SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VS)

[LastVoter]

I'll assess this in the next few hours... but I honestly haven't seen any good reasons as to why I shouldn't sign this. I see a lot "nope"s and proclamations, but no concrete reasons...

Imperialism.

[Sbane]

There is no reason to take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian issue and this treaty is tantamount to that I feel. We already have strong ties with Israel and we don't need this treaty to further advertise our bias.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

If we have such strong ties then we should formalize them through a treaty.

[Donerail]

There is no reason to take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian issue and this treaty is tantamount to that I feel. We already have strong ties with Israel and we don't need this treaty to further advertise our bias.

This treaty isn't intended to take sides in the Israel-Palestine issue, it's to show Israel that we stand with them in light of Iran gaining nuclear capabilities. Formalizing our ties with Israel lets them know that we stand with them, and as such, they don't need to do anything rash like attack Iran, because we've got their back.

[Napoleon]

So, does Polnut still get to sign/veto this?

No, I do.

[Donerail]

So, does Polnut still get to sign/veto this?

No, I do.

Damn it, Polnut! Now it does die

[Napoleon]

Veto (again wtf)

[Kaine for Senate '18]

It's been over a week; when does the bill go into law without a signature?

[Napoleon]

I wrote a lengthy post explaining my veto, looks like it didn't go through so I will try to write another one by tonight.

[tmthforu94]

From the time I cast the tie-breaking vote, it was about a week and one hour when the President signed it.

[Napoleon]

From the time I cast the tie-breaking vote, it was about a week and one hour when the President signed it.

First of all, my long post doesn't seem to have gone through at 9 am or so.

Second, the Constitution gives the President seven days so I have until July 13th.

[tmthforu94]

From the time I cast the tie-breaking vote, it was about a week and one hour when the President signed it.

First of all, my long post doesn't seem to have gone through at 9 am or so.

Second, the Constitution gives the President seven days so I have until July 13th.

I posted my vote, which sent it to the President, at 10:50 ET, 8:50 my time. That was July 5th. At 10:50 ET, exactly one week passed. Your veto is shown at 11:34 ET. I may be missing something - if so, let me know.

[Napoleon]

You are missing something. The Constitution does not state "seven days after the Senate passes a bill", it states "seven days after it shall have been presented to him (me)". The Constitution allows me these seven days to give full consideration to the merits of a bill. This bill was presented to me, the President, on July 6th at 12 pm. It is impossible to present the bill to me before then for obvious reasons, and seven days have not lapsed since the bill was presented to me upon my swearing in.

If the Constitution was not meant to allow me seven days, it would read differently. Both the text and spirit of the law uphold this veto.

[Donerail]

Veto (again wtf)

As I wrote this treaty, I'd like to thank the President for his extensive analysis of this treaty and his great use of logic to decide to veto it. Although I disagree with the veto (for obvious reasons), I'd like to commend your reasoning. While writing this, I knew the argument "again wtf" was the strongest one against the bill, and I am glad to see the President use such eloquent language in his rationale.

[Napoleon]

Veto (again wtf)

As I wrote this treaty, I'd like to thank the President for his extensive analysis of this treaty and his great use of logic to decide to veto it. Although I disagree with the veto (for obvious reasons), I'd like to commend your reasoning. While writing this, I knew the argument "again wtf" was the strongest one against the bill, and I am glad to see the President use such eloquent language in his rationale.

This takes the cake for pettiest attack ever. I wrote a detailed and lengthy post explaining my reasoning that didn't go through (the reason for my "again wtf"). I already stated above that I will try to rewrite it by the end of the night. Because of work, I don't have time yet.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'll ask for a veto override after the President posts his rationale.

[Napoleon]

Moving on from the former SoEA's disappointing and disrespectful comments...

After much consideration and thought, I have decided that vetoing this bill is the right thing for me to do as President. At this point in time, it is clear to me that further entangling Atlasia in the Middle East is the wrong direction for us to go.

My understanding is that this treaty has been proposed for the purpose of protecting Israel from a now nuclear Iran. My administration does not underestimate the threat a nuclear Iran could pose to the sovereign nation of Israel. Mindful of this, I do not believe that a treaty is necessary to maintain the friendship and alliance between our nations. This treaty is not limited to Iran; the consequences of signing this into law could compromise our ability to continue making peace in the Middle East.

Any attempt by Iran to use nuclear force of aggression will result in consequences that Iran may not find appealing in the end. But as of now, that has not happened, and I do not believe it will happen. And in the event it does happen, I will be quick to act, as I imagine any good President would. Not only for Israel, but our other friends and allies across the globe who may be at risk.

Atlasia will stand by her allies, treaty or not. I do not believe that a treaty with Israel, to the exclusion of our Islamic allies in the region, will be met kindly in an area where we are still working to restore peace. This is a delicate situation and we must not tie our hands. Atlasia and Israel have had close relations for a long time now and I am confident that Israel can put her trust in us to have her back, treaty or no treaty.

I will be sending a diplomatic agent to Israel to continue discussions regarding Iran. This does not mark the end of our relations, but a new beginning. As I have only become President less than a week ago, I need time to assess the situation longer. These decisions affect all of us and cannot be made without the necessary deliberation and analysis.

Thank you

President Napoleon

[Donerail]

[quote author=President Napoleon link=topic=154812.msg3352929#msg3352929 date=13421532 ability
Atlasia will stand by her allies, treaty or not. I do not believe that a treaty with Israel, to the exclusion of our Islamic allies in the region, will be met kindly in an area where we are still working to restore peace.
[/quote]

And this is why Saudi Arabia and Egypt are two of our Major NON-NATO Allies, the former of which was designated during the Polnut administration, and why Turkey is a member of NATO.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I officially ask for a veto override.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I honestly feel your veto is a mistake. I may be devoted to the cause of peace, but I'm gonna have to agree with Senator Ben and former VP Tmfth. Tmfth's assessment of the time it was posted is correct thus this should be law as Napoleon did not post the veto within the seven day time limit. I I held the presidency this thing would be signed as soon as I saw it because it has the merits.

[Napoleon]

I honestly feel your veto is a mistake. I may be devoted to the cause of peace, but I'm gonna have to agree with Senator Ben and former VP Tmfth. Tmfth's assessment of the time it was posted is correct thus this should be law as Napoleon did not post the veto within the seven day time limit. I I held the presidency this thing would be signed as soon as I saw it because it has the merits.

The seven day time limit has thirty minutes remaining.

[Redalgo]

I applaud your decision, Mr. President!

This senator will stubbornly oppose any attempt to override your veto.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I honestly feel your veto is a mistake. I may be devoted to the cause of peace, but I'm gonna have to agree with Senator Ben and former VP Tmfth. Tmfth's assessment of the time it was posted is correct thus this should be law as Napoleon did not post the veto within the seven day time limit. I I held the presidency this thing would be signed as soon as I saw it because it has the merits.

The seven day time limit has thirty minutes remaining.

It was placed on the presidents desk under Polnut this this should've been his final act.

[Napoleon]

I honestly feel your veto is a mistake. I may be devoted to the cause of peace, but I'm gonna have to agree with Senator Ben and former VP Tmfth. Tmfth's assessment of the time it was posted is correct thus this should be law as Napoleon did not post the veto within the seven day time limit. I I held the presidency this thing would be signed as soon as I saw it because it has the merits.

The seven day time limit has thirty minutes remaining.

It was placed on the presidents desk under Polnut this this should've been his final act.

No, a President should not make major foreign policy decisions in his last few hours. That would be disrespectful and irresponsible and you know it.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I honestly feel your veto is a mistake. I may be devoted to the cause of peace, but I'm gonna have to agree with Senator Ben and former VP Tmfth. Tmfth's assessment of the time it was posted is correct thus this should be law as Napoleon did not post the veto within the seven day time limit. I I held the presidency this thing would be signed as soon as I saw it because it has the merits.

The seven day time limit has thirty minutes remaining.

It was placed on the presidents desk under Polnut this this should've been his final act.

No, a President should not make major foreign policy decisions in his last few hours. That would be disrespectful and irresponsible and you know it.

This treaty was looking at being signed and a mear change in administration kills it. That is what is disrespectful.