The Northeastern Democrat - The Northeast Region and the New HAEV

[crypto-fascist superhero]

The Northeastern Democrat

Hello, and welcome to my new paper/editorial box, The Northeastern Democrat.  This will primary focus on local issues in the Northeast, though I may occasionally write about national issues.  I will start by reprinting the speech I recently gave before the Popular Liberty Party here.

---

The Northeast Region and the New HAEV

The Populares Party was originally founded in response to a piece of legislation that threatened the very heart of our republican institutions.  The creation of the so-called "High Authority for Ethics in Voting" (HAEV) gave an unelected, ideological commission the power to disenfranchise any voter at will.  The original Populares, frightened by this step towards dictatorship, created a party whose goal was initially to effect the immediate repeal of this law, and concerned Atlasians of the left, of the right, and of the center, liberal, conservative, libertarian, and communitarian, joined the party in droves.  In fact, it quickly became the largest party in Atlasia, as the popular outrage against this subversion of the democratic process became so great.  While the bill was ultimately not repealed by the Senate, it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, a decision that likely would not have happened had the popular outcry led by our party, the party of the People, not been heard.

Now there is another proposed piece of legislation, almost certain to pass, perhaps even worse than the HAEV.  It does not affect every Atlasian, fortunately, but it will fundamentally change the nature of our most populous region.  As it is long and complex, I will briefly summarize the untitled bill, which can be read in full here.  The bill would allow three pieces of legislation to be considered by the Northeast Assembly simultaneously, one reserved for legislation submitted by petition, one reserved for legislation actually submitted by assemblymen, but only in the order that the Speaker of the Assembly chooses, and one reserved for legislation submitted by the Governor.

Why is this a bad thing?  To start, not only does the Governor now have the power to propose legislation (a very troubling expansion of executive power in its own right), but now under this legislation anything proposed by the Governor takes precedence over any bill that an actual assemblyman proposes.  This effectively produces a system of rule by decree, wherein the Governor produces a decree and only then does the Assembly decides to rubber-stamp it or not.  This is the same system used by the Supreme Soviet in the USSR, wherein the executive (the General Secretary) proposed new decrees, and then the Soviet voted them up or down.

As if allowing the governor to rule by decree is not enough, this legislation neuters the power of the Assembly still further, as the legislation actually proposed by Assemblymen would now be voted on only in the order that the Speaker chooses.  The Speaker would now be empowered to choose in what order legislation is voted on, and even whether it is voted on (by delaying it until the assembly session is over), at his own discretion.  He might also game its passage by deliberately scheduling it before or after a special election or resignation, or by allowing a lame-duck session to vote on controversial legislation, among other things.  A grand total of two individuals would now decide what legislation is considered by the Assembly, and the role of the individual assemblyman would now be rendered meaningless and powerless, a rubber-stamp entity exactly like the Supreme Soviet this legislation models it after.  This sounds like hyperbole, but it isn't.  It's a factual description of the bill, and a valid comparison.

I'm calling on all Northeasterners who value a republican form of government, rather than semi-elected dictatorship, to oppose this bill.  This is not a partisan or a left and right issue, but rather one of right and wrong.  Simply because a bill is long and complex does not make it worth passing, nor does the fact that it was proposed by someone you like or opposed by someone you dislike (and I know I am disliked by many).  Nor is tyranny acceptable even when clothed in the guise of "reform," just as the HAEV was.  And while I believe this is an issue, just like the HAEV, that can unite left, right, center, and every ideology, I call on the Popular Liberty Party to take a stand in opposing this bill, just as the original Populares opposed the HAEV.

[Senator Napoleon]

The Governor has ALWAYS had the power to introduce legislation without needing an Assembly sponsor, as I have pointed out to you. Legislation by petition has also been allowed in the old constitution. Dallasfan and I did this before with the drinking age law, if you recall. The Assembly deciding on its own sovereign debate rules is not tyranny, wormy. Please explain Article V, Section xi to us Wormy.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

It seems I was mistaken on that count, although you can forgive me for not thinking the Governor has ALWAYS had that power, given that it had NEVER been used before, at least while I was in the assembly.  Of course the Assembly can vote to impose tyranny by "deciding on its own sovereign debate rules."  It's giving you, the governor, dictatorial power (which also makes it highly improper that you are the one proposing it).  Was the Enabling Act (a substantially similar piece of legislation) not tyranny?

[Governor Scott]

Giving the Speaker's position more influence and meaning to it doesn't lead to "tyranny".  That is a very absurd comparison.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Giving the Speaker's position more influence and meaning to it doesn't lead to "tyranny".  That is a very absurd comparison.

It does if it, combined with the dangerous and far-reaching expansion of the governor's powers, means that individual assemblymen no longer have any power whatsoever.

If I were the governor and PLPers controlled the Assembly, you (and probably Napoleon as well) would be raising holy hell if I were to propose this travesty*, as well you should.  Instead of being reflexively partisan, how about actually thinking an issue through, or at least admitting your reflexive partisanship.

*of course, I wouldn't propose it, but that's neither here nor there

[Governor Scott]

Giving the Speaker's position more influence and meaning to it doesn't lead to "tyranny".  That is a very absurd comparison.

It does if it, combined with the dangerous and far-reaching expansion of the governor's powers, means that individual assemblymen no longer have any power whatsoever.

If I were the governor and PLPers controlled the Assembly, you (and probably Napoleon as well) would be raising holy hell if I were to propose this travesty*, as well you should.  Instead of being reflexively partisan, how about actually thinking an issue through, or at least admitting your reflexive partisanship.

*of course, I wouldn't propose it, but that's neither here nor there

Individual Representatives would still have the same power under this plan.  But frankly, if a certain party controls the Assembly, it deserves to have more power because voters chose to put that party in charge.  If voters disapprove of the job the majority party is doing, they can vote them out and elect a new majority to handle future legislation differently.  That is not tyrannical at all.

[Senator Napoleon]

Wormy could havebrought forth his concerns during the five or so days of debate.

[Governor Scott]

Wormy could havebrought forth his concerns during the five or so days of debate.

This kind of stuff is routine, of course.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Individual Representatives would still have the same power under this plan.  But frankly, if a certain party controls the Assembly, it deserves to have more power because voters chose to put that party in charge.  If voters disapprove of the job the majority party is doing, they can vote them out and elect a new majority to handle future legislation differently.  That is not tyrannical at all.

No, individual representatives would have no power under this plan.  They would no longer be able to have legislation of their own considered unless the Speaker likes it.  Legislation would require a 3/4ths majority of non-speaker votes to fail, so essentially the Assembly would become a body that a. does whatever the Speaker wants and b. decides whether to accept the decrees of the governor, given precedence above all other legislation.  That's not democratic in the slightest.  I was an assemblyman back when the Populares had 5 of 7 Assembly seats and the governorship.  We'd never even have dreamed of creating such legislation - and we still wouldn't.  It's a fundamental attack on the very concept of a republican government.  I strongly suspect, as well, that the voters will be choosing whether certain individuals deserve to have power, and sooner than they think.

Wormy could havebrought forth his concerns during the five or so days of debate.

As I've already explained elsewhere, I didn't have the time to write 800 words about this back then, but I do now.

[Senator Napoleon]

You don't seem to understand the new SOAP or what in the constitution has or has not been changed. You should try figuring it out before speaking out as not to look foolish (unless you are deliberately being dishonest). You could have offered an amendment, the fact that your first intuition is to rant and rave speaks volumes.

[Cincinnatus]

You can still offer an amendment to that Section wormy.  I can use my dictatorial powers to bring it before the Assembly

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Exactly what would be the point of my having complained about it earlier, anyways?  It's not like anyone [in government] is interested in addressing my concerns now, and they're being outright disingenous (just as they are about this bill) if they claim they would've been earlier but won't be now (which seems more than a little childish, too).

You can still offer an amendment to that Section wormy.  I can use my dictatorial powers to bring it before the Assembly

While the gesture would be appreciated, it would be rather pointless, as even if it passed the present assembly (unlikely but possible) it would still meet a certain veto.

[Senator Napoleon]

You could have tried to amend it but instead you sat back so you could whine later. You claim to care so much but didn't even try to make a single post or offer a simple amendment.

[Governor Scott]

I've read over the bill many times.  It's simple: when a slot is open, legislation is taken to the floor.  There is nothing dictatorial about this at all.  The Speaker cannot simply throw away bills, and I find this deliberate misleading of the constituents to be in extremely poor taste.

[Senator Napoleon]

I've read over the bill many times.  It's simple: when a slot is open, legislation is taken to the floor.  There is nothing dictatorial about this at all.  The Speaker cannot simply throw away bills, and I find this deliberate misleading of the constituents to be in extremely poor taste.

He seems to have no constitutional knowledge, new or old, and doesn't seem to understand the SOAP he himself just voted on. I don't think the region will fall for this.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

You could have tried to amend it but instead you sat back so you could whine later. You claim to care so much but didn't even try to make a single post or offer a simple amendment.

I'm sorry, I had an attack of the real lifes.  I seem to recall you thinking that was a legitimate excuse a couple days ago, re Snowstalker.

I've read over the bill many times.  It's simple: when a slot is open, legislation is taken to the floor.  There is nothing dictatorial about this at all.  The Speaker cannot simply throw away bills, and I find this deliberate misleading of the constituents to be in extremely poor taste.

No, the Speaker can simply throw away bills, by always moving them to the back of the queue until the session is over.  That is, in fact, the very intention behind that aspect of this legislation.

[Senator Napoleon]

A legitimate excuse for resigning. Do you plan on resigning?

You love comparing my apples to your oranges. Go find some apples.

[Governor Scott]

I've read over the bill many times.  It's simple: when a slot is open, legislation is taken to the floor.  There is nothing dictatorial about this at all.  The Speaker cannot simply throw away bills, and I find this deliberate misleading of the constituents to be in extremely poor taste.

He seems to have no constitutional knowledge, new or old, and doesn't seem to understand the SOAP he himself just voted on. I don't think the region will fall for this.

Yet it continues to let him troll the Assembly at his will, of course.

I've read over the bill many times.  It's simple: when a slot is open, legislation is taken to the floor.  There is nothing dictatorial about this at all.  The Speaker cannot simply throw away bills, and I find this deliberate misleading of the constituents to be in extremely poor taste.

No, the Speaker can simply throw away bills, by always moving them to the back of the queue until the session is over.  That is, in fact, the very intention behind that aspect of this legislation.

When a slot is open, the Speaker has no choice but to introduce the bills.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

I've read over the bill many times.  It's simple: when a slot is open, legislation is taken to the floor.  There is nothing dictatorial about this at all.  The Speaker cannot simply throw away bills, and I find this deliberate misleading of the constituents to be in extremely poor taste.

No, the Speaker can simply throw away bills, by always moving them to the back of the queue until the session is over.  That is, in fact, the very intention behind that aspect of this legislation.

When a slot is open, the Speaker has no choice but to introduce the bills.

But the speaker can simply introduce legislation, any legislation, and put that in front of whatever he dislikes.  Quite ironically, this bill would indeed make it possible to filibuster legislation indefinitely.

[Governor Scott]

I've read over the bill many times.  It's simple: when a slot is open, legislation is taken to the floor.  There is nothing dictatorial about this at all.  The Speaker cannot simply throw away bills, and I find this deliberate misleading of the constituents to be in extremely poor taste.

No, the Speaker can simply throw away bills, by always moving them to the back of the queue until the session is over.  That is, in fact, the very intention behind that aspect of this legislation.

When a slot is open, the Speaker has no choice but to introduce the bills.

But the speaker can simply introduce legislation, any legislation, and put that in front of whatever he dislikes.  Quite ironically, this bill would indeed make it possible to filibuster legislation indefinitely.

We await on your amendment to remedy this.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

I've read over the bill many times.  It's simple: when a slot is open, legislation is taken to the floor.  There is nothing dictatorial about this at all.  The Speaker cannot simply throw away bills, and I find this deliberate misleading of the constituents to be in extremely poor taste.

No, the Speaker can simply throw away bills, by always moving them to the back of the queue until the session is over.  That is, in fact, the very intention behind that aspect of this legislation.

When a slot is open, the Speaker has no choice but to introduce the bills.

But the speaker can simply introduce legislation, any legislation, and put that in front of whatever he dislikes.  Quite ironically, this bill would indeed make it possible to filibuster legislation indefinitely.

We await on your amendment to remedy this.

Gladly.  Waiting with bated breath for its swift passage.

[Senator Napoleon]

I don't see anything wrong with a filibuster being possible.