Cabinet Officers and Structure Bill

[Jake]

I urge my senators to vote against this bill.  In my capacity as GM, I can assure you that grouping the Depts of State and Defense together will have a negative effect on our diplomacy around the world.

[Jake]

BUMP-6 senators need to vote

[Peter]

I urge my senators to vote against this bill.  In my capacity as GM, I can assure you that grouping the Depts of State and Defense together will have a negative effect on our diplomacy around the world.

Jake,

I think the point is not that we get too heavily tied to a reality driven government here. There is absolutely little to no point in having two Cabinet departments that deal with largely international issues when in fact international issues have little to no part to play in Atlasian life since we have no genuine "other" governments to deal with.

We do however have many internal issues. Certainly a EHW secretary would often have to work with the Regional governors on a wide variety of issues: Certainly I intend to have some fun inundating this Secretary if he comes into existence on the joke that is the federal funding formula for education. Economic Affairs is needed largely for the budget, but also for other issues such as dealing with the issues generated by the Clean Energy Act with respect to the Regions. He'll also get to deal with Al the next time he strikes.

The AG and Forum Affairs need to continue exist for rather obvious reasons.

I appreciate that a GM must largely look to the international scene for creating scenarios, but a lot of people, myself included, have expressed doubts about continuing to allow all manner of artificial scenarios to be cooked up when we have more than enough that we can create on our own.

[Jake]

I urge my senators to vote against this bill.  In my capacity as GM, I can assure you that grouping the Depts of State and Defense together will have a negative effect on our diplomacy around the world.

Jake,

I think the point is not that we get too heavily tied to a reality driven government here. There is absolutely little to no point in having two Cabinet departments that deal with largely international issues when in fact international issues have little to no part to play in Atlasian life since we have no genuine "other" governments to deal with.

We do however have many internal issues. Certainly a EHW secretary would often have to work with the Regional governors on a wide variety of issues: Certainly I intend to have some fun inundating this Secretary if he comes into existence on the joke that is the federal funding formula for education. Economic Affairs is needed largely for the budget, but also for other issues such as dealing with the issues generated by the Clean Energy Act with respect to the Regions. He'll also get to deal with Al the next time he strikes.

The AG and Forum Affairs need to continue exist for rather obvious reasons.

I appreciate that a GM must largely look to the international scene for creating scenarios, but a lot of people, myself included, have expressed doubts about continuing to allow all manner of artificial scenarios to be cooked up when we have more than enough that we can create on our own.

Many have expressed an opinion for wanting a reactive GM.  I have decided to more of that.  I am merely warning them that the world will not be very acceptive of this idea. 

[WMS]

Abstain. Please separate the State and Defense Departments.

[Jake]

I appreciate that a GM must largely look to the international scene for creating scenarios, but a lot of people, myself included, have expressed doubts about continuing to allow all manner of artificial scenarios to be cooked up when we have more than enough that we can create on our own.

Also, I don't understand your last comment in bold. Explain

[Peter]

I appreciate that a GM must largely look to the international scene for creating scenarios, but a lot of people, myself included, have expressed doubts about continuing to allow all manner of artificial scenarios to be cooked up when we have more than enough that we can create on our own.

Also, I don't understand your last comment in bold. Explain

Well we will always be able to create enough gameplay on our own through the simply progression of the game.

The Fritz v. Ernest crisis was a prime example of this with its own consequences that forced reactions from various levels of government.

The Constitutional Convention is certainly enough of a self-made scenario to keep enough of us going. I imagine there will be more conflicts between federal and regional at some point. Then there's the spin-offs from things like the Clean Energy Act, which we've yet to see where Regions attempt to implement those federal polices. Those present real challenges as opposed to artificial ones.

Not to mention that we are meant to be based around elections and not a massive government, which is what we are soon becoming. The Senate these days is more of a stupifying bureaucracy and this administration in a governing role (as opposed to the facilitating role of SoFA and AG) with one exception has to date been impotent.

Rather than complaining about the fact that Defense and State might merge, I'm honestly surprised that the Rt Hon Jack Straw wasn't complaining about the fact that our State department is permenantly headless.

[WMS]

Rather than complaining about the fact that Defense and State might merge, I'm honestly surprised that the Rt Hon Jack Straw wasn't complaining about the fact that our State department is permenantly headless.

And which one of us is the Rt Hon Jack Straw?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A solution to this might be junior ministers: the Sec of State appoints a Sec of Defense for example.

[Colin]

A solution to this might be junior ministers: the Sec of State appoints a Sec of Defense for example.

That gives us three government officials instead of two to do the same job. All that is is expanding the bureaucracy and making more likely that the three people wont do anything. Keep State and Defense seperate.

[Peter]

And which one of us is the Rt Hon Jack Straw?

Apparently Jake. My reference was to this story, posted in the Midgard Chronicle:

British Foreign Secretary wary of US Government Reorganization

London-British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw spoke out today about the proposed reorganization of Atlasian Cabinet. A bill introduced by Senator Al, calls for the grouping of the various departments into five new departments.  The most contreversial idea put out so far is the grouping of the Department of State and Department of Defense into one Department of State and Defense. Straw said this proposal, "would send the wrong message to the rest of the world by combining the job of a diplomat and the job of a soldier into one." So far the bill has met only tepid approval from the Senate, and voting is ungoing.

[Jake]

I appreciate that a GM must largely look to the international scene for creating scenarios, but a lot of people, myself included, have expressed doubts about continuing to allow all manner of artificial scenarios to be cooked up when we have more than enough that we can create on our own.

Also, I don't understand your last comment in bold. Explain

Well we will always be able to create enough gameplay on our own through the simply progression of the game.

The Fritz v. Ernest crisis was a prime example of this with its own consequences that forced reactions from various levels of government.

The Constitutional Convention is certainly enough of a self-made scenario to keep enough of us going. I imagine there will be more conflicts between federal and regional at some point. Then there's the spin-offs from things like the Clean Energy Act, which we've yet to see where Regions attempt to implement those federal polices. Those present real challenges as opposed to artificial ones.

Not to mention that we are meant to be based around elections and not a massive government, which is what we are soon becoming. The Senate these days is more of a stupifying bureaucracy and this administration in a governing role (as opposed to the facilitating role of SoFA and AG) with one exception has to date been impotent.

Rather than complaining about the fact that Defense and State might merge, I'm honestly surprised that the Rt Hon Jack Straw wasn't complaining about the fact that our State department is permenantly headless.

Hughento said in his resignation speech that he wanted a more pro-active GM, others have said they want a pro-active GM.  I want a mix.  The GM's job is to react to the government's decisions and to occasionally introduce new scenarios for the government to react to.  The only scenario I've seen that has caused much of any reaction was the Fritz v. Ernest situation.  That is why the abortion lawsuit, the Mag-Lev groups response, and Straw's response were posted. To react to the government's actions. If you don't like the way I am GM'ing take it up with PBrunsel and convince him to get rid of me. 

[Gabu]

Can we please get more votes on this?  We need either three votes for it to pass or four for it to fail.

[Bono]

Nay

[Defarge]

Yea

[Siege40]

Aye.

Siege

[Jake]

I hereby open formal debate time on this bill.

JFK, I think debate time is up for this bill, it is a week, yes?

It is indeed, I didn't get much time on the computer yesterday and so little on the forums heh.


I hereby open the voting on this bill, all Senators vote yea, nay or abstain.

I think voting on this bill ended last Thursday.  The vote takes place for one week, 1/20-1/27 and no senator motioned to extend voting. 

[Gabu]

I hereby open formal debate time on this bill.

JFK, I think debate time is up for this bill, it is a week, yes?

It is indeed, I didn't get much time on the computer yesterday and so little on the forums heh.


I hereby open the voting on this bill, all Senators vote yea, nay or abstain.

I think voting on this bill ended last Thursday.  The vote takes place for one week, 1/20-1/27 and no senator motioned to extend voting. 

Yes, you're right.  Thanks for that.

Well... according to my count, with four senators in favor to two against, and with four abstaining, I hereby declare this bill to have passed.

I present it to the President for his signature.

[Jake]

I hereby open formal debate time on this bill.

JFK, I think debate time is up for this bill, it is a week, yes?

It is indeed, I didn't get much time on the computer yesterday and so little on the forums heh.


I hereby open the voting on this bill, all Senators vote yea, nay or abstain.

I think voting on this bill ended last Thursday.  The vote takes place for one week, 1/20-1/27 and no senator motioned to extend voting. 

Yes, you're right.  Thanks for that.

Well... according to my count, with four senators in favor to two against, and with four abstaining, this bill passes.

Or, if we choose to ignore the votes occurring after January 27, the bill passes with two senators in favor to one against, with seven abstaining.  Either way, the bill passes.

I hereby deliver it to PBrunsel for his signature.

What did we decide with regards to abstentions.  Are they even votes?  If not, the bill doesn't get a quorum of the senate. I don't think the votes should count, because they just failed to show up, they didn't vote abstain. 

[Gabu]

I hereby open formal debate time on this bill.

JFK, I think debate time is up for this bill, it is a week, yes?

It is indeed, I didn't get much time on the computer yesterday and so little on the forums heh.


I hereby open the voting on this bill, all Senators vote yea, nay or abstain.

I think voting on this bill ended last Thursday.  The vote takes place for one week, 1/20-1/27 and no senator motioned to extend voting. 

Yes, you're right.  Thanks for that.

Well... according to my count, with four senators in favor to two against, and with four abstaining, this bill passes.

Or, if we choose to ignore the votes occurring after January 27, the bill passes with two senators in favor to one against, with seven abstaining.  Either way, the bill passes.

I hereby deliver it to PBrunsel for his signature.

What did we decide with regards to abstentions.  Are they even votes?  If not, the bill doesn't get a quorum of the senate. I don't think the votes should count, because they just failed to show up, they didn't vote abstain. 

(EDIT: Okay, I think I have it correct this time. )

According to Clause four of the Senate Procedure Act, "all those Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained."  Abstentions essentially make the abstaining senator not exist for the purposes of counting the votes (e.g., if we have five senators in favor, four against, and one abstaining, that counts as a majority, since the abstaining senator isn't counted).  Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 says that only a majority of the Senate must vote.  If we allow the votes made after January 27, this bill passes.  If we don't, this bill fails due to senator apathy.

I'm currently torn over what to do.  Technically, the latter option should happen, but this bill obviously has the necessary support to pass, and all we'd need to do is reintroduce it to have it do so, so I think I'll let it pass.

[PBrunsel]

Gabu informed me that this has been passed. After close consideration and reflection:

VETO[/i][/color]

[Bono]

You'll run out of red ink soon.

But for one a veto I agree with.

[Gabu]

With PBrunsel's veto, I now open the floor to any senators who wish to call a vote to override the Presidential Veto.

(PS: Is there an official time limit for how long we have before a veto becomes official?  If not, there really should be... I'll make it a week.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I call for a vote to over-ride the veto. Frankly, most opposition to this bill is testosterone induced.

[King]

This bill is unconstitutional.