SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Gov't Oversight and Reform (Recommendations)

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Insert picture of RL Congressional Committee

Members
Senator NC Yankee - Committee Chair  
Senator Scott
Senator benconstine

Current Order of Business:

Topic/Hearing Queue
Committee Startup Procedures
Updating the Wiki

Completed Business
Expansion of Court by Two Members - Not Recommended by Committee
Contempt of Congress Act - Recommended by Committee
Interaction of Officials
Absence of the SoIA

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What should we do first, members?

[Governor Scott]

Harass Senator Wormyguy for being inactive?

[Senator Ben]

Is there any pending legislation the committee can consider?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is there any pending legislation the committee can consider?

Do you have anything in mind, Senator?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Anything dealing with the functionality or effectiveness of the government is fair game, thus are tentacles stretch into other areas to an extent that it relates to that. With the reform part comes any alteration or change in the goverment.

I think we should consider doing a hearing at some point to establish the template, as well. Everything we do will be used as guideance by the others and I fear that without the guideline of precedents we create, the other committees will be less likely to succeed. Having the likely chairs of the other committees here will help with that process.

[Senator Ben]

Presuming I am elected Chairman of the NSC Committee, my first order of business will be to hold hearings on pending FoPo legislation (like the new Treaty Amendment), as well as some overview hearings on our foreign policy, including testimony from the SoEA and Ambassador Cathcon.  Perhaps we should do similar things here?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The most significant "reforms" dealing with the Veep and Judicial Branch are already before the Senate.

I had wanted to haul the GM and SoIA here before the committee as part of a joint hearing but the GM will be gone starting on Sunday. Most specifically I wanted to hammer our the causes of continued unemployment and solutions from both of them. As part of that hearing we could also glean feedback on the FoxConn bill and the Redalgo's remaing "masterpieces".

Since all the attempts so far to reform the Judicial Branch have failed perhaps we should look into that since it involves activity and functioning of the gov't body and not necessary "law itself" which is the sole purview of the soon to be created Judicial Committee. We can then pass along recommendations or hand of such issues to that committee to consider as they arise.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We could still bring Morgieb before here on his own, but I fear the GM should go first or come along and they should have time together to prepare the information we may demand which is why that is problematic.

[Senator Napoleon]

I would love to see my proposal to add two Justices to the Court get some consideration in Committee: this one, the Judiciary or both.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do the committee members desire to discuss Judicial Reform measure of the President and the underlying issues motivating it?

[Governor Scott]

That would probably be up to the Judiciary Committee to do.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That would probably be up to the Judiciary Committee to do.

WAR OF THE CHAIRMEN!!!!

The issue deals with activity of a gov't body and is thus within our jurisdiction as a result.

What does Senator Ben think?

[Governor Scott]

Yes, but the Judiciary Committee is also delegated jurisdiction over federal courts and judges.  Perhaps both committees could take the issue up?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, but the Judiciary Committee is also delegated jurisdiction over federal courts and judges.  Perhaps both committees could take the issue up?

I don't see what the problem with that arrangement would be. I beleive I already suggest joint investigation or the passing of a certain investigation off on another committee at a certain point during said investigation.

I still would like to know what Senator Ben thinks.

[Senator Ben]

I think both Committees have solid claims; joint work would probably be best.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay, Senators lets get started then.


We should debate/answer the following concerns to start off with:

What issue/concern is motivating the desire for change?

What proposals have been offered and considered so for?

What present proposal are we considering?
- Expanding the court by two members.

What is the benefits of doing that in light of the problem motivating these discussions?

What potential drawbacks exist that need to be at least acknowledged before potentially proceeding with this change?

What are the opinions of several people who this would effect or persons who would otherwise be listened to intently if an opinion were giving regarding this preposed change?

[Governor Scott]

Though the number of Supreme Court cases we have in Atlasia is quite small, I believe that appointing an additional two judges to the Court will help stimulate debate and involvement when the cases occur.  Overall, I don't see any down sides to this proposal with the exception of the possibility that finding potential judges will be hard to find.  However, on the other hand, this may entice former players or people with busy schedules (such as, for example, Keystone Phil) to sign up for Atlasia and be able to contribute to the game in a small way.

[ModerateCoward]

The court is fine as it is.

[Senator Ben]

The court is fine as it is.

No, it isn't.  Power is concentrated in the hands of only three individuals, and there are far too few cases.  Both of these are issues that need to be remedied.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Isn't the purpose of the court meant to provide a check on executive/legislative excess by concentrating judicial power into the hands of a unelected, lifetime judges?

How does changing the court, increase the number of cases?

[Senator Napoleon]

Isn't the purpose of the court meant to provide a check on executive/legislative excess by concentrating judicial power into the hands of a unelected, lifetime judges?

How does changing the court, increase the number of cases?

It doesn't but it addresses the Senator's other concern quite nicely, with the benefit of cooler court cases. 3-0 and 2-1I is so stale. What about 5-0, 4-1, 3-2 all possibilities? Certainly would be more interesting than currently, without fruiting our most active members to fill the roles.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't doubt the benefit of having "cooler" court cases, but what I am concerned about extent to which that is an improvement when weighed against potential drawbacks that could arise from this. One of the biggest concerns is the motivation for doing so, "breaking up a power concentration", seems to be contrarty to intent and spirit of the motivation that necessitated the court's creation. Courts can and should be expanded in size at points, but that justification by the Senator worries me.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are we still discussing this, here?

I would like a response from Senator Ben.

[Senator Ben]

I don't see any way to increase the caseload, but I believe that expanding the Court is something that needs to be done for future cases.  Other than that, there's nothing we can do.