1002 - Signed into Law

[Clark Kent]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsors: Rep. DKrolga (L-MA) and Rep. Classic Conservative (F-TX)

[DKrol]

There are several differences between the bill I introduced in the House Introduction thread and the one that Classic Conservative introduced in the Senate thread. I ask that they be treated as separate bills.

[Clark Kent]

There are several differences between the bill I introduced in the House Introduction thread and the one that Classic Conservative introduced in the Senate thread. I ask that they be treated as separate bills.

I understand that. I've read through both, and I noticed the differences.

However, after you posted this, Classic Conservative announced his intention to co-sponsor this one. I expect him to withdraw his other bill.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

While I am not a member of this esteemed body, I thought I'd offer my thoughts anyways:

• Section 2 is arguably unconstitutional, depending on whether you consider the Game Moderatorship to be an "executive office." Per Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, the power to confirm presidential appointments lays with the Senate; while the Constitution is less clear on whether the Game Moderator specifically is considered a cabinet officer (this has historically been the case), I do not see the Constitutional argument for giving the House exclusive jurisdiction over nominations to the Game Engine.
• I suggest giving a more detailed list of the Game Moderator's powers, so as to avoid the kind of controversy that has surrounded this post in the past. Specifically, I would recommend allowing the Game Moderator to simulate "effects of, and responses to, actions by the Republic of Atlasia, or the several Regions, both domestic and international; to simulate the actions of foreign nations, and all other Non Playable Characters; and to serve as a final arbitrator in all questions relating to the context in which the Republic of Atlasia exists."
• Likewise, I suggest rewording Section 4 to state that the Game Moderator has the sole power to publish "binding" stories, as opposed to merely granting him/her veto power. This might seem like a syntactical argument, but as the bill currently stands it implies that stories published by private citizens have the same weight as stories published by the GM unless they are revoked by the latter. As the GM cannot be expected to read every post on the Fantasy Elections Board, it's better to classify all non-GM stories as works of fiction until and unless they are recognized as "canon" by the Game Moderator.

[DKrol]

Based on the thoughts of our esteemed colleague, I have amended the bill to read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/]

The GM should be a cabinet position confirmed by the Senate.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I agree with this bill

[Clark Kent]

Is there any more debate to be had?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GM should be a cabinet position confirmed by the Senate.

Learned Nothing and Forgotten Everything!!!

For EIGHT YEARS, the primary problem with the GM has been one of ensuring him the appropriate level of "independence" to create a dynamic and evolving game for the players.

Aside from my polling (which is for purposes of convenience), the GM has never been considered a cabinet position. Under the previous two consitutions, it was structured as a semi-independent constitutional office, which was upheld in the case of Ebowed v. Atlasia (2006).

Making the GM a cabinet position, and thus subject to the orders and subordination to the PResident, is indeed the worst possible way to structure it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Section 2 is arguably unconstitutional, depending on whether you consider the Game Moderatorship to be an "executive office." Per Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, the power to confirm presidential appointments lays with the Senate; while the Constitution is less clear on whether the Game Moderator specifically is considered a cabinet officer (this has historically been the case), I do not see the Constitutional argument for giving the House exclusive jurisdiction over nominations to the Game Engine.

Not in the traditional sense, no. Hence the October 2014 crisis when DemPGH tried to fire the GM. It has also been structured differently or had the authority of the President limited, intentionally to preserve its independence.

ARTICLE VI

Section 1 (Game Engine)
i. All powers which the Congress shall deem necessary and proper for simulating either the impact of actions by the Republic of Atlasia, the several Regions, or the citizens thereof; or the actions of non-playable entities, shall be vested in a Game Engine.
ii. The Congress shall have the power to establish the structure and powers of the Game Engine by appropriate legislation.

Also, this is a pretty broad grant of power here. I am not sure what the problem is.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

There is no problem now, as the bill has been amended, but the nature of the Game Engine and its relationship to the cabinet needed to be addressed. The original version of Section 2 was ambiguous regarding the relationship between the Game Moderator and the cabinet - it did not state explicitly whether the GM was a glorified cabinet officer, or an independent entity. Because of the historical examples you mentioned, I thought it was best to be explicit about this.

As for my concerns with the House being the confirmative body, I have since reviewed Articles III and IV carefully, and it doesn't appear that this is strictly-speaking unconstitutional. Article IV gives the Senate the power to confirm presidential nominees for executive departments, but since this act states that the GM is not part of the executive branch, there appears to be no problem with vesting this power in the House.

[/]

well w/e i guess

But what will the Senate have to say about not having a say in the confirmation of the GM?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

well w/e i guess

But what will the Senate have to say about not having a say in the confirmation of the GM?

I expect they will reject it, most likely.

Whether or not you can do something is a seperate matter from whether or not you should obviously.

Congress can give the house said authority, but the Senate has to go along obviously and the merits of giving the House this exclusive authority need to be weighed. On the one hand you have most confirmations done by the Senate exclusively, on the other hand, the GM is differnet all other appoint posts naturally.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

well w/e i guess

But what will the Senate have to say about not having a say in the confirmation of the GM?

I expect they will reject it, most likely.

Whether or not you can do something is a seperate matter from whether or not you should obviously.

Congress can give the house said authority, but the Senate has to go along obviously and the merits of giving the House this exclusive authority need to be weighed. On the one hand you have most confirmations done by the Senate exclusively, on the other hand, the GM is differnet all other appoint posts naturally.

Come to think of it, vesting the power to confirm the GM in the House might actually be a benefit (as opposed to a neutral factor), as it would differentiate that office from the cabinet.

[/]

So are we trying to pass something that we basically know won't actually become law?

because lol

[DKrol]

So are we trying to pass something that we basically know won't actually become law?

because lol

I don't think that that's the case at all.

[Blair]

The Senate should have a vote for the GM, at the very least. May I remain the members who are vocal about regional rights that the Senators represent the regions

[DKrol]

The Senate should have a vote for the GM, at the very least. May I remain the members who are vocal about regional rights that the Senators represent the regions

Yet the Representatives represent the people.

[Clark Kent]

The GM is supposed to be as impartial as possible, so I don't think it should be too politicized. Having the position go through both Houses increases that chance. I support having only the House confirm them.

[/]

The Senate should have a vote for the GM, at the very least. May I remain the members who are vocal about regional rights that the Senators represent the regions

Yet the Representatives represent the people.

And the Senators don't?

[Clark Kent]

On second thought, I've changed my mind: the GM is supposed to be impartial and apolitical, and the Senate is generally more stable than the House, so having the Senate confirm the GM makes more sense.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Y'all need to address whether (and how) the GM can be dismissed as well. I recommend allowing the President to remove the GM with the concurrence of 2/3 of the confirmative body.

[Clark Kent]

Mr. Truman is right. I will extend the period of debate for another 24 hours. I also propose an amendment addressing his concerns:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It goes further than his suggestion, but this should make the GM a little harder to remove.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm in favor of Kent's amendment.  The removal of the Game Moderator is not something that should be taken lightly, but it may be necessary in instances of neglect or direct sabotage, and it is therefore prudent to have a process in place.

[Clark Kent]

Seeing as how there has been no debate, we will now move to a 72-hour vote on my amendment. Representatives may vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.