget I submit and then cry that nothing gets done in government.
Jake Langley, GA Member and MERL
There has been no attempt to ram anything down anyone's throats. The GA voted on it, and it passed. It was a clear majority of the entire General Assembly. It was discussed as the Constitution requires. Exactly what your concerns are escape me.
As to your stance on the budget, I don't need to be a mind reader on this one. Your buddies in the GA voted as a bloc against it, and its no incredible leap of logic that you will do the same. After all, its a far left tradition to refuse to vote on a budget I submit and then cry that nothing gets done in government.
Jake Langley, GA Member and MERL
The whole point, Mr. Langley, is that the budget was *not* passed or discussed as the Constitution requires. I suggested Mr. Wellesford re-read Art. 19(b), and I suggest you do the same. As to your assumption that I would vote a certain way on the proposed budget, and that this is the reason why I'm holding it up: frankly, I have not even looked at the proposal yet, because considering a piece of legislation that wasn't passed in accordance with the Constitution is a waste of my time.Craig Ashley said:
I'm gratified that you see fit to tell me what my opinion would be, though; perhaps you could do the same for all future pieces of legislation, and save me the trouble of making up my own mind? And have no fear of appearing presumptuous - after all, the voters of my province elected me to the Senate precisely because they have no trust in my ability to think for myself...
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson
Speaker of the Senate
Melanchthon said:
Simply put, there is no necessity for the GA to finish discussion before a proposal is put to a vote, although that would be the best way for legislation to pass the GA. As such, if a proposal was to be discussed after it was put to a vote, the 'problem', if there is one, is that of the GA and it's Speaker, not that of the Speaker of the Senate. Article 19a and b does not dictate procedure in the GA, it does not forbid discussion of a bill after voting has started, it merely states the requirements for a bill to be valid according to the Constitution. These requirements were met with.
Mr. Williamson, if you will check the time indexes with me, I think we can clear up our misunderstanding regarding the extention of the voting deadline. The original voting message, including the original deadline, says that the deadline was set at November 28, 11:59 pm (= 23:59 h) GMT.
Mr, Tilly's proposal to extend both the time alloted to discuss the budget, as well as the voting deadline was recieved well before that time (26-11-2004, 01:48) as was the approval by representatives of the factions the ESA and the UP (26-11-2004, 04:18 - 26-11-2004, 21:57 respectivly) The UEF did not oppose Mr. Tilly's proposal to redefine procedure incidenatlly. In implementing Mr. Tilly's proposal, we extended the voting deadline thus to December 1, 11:59 pm (= 23:59 h) GMT.
As I once more see no obstruction of procedure, the submission for consideration of the term IX budget as aproved by the GA remains as it is.
Timothy Wellesford, Term IX Speaker of the GA.