Recognition Procedure Act of 2015 (Tabled)

[Senator Cris]

I'm supporting the amendment too.

[bore]

But this doesn't make sense. There is no way a distinction can be drawn between playable and non playable countries and even if we could there's no constitutional reason why one is fine and the other is not.

[Senator Cris]

The amendment has been adopted.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

But this doesn't make sense. There is no way a distinction can be drawn between playable and non playable countries and even if we could there's no constitutional reason why one is fine and the other is not.

We could easily define this with another amendment. And yes, there is a Constitutional reason for this distinction: adding a second playable nation to the game significantly alters the structure of Atlasia (which insofar has been self-contained), whereas recognizing countries whose actions are simulated by the GM does not.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

All right, a proposal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm underlining the "universe of this game" because without being in the same universe, the two would be simply parts of diffrent realities.

[Prince of Salem]

I support that proposal.

[Blair]

Okay, I should have commented on this earlier but this is an absolutely unwise piece of legislation. I'll put it into talking points to make it clearer for Senators

1.) Overeach-Firstly it's making the mistake of taking a controversial political issue (south America) and using it to bind the President's actions. The legality of such move, along with its use is another matter (For anyone interested look at the 1973 War Powers Act, and how nearly every President since has abused it) If you don't like South American diplomatic then pass a measure (as I did as Speaker when we had TNF running amok) don't try and take it the extreme of stripping the President of his last ounce of power.

2.) Presidential Power-On this note, it's the fundamental problem of our game that the President has absolutely no power. The main responsibility of a President is responding to events (Katrina, ISIS, Hurricane Sandy, School shootings etc) It's extremely hard to do that even in a highly advanced sim so we already in a bad place. This law strips the President of a right that he already has, and gives more and more powers to the Senate. What's the point in having a President if we just leave him to sign bills, and most likely overturn his veto since 99% of legislation passed here get's passed 10-0, and the odd bill gets 9-0. If we strip the Presidency down to the bone over a single issue then we're harming the game. Honestly after this what powers will the President have?

3. Democratic Mandate- we also remember that President Bore was elected not just once but twice. Twice he was given a democratic mandate by the people of Atlasia. The Senate isn't the only elected body

4.)Constitutionality- I'd also argue that whilst we don't have to pay attention to the US constitution in all cases, we do have to pay attention to precedent. The US constitution doesn't have a specific mention for executive orders but look at this....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Executive Power is what this is exactly for, if you're going to deny that the President doesn't have the power to issue executive orders then you're going to have to repeal the 13 other ones that have been issued-including the one that reinstated my citizenship. Declaring that this bill is set up to 'fix a hole' in the system hides point 1-this is a bill motivated by political, not constitutional grounds.

The President has a constitutional right to use his executive power to open relations. I urge all Senators to vote against this legislation, or at least revise it because frankly you can't strip the President of a power granted to him by the constitution 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

So, you are supporting giving the President unlimited powers to change the setup of the game? Because that is what his executive order is about.

That's one. Second, the President can exercises his powers of issuing decrees, but with the boundaries of his legal mandate. It is the Senate that makes law and there is no law allowing bore to undertake such an action. You can't just create powers by wide interpretation of the "executive power". That is a tantamount for an imperial Presidency and rule by decrees, which would be utterly undemocratic and unconstitutional.

Third, there is a little thing called "check and balances". The Senate doesn't have absolute powers in the realm of legislating, but the President doesn't have absolute powers in the realm of executing.

Finally, you are talking about bore's mandate. We have a mandate too and I'd say even greater at the moment, because, unlike him, we are not neglecting our duties. And we are not going to be sidelined.

[Blair]

I'm going to break this up, because there's several claims here that are well colourful

So, you are supporting giving the President unlimited powers to change the setup of the game? Because that is what his executive order is about.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the President has the power to act as given in the constitution. Do you agree that the President has a constitutional right to issue executive orders?

How does the executive order change the setup of the game? Like in a practical sense, it's a broad sweep to claim it 'changes the set up of the game'

That's one. Second, the President can exercises his powers of issuing decrees, but with the boundaries of his legal mandate. It is the Senate that makes law and there is no law allowing bore to undertake such an action. You can't just create powers by wide interpretation of the "executive power". That is a tantamount for an imperial Presidency and rule by decrees, which would be utterly undemocratic and unconstitutional.

It's within the boundary of his mandate. Obama on Cuba, Truman on Israel the historical precedent is clear. This power comes directly from the constitution, so he doesn't need a law to establish this precedent. As said above in my post the power is clearly granted to the President...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/12/cuba-as-the-next-constitutional-fight-between-congress-obama/

You're arguments about an 'imperial presidency' make it out as if the President has any power-you're stripping him of the last remaining power that he has. It's beyond parody, and it's the exactly same argument that people make about executive orders that they don't like. Frankly this is an argument we can have another day-you can't strip the President of his constitutional powers through a bill in the Senate even if you do think he's 'acting in an imperial manner'

Third, there is a little thing called "check and balances". The Senate doesn't have absolute powers in the realm of legislating, but the President doesn't have absolute powers in the realm of executing.

I know there's checks and balances, but the President simply does not have to put this measure to the Senate for approval. He can choose to give the Senate a vote on the issue, the Senate can vote a disapproval measure (as the GOP plan with Iran) but the Senate has no constitutional right to vote on whether Atlasia opens relations-that's a job for the senate.

Finally, you are talking about bore's mandate. We have a mandate too and I'd say even greater at the moment, because, unlike him, we are not neglecting our duties. And we are not going to be sidelined.

Irrelevant. The performance of a President does not limit his constitutional powers, unless Bore has done something impeachable.

Senators, what we're seeing here is a muddled bill, that is trying to fix too many problems with a broad brush. It's the classic piece of legislation that's influenced by external political events, and thus is off low quality

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

1. Again, we are talking about something more consequential than simply extending a recognition. Relations with a playable nation is a revolutionary change that should not be taken so lightly.
2. President's power to issue executive orders is not unlimited.
3. What's irrelevant is using the U.S. example in this discussion. Atlasia is not a carbon copy of the United States. There's a legal black hole about the whole recognizing business and only the Senate can fix it. The President cannot create new powers by precedent.
4. Presidential powers are likely to be strenghed significantly during the ConCon, as there's a clear consensus about that something has to be done.
5. Bore is lucky he's still in office, because his neglect of his duties can certainly be considered impeachable, but we are very understanding and patient towards him if anything.

[bore]

Defining what is and is not a playable country doesn't change the main point, that is there is no reason, constitutionally speaking, that a playable country is different from a non playable one. If the president can recognise one (and this, I'm sorry, is not up for debate) he can recognise the other.

To gain a bit of perspective here, let's just see what recognising South America changes in terms of foreign policy:

Now, the GM simulates all events (which is, if we are honest, terribly dull) and the senate responds to them, with South America as a country they members of that board simulate their actions, the GM simulates the rest and the senate responds to it. This is not a massive change.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'm inclined to say that this debate is of limited importance given the context of the Convention, except that President bore maintains that he has authority to extend recognition to South America. The salient issue is that the Constitution does not delegate this authority to anyone, and any real resolution to this issue will have to be done through the Convention.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Precisely, PiT. There is no law, no provision about diplomatic recognition. You can't make up powers that are not entrusted to you. If anything's unconstitutional, that would be it.

Now, the GM simulates all events (which is, if we are honest, terribly dull) and the senate responds to them, with South America as a country they members of that board simulate their actions, the GM simulates the rest and the senate responds to it. This is not a massive change.

I disagree. There can be no working diplomacy without synchronization. Otherwise, it's just going to be either an inconsequential chaos or even duller events, which is a waste of our time and we've got a lot of important things to handle at the home front.

Second, an outright recognition is a terrible diplomatic blunder, taking all options off the table and leaving us no room to maneuver. If you are so fond of bringing up RL examples, here's one: before USA recognized the PRC there were years of informal talks and negotiations.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Precisely, PiT. There is no law, no provision about diplomatic recognition. You can't make up powers that are not entrusted to you. If anything's unconstitutional, that would be it.

the constitution doesn't restrict the president from doing this. it does, on the other hand, ban ex-post-facto laws like this one here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

haha wtf

all that president bore said was "The Republic of Atlasia officially recognises the existence of the Republic of South America." that's a binary issue, there were never any ~options~ on the table to begin with.

[Blair]

You can't make up powers that are not entrusted to you. If anything's unconstitutional, that would be it.

Again, for the 5th time Bore is granted the powers to be the Executive of Atlasia, which includes diplomatic relations. This is literally the main power of a President. There's a reason that constitutions are vague-it's to allow Presidents to actually carry out there actions. So if the Senate passed this law they're effectively saying that all executive orders are non-existent right?

Senators the arguments presented against this bill are all over the place, I've set out how in fact the Presidents actions are constitutional and stripping the President of these powers through a simple bill is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if we're going to have a convention in a couple of days-we can't pass a law that is as bad as this is.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So?

The executive order cannot be mistaken for an act of law, it's just an executive action. And, since you refereed many times to the RL US politics, there were instances of an executive order being nullified by the act of Congress.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Technically, we're not even in the same universe now. Atlasia effectively operates within it's own world, and South America within it's own world.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So?

so, you claimed the president's actions were unconstitutional, and they clearly weren't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

you can't restrict the president's ability to recognise the rsa after he's already done it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Technically, we're not even in the same universe now. Atlasia effectively operates within it's own world, and South America within it's own world.
[/quote]

you're misreading. there's either "we recognise their existence" or "we don't", there's no ~options on the table~

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

so, you claimed the president's actions were unconstitutional, and they clearly weren't.

During the entire discussion, bore's claims of his actions being constitutional were not supported by any substance beside him, repeating the same empty phrases like a parrot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe we can, especially given the fact this is a legal grey zone and only the Senate can make laws. The President can't establish legal precedents out of the void, there's absolutely no basis for that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Without a proper mechanism, we're not technically the part of the same universe. It would be like the US President recognizing the Kingdom of Rurithania.

And actions of such magnitude should not be taken so lightheartedly.

[Talleyrand]

This is exactly like the Iran Deal in real life.

Bore = Obama
Atlasian Senate = Republican Congress

1. Reasonable, peaceful president makes a good deal with a foreign nation in the best interests of his country and the world at-large.

2. Loony right-wing legislature goes insane with fringe fearmongering and dumps any care about "MUH CONSTITUTION WHATSOVER" to make a destructive power grab.

3. They have a majority of votes in the Legislature, but need a 2/3 majority to override the President.


The only differences are that 1) South America isn't even a fundamental Islamic state with a past history of terror sponsorship and 2) This garbage is actually going to somehow pass!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Please wake me up when you have a coherent argument to offer instead of "dumps"

[Talleyrand]

Please wake me up when you have a coherent argument to offer instead of "dumps"

Senator, my argument is the most coherent one which has been offered on either side of this debate, aside from the reasons elucidated by the President and his supporters themselves.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Please wake me up when you have a coherent argument to offer instead of "dumps"

My argument is the most coherent one which has been offered on either side of this debate.

I'm still waiting for the opposite side of this debate to prove that bore does have established powers to issue that executive order. I'm yet to see this.

The issue here is not isolationism. I want Atlasia to have a workable relations with the Mock Parliament. So does Cris, who supports this bill. If South America really cares about having a good relationship with Atlasia, you can wait a bit before we fix the legal issues. At this moment, we still have to make order at home before being diverted. This is the issue that can't be handled without proper thought, deliberation and care. I've explained this many times and I don't see any purpouse of responding to every angry post.

Oh, and one more thing. We, Atlasians, do not invade your parliament thread.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Does my fellow Senators have any suggestions, or the present text is satisfying?

[Bacon King]

I urge the Senate to vote down this law because it's literally meaningless. Atlasian law clearly allows the President to establish diplomatic relations with Mock Parliment and to recognize it, but it doesn't mean anything beyond the factual recognition (i.e. no ambassadors, treaties, etc) without the approval of the Senate.

The one thing the president is able to do, he has done, the rest is already up to the will of the Senate. This bill just needlessly complicates existing legal precedent.

I'm still waiting for the opposite side of this debate to prove that bore does have established powers to issue that executive order. I'm yet to see this.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Diplomatic_Mission_Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Thank you for clarification, BK. However, I'd like to clarify one more thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems a bit contradictionary. Recognition is a form of relation, so President still can't put this into effect without the consent of the Senate.