House Bill: The Department of Peace Resolution (Failed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:51:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  House Bill: The Department of Peace Resolution (Failed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: House Bill: The Department of Peace Resolution (Failed)  (Read 2842 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 09, 2017, 01:25:48 PM »
« edited: May 18, 2017, 10:47:02 AM by People's Speaker North Carolina Yankee »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

Sponsor: OneJ_ for NeverAgain
House Designation: HB 1105
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2017, 01:28:33 PM »

The sponsor has 24 hours to begin advocating for this.
Logged
OneJ
OneJ_
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,834
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2017, 02:02:35 PM »

Thank you.

The Department of Peace Act is basically a strive towards having better diplomatic relationships and well, making Atlasia (outside and inside) more peaceful. This is an effort to decrease conflict and solve more problems rather than creating them.
Logged
NeverAgain
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,659
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2017, 03:40:24 PM »

First, I want to thank Rep. OneJ for sponsoring this legislation, and thank Speaker Yankee for bringing it to the floor. This is a bill I have screamed to everyone and their mother about, so I have gotten a lot of complaints that I want to address - Q+A style.

Q: Article IV, Section 2 of the Atlasian Constitution states that it is the duty of the President "to establish such executive departments". Wouldn't this be unconstitutional, as the legislative branch has no authority OVER the executive branch, as they are checks to each other?

A: Entirely see the perceived problem here. As Truman had mentioned, this looks to be unconstitutional as stands. But the Constitution gives the power to President, it does not revoke the Congress from giving the option to the President, for his/her consent or denial. I entirely see that if the President does not consent to it, then the Department shall not be integrated into the executive branch, and there can be no further motions (like a veto-override). To clarify this to be a resolution, requiring the President's signature to become law, I ask for an amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Q: Why create a redundant department? The SoS already is tasked with Peacekeeping?

A: Now, this is a core issue. What is the purpose of Departments? As stated by the constitution - they are "necessary for the execution of the laws". But there goes the question of what is a law? Is there an Atlasian law requiring 'peace'. Not in any word, no. But I think that stems the question of what are our laws if not reflective and codification of our morality. The purpose of the Department of State is for maintaining foreign affairs, while that covers peacekeeping, peacekeeping is not covered solely in foreign matters, it must be addressed at home too. But you may ask, well we have a domestic Department, the SoIA, which is tasked with all Domestic Affairs (aside from Law, currently). Yes, we do, but is their major goal peace? No. The same goes to the SoS. Neither are tasked with defending the fundamental human right of peace.

I agree that this Department would cover some things that the SoS and SoIA have currently, but that is the purpose. These branches are tasked with such broad and important goals, they should focus on those, and let there be a Department who can be a person not tasked with solely protecting our nation's reputation, as the State Department is, nor tasked with all broad Domestic Affairs, as the Secretary of Internal Affairs is. Let there be a Department who's sole goal is to protect our morality and our basic human right to Peace. That is what this bill does, for which it would be very different than any Department's duties thus far in our new Nation's history.

Q: If you want Peace so much, then why not have the SoS and SoIA report on Peace?

A: One of the major things this resolution will do is to mandate that the proposed Secretary of Peace make at least monthly reports on Peace, which is not something the other Secretaries are tasked with. Therefore establishing that this Office MUST be active, if to continue. But to the question, I entirely agree that the SoS and SoIA should be mandated to make reports, but if they are to make ones respectively on peace both on foreign matters, and domestically, ignoring their other duties to do so, then we agree that Peace is the highest of important goals here! So why not have a Department that would do these goals, and let the other Departments be tasked with their own duties.

Q: Other Departments can/and are going entirely inactive, why are you increasing their number, when we are having an activity crisis with the ones we have currently?

A: The Activity Crisis is a MAJOR problem, and one that I think should be addressed ASAP. But ensuring the activity of other Departments is not the goal of this legislation. As to this Department's Activity, there are clear guidelines as to what this Department must do (monthly Peace Reports, updates on Peace Issues, ensuring that Atlasian Foreign aid is dispersed properly, among MANY other things stated in this resolution. If anyone feels it necessary to add more 'teeth' to the Department, if falling inactive, they are welcome to propose ideas.

I am here for any/many more questions! Thanks!

Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2017, 09:06:24 PM »

I offer my thanks to the governor for his amendment, which adequately addresses the concerns I had raised with regard to the constitutionality of this legislation. I would suggest that the language of Section 1 be amended as follows, in order to codify this proposal as a resolution (i.e. a formal recommendation) as opposed to an ordinary law.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Terry the Fat Shark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,502
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2017, 01:46:16 PM »

I cannot willingly endorse this plan. It is a noble plan and I do wish world peace was a possibility, but I cannot see any realistic scenarios where establishing something like this would result in any meaningful change where it is needed. I am focusing on the Middle East because it is the area where such efforts would likely be dedicated. Many times, when even social media is involved and we do not go around toppling dictators by means of CIA, the leaders of these nations simply respond by either violently cracking down or simply cutting off social media (think Turkey on that one), simply planting democracy in the minds of people (and how would you do that when such things can easily be cut off) does not do anything as the leaders can easily respond militarily unless we get involved from the start (which I am opposed to wholeheartedly).

Another Catch 22 here is the fact that we are allies with almost every dictatorship/absolute monarchy in these parts of the world. If we withdraw support it allows terrorist groups to rise up and you have seen this time and time again, geopolitics does not allow for such tactics to occur.

Also, often times when democracies arise here they quickly go awry and result in either dictatorships or coup de tat's and it just resets back to square 1. There is a culture that makes it difficult in the Middle East for peace to last (and no I don't mean Islam, I mean a general culture that has persisted for a long time)

I do not think we should spend money on this endeavor.
Logged
Enduro
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2017, 05:37:56 PM »

Doesn't the department of state to this already? This seems redundant.
Logged
NeverAgain
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,659
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2017, 06:24:54 PM »

Doesn't the department of state to this already? This seems redundant.

Literally, JUST answered this.

Q: Why create a redundant department? The SoS already is tasked with Peacekeeping?

A: Now, this is a core issue. What is the purpose of Departments? As stated by the constitution - they are "necessary for the execution of the laws". But there goes the question of what is a law? Is there an Atlasian law requiring 'peace'. Not in any word, no. But I think that stems the question of what are our laws if not reflective and codification of our morality. The purpose of the Department of State is for maintaining foreign affairs, while that covers peacekeeping, peacekeeping is not covered solely in foreign matters, it must be addressed at home too. But you may ask, well we have a domestic Department, the SoIA, which is tasked with all Domestic Affairs (aside from Law, currently). Yes, we do, but is their major goal peace? No. The same goes to the SoS. Neither are tasked with defending the fundamental human right of peace.

I agree that this Department would cover some things that the SoS and SoIA have currently, but that is the purpose. These branches are tasked with such broad and important goals, they should focus on those, and let there be a Department who can be a person not tasked with solely protecting our nation's reputation, as the State Department is, nor tasked with all broad Domestic Affairs, as the Secretary of Internal Affairs is. Let there be a Department who's sole goal is to protect our morality and our basic human right to Peace. That is what this bill does, for which it would be very different than any Department's duties thus far in our new Nation's history.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2017, 09:04:40 AM »

The whole reason we have those two major departments is to consolidate for the sake of the game most of the domestic agencies and most of the foreign agencies and thereby reduce the number of offices and ensure a range of actions that make those positions viable from an activity standpoint (and even from there we have struggled because most of the activity exists in the posting of itineraries and administrative orders and it is easy to let that slide).

I understand that the "focus" would be different, but it is still doing the same things. Just because the "focus" is different, when you are doing the same thing as something else, that is going to run into overlap anyway.

Consider this, what does the SoIA do, and was does the SoS do, that could without doubt be said to not be something that the Department of Peace could be responsible for? Since I cannot answer that question, even after the response from NeverAgain, I am having difficulty seeing a good reason for creating such a sprawling bureaucracy.
Logged
Representative simossad
simossad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 384
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2017, 11:10:05 AM »

I can understand both sides of the aisle. It is true that, on the one hand, it seems redundant to create a special department for activities that are already being exercised by two major departments. An overlapping of competences could lead to problems that are unforseen. On the other hand, I believe that it is a noble goal to have a new focus on circumstances that are being ignored today. I don't want this very important and necessary aim to fail in this house, and therefore I propose an amendment that addresses the concerns of the opposition, implementing a special commissioner instead of a whole new department.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
NeverAgain
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,659
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2017, 02:34:54 PM »

I still hold the belief that there should be a Department of Peace, but I am more than willing to compromise if needed to ensure that we can establish Peace in the national narrative.

If this Amendment is acceptable to the People's House, with changes proposed by Rep. Simossad, and changes proposed by Mr. Truman (and changing all wording to an "executive commission"), then I will accept it. In this new bill, I see it's extreme necessity in the wake of the abolition of the NSC, and other foreign policy counsels.

I thank everyone for their comments, and amendments. And look forward to bipartisan support of this change.
Logged
Enduro
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 11, 2017, 04:24:35 PM »

I like the amendment.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2017, 12:04:53 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Representatives have 24 hours to object.
Logged
OneJ
OneJ_
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,834
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2017, 05:32:29 PM »

Hmmmm...no objection!

I like this amendment to push away concerns over another whole department while actually pushing the position to be pretty active and have a focus within the country.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2017, 11:46:28 PM »

I still don't like the idea of Congress establishing "executive offices." The whole point of the ConCon reforms in this area was to take that power away from the legislature and give it to the president; while technically the POA still has the final say on whether this becomes a thing (as result of his veto power), establishing this office as an Act of Congress rather than through an Executive Order prevents him from making unilateral changes to the structure of this office as may be necessary.

I get the feeling I'm talking to a brick wall here, but I would urge Congress not to establish a precedent of legislative meddling in the structure of the Executive Branch. A "resolution" is no better than a bill if it mandates the creation of a new office (which is what this does), and making the "Special Commissioner" independent of oversight by the officers of the cabinet is even worse. That the president may unilaterally create and disband executive offices is one of the great strengths of our Constitution; it allows administrations to rapidly adapt to meet changes in the structure and needs of the game and allows the president to quickly reorganize the cabinet to fit the priorities of their administration. That power will be far less useful if Congress gets into the business of creating new "executive" offices whenever it sees fit, and as someone who has been both president and a federal legislator, I find that prospect most unsatisfactory.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2017, 12:01:29 PM »

The amendment appears to be adopted.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2017, 12:05:41 PM »

I still don't like the idea of Congress establishing "executive offices." The whole point of the ConCon reforms in this area was to take that power away from the legislature and give it to the president; while technically the POA still has the final say on whether this becomes a thing (as result of his veto power), establishing this office as an Act of Congress rather than through an Executive Order prevents him from making unilateral changes to the structure of this office as may be necessary.

I get the feeling I'm talking to a brick wall here, but I would urge Congress not to establish a precedent of legislative meddling in the structure of the Executive Branch. A "resolution" is no better than a bill if it mandates the creation of a new office (which is what this does), and making the "Special Commissioner" independent of oversight by the officers of the cabinet is even worse. That the president may unilaterally create and disband executive offices is one of the great strengths of our Constitution; it allows administrations to rapidly adapt to meet changes in the structure and needs of the game and allows the president to quickly reorganize the cabinet to fit the priorities of their administration. That power will be far less useful if Congress gets into the business of creating new "executive" offices whenever it sees fit, and as someone who has been both president and a federal legislator, I find that prospect most unsatisfactory.

As someone who recalls a time when some departments were even hard baked into the Constitution and thus couldn't even be altered or abolished without an amendment and even found it necessary to bring it to the Supreme Court (NC Yankee v Atlasia), I most certainly share your concerns.
Logged
NeverAgain
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,659
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2017, 02:41:05 PM »

This is a recommendation and should be clarified as such, I ask Mr. Truman's amendment to be adopted into the current amended bill:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Representative simossad
simossad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 384
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2017, 03:05:00 PM »

I formally introduce NeverAgain's amendment to the floor as a representative.
Logged
Enduro
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2017, 05:08:17 PM »

I support the amendment.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2017, 02:55:01 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: None Given
Logged
OneJ
OneJ_
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,834
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2017, 02:39:36 PM »

I support the amendment.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2017, 06:30:51 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Representatives have 24 hours to object. 
Logged
Enduro
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 21, 2017, 06:54:36 AM »

Where's the "we can't have suggestions" crowd?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 21, 2017, 05:54:31 PM »

The amendment has been adopted err, damn its too early still.



Where's the "we can't have suggestions" crowd?

What do you mean?


Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 13 queries.