Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[windjammer]

With these reforms, I would have no dutie at all.

If really people don't like the office of the VP, I prefer much more the abolition of this office than a basically useless office.

The VP is the president of the senate, that's the constitution that says that. The VP isn't a member of the executive branch, he's a member of the legislative branch, (he's the president of the senate), the VP has no power except his tie breaking vote and has to respect the rules. The VP is clearly independent from the president.

So yes, I prefer the VP to be eliminated than being transformed into an inactive office. Because these new rules basically strip every duty the VP could have.

[windjammer]

This proposal doesn't affect the VP's status as President of the Senate. I would not have written these rules without carefully rechecking every relevant clause of the Constitution.

To clarify, Speaker is only meant to denote the office responsible for administering the Senate. The intent is not to change the nature of the Senate's administration.

But this is killing the role of my office Averroes...

Have I done something bad when I administered this senate?
And yes, the VP isn't a member of the executive, all of his duties are legilsative: president of the senate, tie breaking vote.

[windjammer]

And again, I would prefer you simply abolish this office instead of simply stripping every duty this office could have in the future.

I know this isn't made to be personal, but really, retiring every duty I could have,...

[windjammer]

This proposal doesn't affect the VP's status as President of the Senate. I would not have written these rules without carefully rechecking every relevant clause of the Constitution.

To clarify, Speaker is only meant to denote the office responsible for administering the Senate. The intent is not to change the nature of the Senate's administration.

And Averroes, it affects my statute of "President of the Senate", because I would have basically no duty in the senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

First, let me address the constitutional objection, because it's the most important point at stake here.

The Constitution has two clauses that directly pertain to this debate:

First:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This corresponds almost verbatim with the text of the United States Constitution: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States."

Clearly the intent is to imitate the arrangement that prevails in the United States. In the modern Senate, the Vice President is limited to his role as tie-breaker and may not even participate in Senate debate. In fact, if you care to read the actual Senate's standing rules, they assign no additional responsibilities to the Vice President.

Note that the Constitution does not use the verb 'preside' in reference to the Vice President at any point. If you want to appeal to etymology, consider that the Latin root of 'president' is praesident which means ‘sitting before.’

Second:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Notice that the Vice President is not mentioned again in the clause that establishes how Senate procedure is set - Why would this be so if the Senate is obliged to grant him a procedural role? If a mandatory procedural role for the Vice President is implied, why is there no guide as to how extensive this role must be?

I hope you will still adress my other points though.
If I have nothing to do, why not simply abolishing my office and replacing that by a 11th senator?

Clearly, an office that has no duty is likely to die one day.

[windjammer]

I know this isn't made against me.

But I cannot interpret in an another way than a defiance towards the job I have been doing, that's all.

And yes, I know there isn't a bad intention behind Averroes.

I'm just desperate.

[windjammer]

I know this isn't made against me.

But I cannot interpret in an another way than a defiance towards the job I have been doing, that's all.

And yes, I know there isn't a bad intention behind Averroes.

I'm just desperate.

Actually, my proposed rules would allow the Vice President to serve as the Senate's presiding officer under the current circumstances:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh please Averroes,
This is absolutely nothing.

[windjammer]

But I hope that, even on your phone, you will still be able to describe the current job I was doing...

[windjammer]

But I hope that, even on your phone, you will still be able to describe the current job I was doing...

What are you asking?

Whi this sudden change? Is it because I have made something bad as VP???

[windjammer]

And how would you rate my performance???

[windjammer]

This is absurd.

[windjammer]

And how would you rate my performance???

I don't think that has much to do with anything, really. No one's complaining about the job you've done. It's just about cleaning up the rules, really... The VP was never a particularly active office apart from acting as an adviser to the President and some minor Senate duties. You've been very active, Windjammer, but really the office itself doesn't require much. If we can clean up the rules, more's the better.

So this is my activity the problem? That's weird. That's someone worthy of Atlasia. A Justice failed to be impeached even if he didn't post during more than one month, and someone who just wants to be active, there is an attempt to strip him all of his duties.

[windjammer]

I don't understand the logic.

If I understand correctly, I was accused of "executive overreach".
And now, the only prerogatives you want to give to the VP is basically the Confirmation hearing?

Do you realize that the Confirmation hearings are basically made after the President's actions? That wouldn't be an executive overreach if his own VP would administer the thread for the confirmation of his administration???

[windjammer]

I don't understand the logic.

If I understand correctly, I was accused of "executive overreach".
And now, the only prerogatives you want to give to the VP is basically the Confirmation hearing?

Do you realize that the Confirmation hearings are basically made after the President's actions? That wouldn't be an executive overreach if his own VP would administer the thread for the confirmation of his administration???

Hold up, Nix's limits you to Confirmation Hearings. Mine basically gives the VP what Cincy was doing. I am sorry if that is confused. I don't have the latest version of the text, if I did it would ve clearer and the one I have from last night is a 1 AM wonder, a mess with spelling errors and is 2600 words instead of 2400.

You don't understand my point Yankee.

Both you and Averroes are going to limit the VP's actions to things where the President has the most influence: the  Confirmation hearing.
You want to avoid executive overreach, and the prerogative you're giving to the VP are the Confirmation hearings: nomination made by the President.

[windjammer]

I don't understand the logic.

If I understand correctly, I was accused of "executive overreach".
And now, the only prerogatives you want to give to the VP is basically the Confirmation hearing?

Do you realize that the Confirmation hearings are basically made after the President's actions? That wouldn't be an executive overreach if his own VP would administer the thread for the confirmation of his administration???

Hold up, Nix's limits you to Confirmation Hearings. Mine basically gives the VP what Cincy was doing. I am sorry if that is confused. I don't have the latest version of the text, if I did it would ve clearer and the one I have from last night is a 1 AM wonder, a mess with spelling errors and is 2600 words instead of 2400.

You don't understand my point Yankee.

Both you and Averroes are going to limit the VP's actions to things where the President has the most influence: the  Confirmation hearing.
You want to avoid executive overreach, and the prerogative you're giving to the VP are the Confirmation hearings: nomination made by the President.

The concern for overreach is primarily the executive intruding into the legislation affairs. Executive appoints are just that, and merely require the advise and consent of the Senate.

Intruding into the legislation affairs? The VP didn't have any power for the vote except the tie breaking vote. Legislative affairs merely require the advise and consent of the Senate too.

I'm not VP anymore, but when I was VP, I absolutely wanted to avoid any conflict with the fact that I was the second of the President, that's why I didn't want to administer the Presidential slots.

Why not replacing the confirmation hearings by the constitutional amendments ??

Ii'm not saying that for bothering you, and really.

[windjammer]

And in addition,
for the constitutionnal amendments, considering the VP can't break the ties, he would do that really fairly.

To be honest, when I became VP, I really hesitated with this incarnation:
-doing the constitutional amendments stuff because I couldn't break the tie.
-and for the bills, letting the PPT do all the stuff, and me basically behaving as the 11th senator.


It seems I should have behaved like that haha.

[windjammer]

The thing is what people complained about though was ironically what elected to do as opposed to what you elected not to do precisely for the concerns. You were a rather careful VP and thus the outcry even baffles me and maybe it has just been building for a while and seeing the VP run 15 slots was the straw that broke the camels back.

Either way I think we are better off with an active VP and more active then the one envision by next. After all it was his slave err VP that helped secure the notion of active VP as opposed to letting it die with Duke leaving office as just a scheme of the Carolinians.

By way of having the VP as the presiding officer and superior to the PPT and able to perform all his duties meant the VP could can legislation for instance and that would be an example of interferring with the legislative process. Administering a slot is relatively safe and save for an amendment o legislation, nothing can really be done that poses a risk.

Anyway I got the rules alternative finally. Took a good cross country run to obtain it though.

Yankee, I think you have again missed my point .

I want an active VP too. I think I was an "active" VP, and that I really tried to be the fairest possible. But, if you're going to change his role, I obviously disagree, but, at least, do not give the VP basically the most "executive-oriented" slots. That would be, again, criticized in the future.

I have really loved my job, that's the best experience I have ever had during my atlasian time (except my fall ).

I want an active VP too. You don't think that if the PPT does all the bills/confirmation stuffs, and the VP the constitutionnal amendment stuff, that would be great?
The VP would have many responsibilities (we have often constitutionnal amendments), and he coudln't be criticized for any reason because he couldn't use his tie breaking vote for that.

[windjammer]

I'd like to discuss the Wrong Choice Amendment here.

I think that by this moment, the Senate is ready to reject it. I also think that 2 hours is too much time for a change in the ballot. But what about 90 minutes? Or 1 hour? I think 1 hour would ultimately be a good compromise, just to adjust a few mistakes made.

Well, the problem is that I don't see a single reason to change this system.