Recognition Procedure Act of 2015 (Tabled)

[Senator Cris]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Kalwejt
Co-Sponsor: Senator RPryor03

---

I'm supporting this act. I think there should be diplomatic relationship with South America, but an executive order on an important issue like this is not the right way to act. The Senate should have voice in this process.

[Classic Conservative]

I support this beyond any doubt!!!!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

As one of the first - possible the first - people to suggest establishing diplomatic relations with South America, I must nevertheless support this bill. Adding a second playable state to the game will fundamentally alter the structure and dynamics of Atlasia, and we should carefully consider this as a result. I'm frankly quite disappointed that the president took this step without consulting the Senate, especially since it was clear that the public leans against recognition.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Establishing relations with the Mock Parliament is not just extending recognition toward a non-playable nation, but pretty much changing the way of how the game operates. It cannot be done by a single stroke of one man's pen.

Most of those who oppose the President's unilateral action are open to have a relations with South America. The issue is how to proceed with this. I, for one, fully realize the vacuum problem and either relations with South America or independent Northeast (if they really want this) are good solutions. BUT is should not be done hastily and without laying a workable frameworks. As I've said before, without certain framework and synchronization, the diplomacy will be chaotic waste of time.

If South America really wants to have a fruitful and workable relationship with Atlasia, I'll be the first to vote to confirm such a recognition.

[bore]

Yesterday, after much thought and reflection, I signed an executive order recognising South America in the Mock Parliament board. To those banging on about this being the senate's responsibility I just don't buy that. In the US, as I understand it recognition has always been the president's responsibility not the legislatures, and I see no reason why this should be different.

The reasons for recognition itself are fairly simple. Recognition is the most basic of all relationships states have, from it, all other things follow. To build a playable relationship we must first recognise South America, then we can work out specifics.

Finally, it is a lot easier to untie than to tie. If relationships don't work we can easily end them and pretend they never existed with no real loss, but if we don't try we'll never know.

[Prince of Salem]

This is not the best moment to establish any kind of relations with South America. I support this bill.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Establishing relations with the Mock Parliament is not just extending recognition toward a non-playable nation, but pretty much changing the way of how the game operates. It cannot be done by a single stroke of one man's pen.

Most of those who oppose the President's unilateral action are open to have a relations with South America. The issue is how to proceed with this. I, for one, fully realize the vacuum problem and either relations with South America or independent Northeast (if they really want this) are good solutions. BUT is should not be done hastily and without laying a workable frameworks. As I've said before, without certain framework and synchronization, the diplomacy will be chaotic waste of time.

If South America really wants to have a fruitful and workable relationship with Atlasia, I'll be the first to vote to confirm such a recognition.

     I basically agree with this. I have lamented the decline of the executive's power, but I just don't think that this is the best way to proceed with recognizing South America's sovereignty. I'll be voting in favor of this bill.

[bore]

This seems pretty blatantly unconstitutional. The power to recognise or not recognise a countries government is the presidents and the presidents alone. The senate does not have every power in this game.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This seems pretty blatantly unconstitutional. The power to recognise or not recognise a countries government is the presidents and the presidents alone. The senate does not have every power in this game.

According to the Constitution, the powers held by the president are as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nowhere does the Constitution grant the president the right to unilaterally recognize countries. By contrast, the Constitution does require the president to submit treaties and other diplomatic agreements to the Senate.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

To build a playable relationship we must first recognise South America, then we can work out specifics.

Nonsense. Before the United States did recognize the People's Republic of China, there were unofficial contacts first.

By quick, official recognition, you're taking everything off the table, which is a diplomatic disaster.

This seems pretty blatantly unconstitutional. The power to recognise or not recognise a countries government is the presidents and the presidents alone. The senate does not have every power in this game.

According to the Constitution, the powers held by the president are as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nowhere does the Constitution grant the president the right to unilaterally recognize countries. By contrast, the Constitution does require the president to submit treaties and other diplomatic agreements to the Senate.

Precisely, there's a hole we're simply fixing in the most proper way.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

One of the practical problems with recognition of the Mock Parliament is mixing of it's politics with Atlasia politics, as seen there: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=218088.msg4727010#msg4727010

[Lumine]

Look, I don't like this executive order, and I don't think recogniztion should come now, but we're basically stripping the Presidency of yet another of its powers and the position itself has been made too weak over the past years.

Being an advocate on executive power, I'm not sure I can support this much as I dislike that executive order.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Look, I don't like this executive order, and I don't think recognition should come now, but we're basically stripping the Presidency of yet another of its powers and the position itself has been made too weak over the past years.

Being an advocate on executive power, I'm not sure I can support this much as I dislike that executive order.

I understand, but we're talking about one person unilateraly changing the way our game is working. Such decisions cannot be made with a single stroke of pen.

I am a supporter of strengthening the presidential powers, and if elected to serve at the convention, I will fight for it, but this is a exception from the rule. Beside, as Truman pointed out in another thread, nowhere in the Constitution it is states that the President can do such a thing. We are fixing the black hole.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Look, I don't like this executive order, and I don't think recogniztion should come now, but we're basically stripping the Presidency of yet another of its powers and the position itself has been made too weak over the past years.

Being an advocate on executive power, I'm not sure I can support this much as I dislike that executive order.

     I tend to agree with your viewpoint, but I think the question is whether this is even a power of the President at all. That is not clear based on the discussion in this thread.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If one can establish that this is the power of the President, I would be inclined to oppose the legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

Whilst depriving the executive of authority should be a concern, I don't see us as having moved one direction or the other, certainly not enough to be concerned about the President being impotent constitutionally. That is not the case, as he can veto legislation, he can command the armed forces and has several express powers granted him under the Constitution. On top of all he has a vast ability and public medium through which to lead and guide the nation either in support of a policy agenda, reform proposal or both. Just because we have not seen this occur in the past few months under the Pax Eborecum (slight modification to the Latin here I apologize to all the fair sons and daughters of York), doesn't mean they don't exist.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If one can establish that this is the power of the President, I would be inclined to oppose the legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

Whilst depriving the executive of authority should be a concern, I don't see us as having moved one direction or the other, certainly not enough to be concerned about the President being impotent constitutionally. That is not the case, as he can veto legislation, he can command the armed forces and has several express powers granted him under the Constitution. On top of all he has a vast ability and public medium through which to lead and guide the nation either in support of a policy agenda, reform proposal or both. Just because we have not seen this occur in the past few months under the Pax Eborecum (slight modification to the Latin here I apologize to all the fair sons and daughters of York), doesn't mean they don't exist.

Bore said it's unconstitutional, but Truman quickly pointed out nowhere in the constitution such thing is even mentioned (and Bore, unsurprisingly, provided no response). If anything, there's a black hole that need fixing.

[Simfan34]

If Obama could unilaterally establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, I don't see why Bore couldn't do the same with respect to South America.

[bore]

I echo what Simfan is saying. I don't know the ins and outs of the US constitution, but everyone agrees that the president is solely responsible for recognising states, we've seen that with Truman in Israel and with Obama and Cuba, to name two.

Now there are no powers that the US president has that the atlasian president does not, so it logically follows that the atlasian president has the power to unilaterally recognise countries.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I echo what Simfan is saying. I don't know the ins and outs of the US constitution, but everyone agrees that the president is solely responsible for recognising states, we've seen that with Truman in Israel and with Obama and Cuba, to name two.

Now there are no powers that the US president has that the atlasian president does not, so it logically follows that the atlasian president has the power to unilaterally recognise countries.

The Atlasian Constitution and other laws differs, sometimes very significantly, from the US laws.

You can't just make up a power that is nowhere to be found in our law because "Truman recognized Israel".

[Associate Justice PiT]

I echo what Simfan is saying. I don't know the ins and outs of the US constitution, but everyone agrees that the president is solely responsible for recognising states, we've seen that with Truman in Israel and with Obama and Cuba, to name two.

Now there are no powers that the US president has that the atlasian president does not, so it logically follows that the atlasian president has the power to unilaterally recognise countries.

The Atlasian Constitution and other laws differs, sometimes very significantly, from the US laws.

You can't just make up a power that is nowhere to be found in our law because "Truman recognized Israel".

     I would mention that there was a Supreme Court decision very early in Atlasia's existence that determined all laws passed by the Senate were mere suggestions, because the Constitution did not enumerate powers of the Senate. That the United States and Atlasia function the same is a dangerous rule of thumb for us to be basing policy on.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I echo what Simfan is saying. I don't know the ins and outs of the US constitution, but everyone agrees that the president is solely responsible for recognising states, we've seen that with Truman in Israel and with Obama and Cuba, to name two.

Now there are no powers that the US president has that the atlasian president does not, so it logically follows that the atlasian president has the power to unilaterally recognise countries.

The Atlasian Constitution and other laws differs, sometimes very significantly, from the US laws.

You can't just make up a power that is nowhere to be found in our law because "Truman recognized Israel".

     I would mention that there was a Supreme Court decision very early in Atlasia's existence that determined all laws passed by the Senate were mere suggestions, because the Constitution did not enumerate powers of the Senate. That the United States and Atlasia function the same is a dangerous rule of thumb for us to be basing policy on.

Yeah, interpreting Atlasian law based on the Constitution of a country that no longer exists is a rather shaky premise. This would be like making assumptions about the U.S. Constitution based on the Articles of Confederation, or a French president arguing that he holds certain powers because of something Louis XIV did.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The most important issue there is not the powers of the Presidency and the Senate, but that no single man shall unilaterally change the way our game is working. Such things must be done with the greatest inclusion possible.

This is also not just about South America. The same principle should apply for setting up another playable country, whether it may be an independent Northeast or a brand new thing.

Therefore, I'd like to propose an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Senator Cris]

Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I support this amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

      I agree with this amendment. Recognition of and diplomacy with a playable country has too many long-term ramifications to be undertaken lightly.