Confirmation Hearing: TyriontheImperialist for Vice President (Questioning)

[Simfan34]

This needs to go to the Supreme Court, yes.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

It also makes little sense from a practical point of view to allow someone to vote twice. If the PPT were allowed to break ties if the VP was absent, then a situation arises where a senator has 2 votes while the rest have 1. This is unfair. The speaker of the house doesn't have two votes. Likewise for the majority leader of the senate. 

It's perfectly fine to ignore me, I still don't know if I passed the bar yet and I could be completely wrong. What I do know is these rules are far too vague and have caused a lot of headaches over the past few weeks.

That's all your personal opinion. Which is fine. But as to the process of the game, a majority of the Senate has voted to confirm him because the PPT can act as President of the Senate to break ties should the V.P. be gone and so situations like this can reach resolution. Otherwise, you let one bloc of people shut down part of the government. But who knows, maybe they want that.

Yes, that is my opinion, I don't know legally if this is okay or not, which is why this will likely go to court. The constitution is so vague on the matter that it doesn't specify what happens in the event there is a tie. It merely states a "majority of senators" must vote to confirm.

Bring on the court case, I say.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Constituitionally you can't do that TNF. The got stays at an impasse. Duke is right you can't have two votes on this one.

[windjammer]

It also makes little sense from a practical point of view to allow someone to vote twice. If the PPT were allowed to break ties if the VP was absent, then a situation arises where a senator has 2 votes while the rest have 1. This is unfair. The speaker of the house doesn't have two votes. Likewise for the majority leader of the senate. 

It's perfectly fine to ignore me, I still don't know if I passed the bar yet and I could be completely wrong. What I do know is these rules are far too vague and have caused a lot of headaches over the past few weeks.

That's all your personal opinion. Which is fine. But as to the process of the game, a majority of the Senate has voted to confirm him because the PPT can act as President of the Senate to break ties should the V.P. be gone and so situations like this can reach resolution. Otherwise, you let one bloc of people shut down part of the government. But who knows, maybe they want that.

Yes, that is my opinion, I don't know legally if this is okay or not, which is why this will likely go to court. The constitution is so vague on the matter that it doesn't specify what happens in the event there is a tie. It merely states a "majority of senators" must vote to confirm.

Bring on the court case, I say.

"a majority of the senate" Duke, that's different .

Seriously, I would have agreed with Nix if the wording was "a majority of the senator".
That isn't. The Vice President is a member of the senate while not being a senator, he's the president of the senate.  TNF is at the same time a senator and the acting President of the Senate, I believe he has the right to break the tie.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

It also makes little sense from a practical point of view to allow someone to vote twice. If the PPT were allowed to break ties if the VP was absent, then a situation arises where a senator has 2 votes while the rest have 1. This is unfair. The speaker of the house doesn't have two votes. Likewise for the majority leader of the senate.  

It's perfectly fine to ignore me, I still don't know if I passed the bar yet and I could be completely wrong. What I do know is these rules are far too vague and have caused a lot of headaches over the past few weeks.

That's all your personal opinion. Which is fine. But as to the process of the game, a majority of the Senate has voted to confirm him because the PPT can act as President of the Senate to break ties should the V.P. be gone and so situations like this can reach resolution. Otherwise, you let one bloc of people shut down part of the government. But who knows, maybe they want that.

Yes, that is my opinion, I don't know legally if this is okay or not, which is why this will likely go to court. The constitution is so vague on the matter that it doesn't specify what happens in the event there is a tie. It merely states a "majority of senators" must vote to confirm.

Bring on the court case, I say.

"a majority of the senate" Duke, that's different .

Seriously, I would have agreed with Nix if the wording was "a majority of the senator".
That isn't. The Vice President is a member of the senate while not being a senator, he's the president of the senate.  TNF is at the same time a senator and the acting President of the Senate, I believe he has the right to break the tie.

Yes, my friend, but whether the VP is a member of the senate or not is a whole different argument entirely, and you know I don't believe the VP is a senator at all! I think he is part of the executive branch.

But let's not go down that road.

[windjammer]

It also makes little sense from a practical point of view to allow someone to vote twice. If the PPT were allowed to break ties if the VP was absent, then a situation arises where a senator has 2 votes while the rest have 1. This is unfair. The speaker of the house doesn't have two votes. Likewise for the majority leader of the senate. 

It's perfectly fine to ignore me, I still don't know if I passed the bar yet and I could be completely wrong. What I do know is these rules are far too vague and have caused a lot of headaches over the past few weeks.

That's all your personal opinion. Which is fine. But as to the process of the game, a majority of the Senate has voted to confirm him because the PPT can act as President of the Senate to break ties should the V.P. be gone and so situations like this can reach resolution. Otherwise, you let one bloc of people shut down part of the government. But who knows, maybe they want that.

Yes, that is my opinion, I don't know legally if this is okay or not, which is why this will likely go to court. The constitution is so vague on the matter that it doesn't specify what happens in the event there is a tie. It merely states a "majority of senators" must vote to confirm.

Bring on the court case, I say.

"a majority of the senate" Duke, that's different .

Seriously, I would have agreed with Nix if the wording was "a majority of the senator".
That isn't. The Vice President is a member of the senate while not being a senator, he's the president of the senate.  TNF is at the same time a senator and the acting President of the Senate, I believe he has the right to break the tie.

Windjammer, how do you interpret this clause?

"The Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the President of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided."

Don't worry Nix, I didn't forget that this part when I made my opinion .

Well, I believe that the tie breaking vote is a duty of the President of the Senate. This is probably is only duty. Hhow I interpret this clause:
The VP is the President of the  Senate, but being Ppresident of the senate means he can only break the tie.
TNF beinf the acting President of the Senate, if there is a tie, he breaks the tie.

Do you understand my point of view Nix?
And yes, I understand perfectly that people like you and Duke can think that the VP= 1) break the tie 2) President of the Senate, and that the PPT, when the VP is vacant, just replaces him for his President of the Senate duties. I understand, but I disagree .

It also makes little sense from a practical point of view to allow someone to vote twice. If the PPT were allowed to break ties if the VP was absent, then a situation arises where a senator has 2 votes while the rest have 1. This is unfair. The speaker of the house doesn't have two votes. Likewise for the majority leader of the senate. 

It's perfectly fine to ignore me, I still don't know if I passed the bar yet and I could be completely wrong. What I do know is these rules are far too vague and have caused a lot of headaches over the past few weeks.

That's all your personal opinion. Which is fine. But as to the process of the game, a majority of the Senate has voted to confirm him because the PPT can act as President of the Senate to break ties should the V.P. be gone and so situations like this can reach resolution. Otherwise, you let one bloc of people shut down part of the government. But who knows, maybe they want that.

Yes, that is my opinion, I don't know legally if this is okay or not, which is why this will likely go to court. The constitution is so vague on the matter that it doesn't specify what happens in the event there is a tie. It merely states a "majority of senators" must vote to confirm.

Bring on the court case, I say.

"a majority of the senate" Duke, that's different .

Seriously, I would have agreed with Nix if the wording was "a majority of the senator".
That isn't. The Vice President is a member of the senate while not being a senator, he's the president of the senate.  TNF is at the same time a senator and the acting President of the Senate, I believe he has the right to break the tie.

Yes, my friend, but whether the VP is a member of the senate or not is a whole different argument entirely, and you know I don't believe the VP is a senator at all! I think he is part of the executive branch.

But let's not go down that road.

Friend, the fact that you believe the VP is a member of the executive branch doesn't matter in that case, I mean, he's the PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. Sorry friend, but when you're president of something, you're a member of it .

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

It's illogical for him to break his own tie. TNF doesn't have the right to two votes.

[windjammer]

It's illogical for him to break his own tie. TNF doesn't have the right to two votes.

Why he shouldn't?
He's right now 2 things:
-senator
-PPT (so acting President of the Senate because I resigned)

[windjammer]

It also makes little sense from a practical point of view to allow someone to vote twice. If the PPT were allowed to break ties if the VP was absent, then a situation arises where a senator has 2 votes while the rest have 1. This is unfair. The speaker of the house doesn't have two votes. Likewise for the majority leader of the senate. 

It's perfectly fine to ignore me, I still don't know if I passed the bar yet and I could be completely wrong. What I do know is these rules are far too vague and have caused a lot of headaches over the past few weeks.

That's all your personal opinion. Which is fine. But as to the process of the game, a majority of the Senate has voted to confirm him because the PPT can act as President of the Senate to break ties should the V.P. be gone and so situations like this can reach resolution. Otherwise, you let one bloc of people shut down part of the government. But who knows, maybe they want that.

Yes, that is my opinion, I don't know legally if this is okay or not, which is why this will likely go to court. The constitution is so vague on the matter that it doesn't specify what happens in the event there is a tie. It merely states a "majority of senators" must vote to confirm.

Bring on the court case, I say.

"a majority of the senate" Duke, that's different .

Seriously, I would have agreed with Nix if the wording was "a majority of the senator".
That isn't. The Vice President is a member of the senate while not being a senator, he's the president of the senate.  TNF is at the same time a senator and the acting President of the Senate, I believe he has the right to break the tie.

Windjammer, how do you interpret this clause?

"The Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the President of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided."

Don't worry Nix, I didn't forget that this part when I made my opinion .

Well, I believe that the tie breaking vote is a duty of the President of the Senate. This is probably is only duty. Hhow I interpret this clause:
The VP is the President of the  Senate, but being Ppresident of the senate means he can only break the tie.
TNF beinf the acting President of the Senate, if there is a tie, he breaks the tie.

Do you understand my point of view Nix?

Yes, I do. But the antecedent of the "shall have no vote unless they be equally divided" clause is the Vice President, not the President of the Senate. If we follow your interpretation, the TNF would "have no vote, unless they be equally divided."

This is indeed an interpretation, that I respect but I don't share.

I believe the tie breaking vote is a description of the role of the President of the Senate.

Which antecedent Averroes??? I'm curious!

[windjammer]

Which antecedent Averroes??? I'm curious!

All that I mean is that the description "shall have no vote unless they be equally divided" refers to the noun "Vice President." There aren't any grounds for assuming that it applies to whoever is serving as President of the Senate. The point of including that qualifier to specify that the Vice President does not always have a vote, despite serving as the Senate's President.

The same phrasing appears in the US Constitution and it has never been used to allow the PPT to vote twice in the case of a tie.

So which antecedent exactly Nix?

Yes, I know the same phrasing appears in the US Constitution. But in the USA, the VP has to be the presiding officer in order to break the tie. In Atlasia, the VP doesn't need to be the presiding officer to break the tie. The USA and Atlasia are different for that.

[DemPGH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care what's in the Unites States Constitution, I care what's in this one, and these two clauses make perfectly legal what TNF did.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care what's in the Unites States Constitution, I care what's in this one, and these two clauses make perfectly legal what TNF did.

Only the VP can break a tie not a PPT. that's like handing him two votes and violates the sanctity of one senator one vote.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care what's in the Unites States Constitution, I care what's in this one, and these two clauses make perfectly legal what TNF did.

Only the VP can break a tie not a PPT. that's like handing him two votes and violates the sanctity of one senator one vote.

The President of the Senate breaks the tie.
TNF is actually a senator, and the President of the Senate.
One of his vote: he's a senator, the other vote: the president of the senate.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care what's in the Unites States Constitution, I care what's in this one, and these two clauses make perfectly legal what TNF did.

Only the VP can break a tie not a PPT. that's like handing him two votes and violates the sanctity of one senator one vote.

The President of the Senate breaks the tie.
TNF is actually a senator, and the President of the Senate.
One of his vote: he's a senator, the other vote: the president of the senate.

     Where does it say that the President of the Senate breaks the tie? We know from the first quoted clause that:

The Vice President is the President of the Senate.
The Vice President does not vote unless there is a tie.

     It makes no comment on the status of the President of the Senate. To analogize, take this statement (which I at least hope everyone can agree is true): "An ostrich is a bird, but does not fly." The second clause is stating that ostriches do not fly. You would have us understand it as a statement that birds do not fly, which is false.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care what's in the Unites States Constitution, I care what's in this one, and these two clauses make perfectly legal what TNF did.

Only the VP can break a tie not a PPT. that's like handing him two votes and violates the sanctity of one senator one vote.

The President of the Senate breaks the tie.
TNF is actually a senator, and the President of the Senate.
One of his vote: he's a senator, the other vote: the president of the senate.

     Where does it say that the President of the Senate breaks the tie? We know from the first quoted clause that:

The Vice President is the President of the Senate.
The Vice President does not vote unless there is a tie.

     It makes no comment on the status of the President of the Senate. To analogize, take this statement (which I at least hope everyone can agree is true): "An ostrich is a bird, but does not fly." The second clause is stating that ostriches do not fly. You would have us understand it as a statement that birds do not fly, which is false.

Could you give an another example please? Ii'm reallt sorry, but I really don't know what "ostrich" and "bird" mean...

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care what's in the Unites States Constitution, I care what's in this one, and these two clauses make perfectly legal what TNF did.

Only the VP can break a tie not a PPT. that's like handing him two votes and violates the sanctity of one senator one vote.

The President of the Senate breaks the tie.
TNF is actually a senator, and the President of the Senate.
One of his vote: he's a senator, the other vote: the president of the senate.

     Where does it say that the President of the Senate breaks the tie? We know from the first quoted clause that:

The Vice President is the President of the Senate.
The Vice President does not vote unless there is a tie.

     It makes no comment on the status of the President of the Senate. To analogize, take this statement (which I at least hope everyone can agree is true): "An ostrich is a bird, but does not fly." The second clause is stating that ostriches do not fly. You would have us understand it as a statement that birds do not fly, which is false.

Could you give an another example please? Ii'm reallt sorry, but I really don't know what "ostrich" and "bird" mean...

     Ostrich = autruche. Bird = oiseau.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Breaking ties was a constant problem during Matt's periods of absence, because as PPT I couldn't stand in for him in such capacity. I could do anything else of his duties, but not that because the Constitution does not name PPT as VP's successor or stand in. The Constitution empowers us to elect officers and the PPT is one of them and can succeed the VP only with regards to performance of those rules.

[Cincinnatus]

This is all very..interesting.  I certainly wouldn't have tried to break the tie if I were PPT but what's done is done.  Good luck, at least you're all making it interesting.

[TNF]

Bumping this thread because there's no need to open another since Tyrion has been renominated. Senators, you have 72 hours to question the nominee.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In the absence of another thread, I would recommend PMing the Senators to ensure they notice this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In your term as VP, the massive rule overhaul will likely come up. First off, have your read both the packages composed by Nix and myself respectively (Senate Protest and Analysis Board)?

Then secondly what will your priorities or primary concerns be in such a debate and will you actively participate in said debate actively?

Would it be your objective to preserve the standards you helped craft for expulsions so as to protect a minority member (say we all gang up on Deus or Polnut) from being expelled for political reasons?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

What was your reason for supporting a pathway to nationalization of our energy industries?

[President Tyrion]

I hereby present myself.

In your term as VP, the massive rule overhaul will likely come up. First off, have your read both the packages composed by Nix and myself respectively (Senate Protest and Analysis Board)?

Then secondly what will your priorities or primary concerns be in such a debate and will you actively participate in said debate actively?

Yes, I have read them (see more commentary on them below), and I certainly plan on being active in debate. The VP is an important part of Senate proceedings and I definitely believe it's my duty to help facilitate or at least participate in debate around the issue.

I definitely do agree with both of you that we need to cut down on the fluff and improve accessibility. That's not a particularly unpopular opinion, of course, so let me outline my positions a bit further. First, I'll address your question:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would definitely like to avoid expulsion on political grounds; that would be simply undemocratic. I disagree with nearly all of JCL's views, for example, but he's an elected Senator now, and neither I nor the Senate as a whole should be able to expel him, or Deus, or Polnut, without a proper procedural and apolitical reason.

Here are some other points I'd like to weigh in on:

1. I plan on writing a combined version of the rules at some point. I've already started drafting.

2. I would rather scale up the words (keeping simple language and whatnot) if we can be very, very explicit about succession and acts in "bad faith", in order to keep the Senate running smoothly.

3. One point of "contention" between you and Nix was the use of the Vice President (I say "contention" because I know Nix is very open to commentary and was not at all confrontational about it). I think that's particularly germane to this confirmation hearing, of course. I think the VP's role in Confirmation Hearings is actually preferred, just due to my interpretation as confirmations being in relation to an act of the executive. I like that the seniormost Senator is in charge of the PPT vote; to avoid that being political, we should make sure we have succession in order so that we have a plan for when the Senator in question fails to open the vote (perhaps for fear of losing party control). Maybe we can just say that the vote is automatically opened in some other thread or something after 5 days if it hasn't already.

4. I am currently undecided on the clogging rule.

5. There is much, much more we can talk about here. Do you have anything you'd like me to talk about in specifics?

[President Tyrion]

What was your reason for supporting a pathway to nationalization of our energy industries?

What's your interpretation of my support, exactly? I voted against the bill in the end, of course.

My views on nationalization are such: the people do, in my mind, have the right to be free of monopolies and oligopolies in power and fuel, because power and fuel are basic necessities. Beyond that, I believe the role of the government is to provide basic necessities whenever possible, at reasonable rates if we're talking about consumption goods. I understand that the economics of infrastructure creation are dire at best, which is why I would support an interim infrastructure project and national corporations to at least create competition in lieu of full nationalization, which clearly does not have public support.

[Dr. Cynic]

First and foremost of all, you should have been confirmed last time.

Secondly, do you feel that the VP role should be a more active entity a'la Windjammer, or are you more of the belief that the VP should only intervene in Senate procedure when absolutely necessary?