Mideast Assembly Thread

[Devilman88]

It still does not solve my problem, which is the situation where the governor chooses not to fill that vacant seat, and keeps the power to himself. AND, if this is unconstitutional, this makes everything a moot point anyway.

I guess we need to want for Peter to see what he says.

Assuming you mean "we need to wait" for him, then yes.

Wow, yes I mean wait. Trying to watch T.V. and type at the same time isn't very good.

Yeah, not a good idea.
Are there any other bills you want to introduce in the meantime?

Well, no. Most of the times a bill idea comes to me when I am in the shower taking a shower.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

I fully oppose this.  It provides the Governor no incentive to find a replacement, and is a clear violation of the separation of powers.  It should be voted down, immediately.

I agree, and that's the point I have been trying to make.

It still does not solve my problem, which is the situation where the governor chooses not to fill that vacant seat, and keeps the power to himself. AND, if this is unconstitutional, this makes everything a moot point anyway.

I guess we need to want for Peter to see what he says.

Assuming you mean "we need to wait" for him, then yes.

Wow, yes I mean wait. Trying to watch T.V. and type at the same time isn't very good.

Yeah, not a good idea.
Are there any other bills you want to introduce in the meantime?

Well, no. Most of the times a bill idea comes to me when I am in the shower taking a shower.

Haha. OK. Do any citizens have anything they want to see being brought up to the assembly?

[Devilman88]

I fully oppose this.  It provides the Governor no incentive to find a replacement, and is a clear violation of the separation of powers.  It should be voted down, immediately.

Well, the constitution current doesn't have any in it now that gives the governor incentive to find a replacement. It just say that the Governor appoint an Assembly member if there is a vacant seat. It doesn't say what happens if he doesn't do it. Also it isn't violation of the separation of powers because our current Atlasia constitution gives the right for the Vice President to vote in case of a tie in the senate. This would be the same thing but only when it is a tie when there is a vacant seat.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I fully oppose this.  It provides the Governor no incentive to find a replacement, and is a clear violation of the separation of powers.  It should be voted down, immediately.

Well, the constitution current doesn't have any in it now that gives the governor incentive to find a replacement. It just say that the Governor appoint an Assembly member if there is a vacant seat. It doesn't say what happens if he doesn't do it. Also it isn't violation of the separation of powers because our current Atlasia constitution gives the right for the Vice President to vote in case of a tie in the senate. This would be the same thing but only when it is a tie when there is a vacant seat.

He could be recalled for failing to do his constitutional duties.

Personally, I'm opposed to this, but if you decide to go through with it, I'd ask the Attorney General for an opinion on the constitutionality of this.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

I fully oppose this.  It provides the Governor no incentive to find a replacement, and is a clear violation of the separation of powers.  It should be voted down, immediately.

Well, the constitution current doesn't have any in it now that gives the governor incentive to find a replacement. It just say that the Governor appoint an Assembly member if there is a vacant seat. It doesn't say what happens if he doesn't do it. Also it isn't violation of the separation of powers because our current Atlasia constitution gives the right for the Vice President to vote in case of a tie in the senate. This would be the same thing but only when it is a tie when there is a vacant seat.

He could be recalled for failing to do his constitutional duties.

Personally, I'm opposed to this, but if you decide to go through with it, I'd ask the Attorney General for an opinion on the constitutionality of this.

He would be recalled, but there is no need to pass a bill which provides governors the incentive to do something that could get them recalled.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I fully oppose this.  It provides the Governor no incentive to find a replacement, and is a clear violation of the separation of powers.  It should be voted down, immediately.

Well, the constitution current doesn't have any in it now that gives the governor incentive to find a replacement. It just say that the Governor appoint an Assembly member if there is a vacant seat. It doesn't say what happens if he doesn't do it. Also it isn't violation of the separation of powers because our current Atlasia constitution gives the right for the Vice President to vote in case of a tie in the senate. This would be the same thing but only when it is a tie when there is a vacant seat.

He could be recalled for failing to do his constitutional duties.

Personally, I'm opposed to this, but if you decide to go through with it, I'd ask the Attorney General for an opinion on the constitutionality of this.

He would be recalled, but there is no need to pass a bill which provides governors the incentive to do something that could get them recalled.

No - I was talking about the current constitution, not the amendment.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

I fully oppose this.  It provides the Governor no incentive to find a replacement, and is a clear violation of the separation of powers.  It should be voted down, immediately.

Well, the constitution current doesn't have any in it now that gives the governor incentive to find a replacement. It just say that the Governor appoint an Assembly member if there is a vacant seat. It doesn't say what happens if he doesn't do it. Also it isn't violation of the separation of powers because our current Atlasia constitution gives the right for the Vice President to vote in case of a tie in the senate. This would be the same thing but only when it is a tie when there is a vacant seat.

He could be recalled for failing to do his constitutional duties.

Personally, I'm opposed to this, but if you decide to go through with it, I'd ask the Attorney General for an opinion on the constitutionality of this.

He would be recalled, but there is no need to pass a bill which provides governors the incentive to do something that could get them recalled.

No - I was talking about the current constitution, not the amendment.

I was just talking about the bill's major drawback apart from the constitutionality, actually.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I've taken a look at this and I don't think it violates Section 1 ; Clause 1 of Article V in the Constitution, if it does you would also have to argue the Vice President violates that clause by holding the power of a tie-breaking vote in the Senate, it's basically the same principle here, you're not granting the Governor a seat in the assembly, merely giving them the power of the tie breaker.

I have some personal concerns about it, maybe a time limit of these abilities would be wise so the Governor doesn't simply wait for tie breakers all the time, but there is nothing in there that violates separation of powers or the dual office holding rule.

[Devilman88]

I've taken a look at this and I don't think it violates Section 1 ; Clause 1 of Article V in the Constitution, if it does you would also have to argue the Vice President violates that clause by holding the power of a tie-breaking vote in the Senate, it's basically the same principle here, you're not granting the Governor a seat in the assembly, merely giving them the power of the tie breaker.

I have some personal concerns about it, maybe a time limit of these abilities would be wise so the Governor doesn't simply wait for tie breakers all the time, but there is nothing in there that violates separation of powers or the dual office holding rule.

Thank you AG for taking the time to look over this. I will try to work something out about a time limit, but I think it might be better if it is put into Section 1/6 of Article III.

[Devilman88]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my change the current amendment to the following(if I can):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm willing to work with the time frame in Sec 1/6.

[Peter]

I am afraid I am yet to see a version that I could vote in favour of.

[Devilman88]

I am afraid I am yet to see a version that I could vote in favour of.

What would you like to see in a version? Work with me here, Mr. Speaker.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Actually, I see where he is coming from. I don't want to recall a governor over this, nor do I want to see a governor abusing his powers and choosing not to fill the seat. I think all of this change is just unnecessary.

[Devilman88]

Actually, I see where he is coming from. I don't want to recall a governor over this, nor do I want to see a governor abusing his powers and choosing not to fill the seat. I think all of this change is just unnecessary.

Currently, if the Governor doesn't fill a vacant seat he can still get recalled. This is so that the Assembly will be able to keep moving during all times. We don't want the Assembly to stall because there is a vacant seat and the other two Assembly member are split on a bill. Also it is kinda stupid to think a governor will abuse his power, because under this he doesn't have much power in the Assembly when there is a vacant seat. He only has power when there is a vacant seat and the vote for a said thing is tied between the other two Assembly members.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Actually, I see where he is coming from. I don't want to recall a governor over this, nor do I want to see a governor abusing his powers and choosing not to fill the seat. I think all of this change is just unnecessary.

Currently, if the Governor doesn't fill a vacant seat he can still get recalled. This is so that the Assembly will be able to keep moving during all times. We don't want the Assembly to stall because there is a vacant seat and the other two Assembly member are split on a bill. Also it is kinda stupid to think a governor will abuse his power, because under this he doesn't have much power in the Assembly when there is a vacant seat. He only has power when there is a vacant seat and the vote for a said thing is tied between the other two Assembly members.

I repeat, the power to break a tie is equivalent to the power we, as assemblymembers, have now, except he can't introduce legislature. If there isn't a tie between you and Peter, my vote won't count anyway.

[Devilman88]

Actually, I see where he is coming from. I don't want to recall a governor over this, nor do I want to see a governor abusing his powers and choosing not to fill the seat. I think all of this change is just unnecessary.

Currently, if the Governor doesn't fill a vacant seat he can still get recalled. This is so that the Assembly will be able to keep moving during all times. We don't want the Assembly to stall because there is a vacant seat and the other two Assembly member are split on a bill. Also it is kinda stupid to think a governor will abuse his power, because under this he doesn't have much power in the Assembly when there is a vacant seat. He only has power when there is a vacant seat and the vote for a said thing is tied between the other two Assembly members.

I repeat, the power to break a tie is equivalent to the power we, as assemblymembers, have now, except he can't introduce legislature. If there isn't a tie between you and Peter, my vote won't count anyway.

The Governor can introduce legislature already. Also I repeat, the Governor is only given this power to break a tie when there is a vacancy in the Assembly. Most likely this will never happen, but like in our own senate, this is a good thing to have to keep the Assembly moving when there is a vacancy and the remaining two members split their vote.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

The governor shouldn't wield legislative power. The governor could choose not to fill the position. That would mean he could be the deciding factor in many votes. Really, it muddles the separation of powers.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The governor shouldn't wield legislative power. The governor could choose not to fill the position. That would mean he could be the deciding factor in many votes. Really, it muddles the separation of powers.

Executive officers have limited legislative powers in very specific instances all the time. For instance, the Vice President can cast a tie breaking vote in legislation, and even function as emergency PPT upon resignations. Two legislative functions, one pretty big.

It may be irritating to have the executive poke it's head in legislative matters but it's hardly without precedent.

[Devilman88]

The governor shouldn't wield legislative power. The governor could choose not to fill the position. That would mean he could be the deciding factor in many votes. Really, it muddles the separation of powers.

Did you not read what I have been posting?

Mr. Speaker, I would like my change the current amendment to the following(if I can):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm willing to work with the time frame in Sec 1/6.

This gives the Governor one week to fill the vacant seat. Currently we don't have any time limits on when the Governor has to fill the seat. Also the AG already said this wouldn't over step the separation of powers.

[Peter]

As an alternative, I might suggest that the Federal Mideast Senator be seconded on a temporary basis - there is no separation of powers issue and the Senator would already have a mandate from the Mideast people.

[Devilman88]

As an alternative, I might suggest that the Federal Mideast Senator be seconded on a temporary basis - there is no separation of powers issue and the Senator would already have a mandate from the Mideast people.

I'm willing to do that, do you want to write it up or do you want me too?

[Devilman88]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does that sound?

[Devilman88]

Mr. Speaker if you like that can we go ahead and take it to a vote. I want to have this done before elections coming up next week, so the citizen can vote on it.

[Peter]

Do you wish to replace your bill via friendly amendment?

If so, that is fine. A vote can be called if Persepolis does not object.

[Devilman88]

Do you wish to replace your bill via friendly amendment?

If so, that is fine. A vote can be called if Persepolis does not object.

Yes replace my bill via friendly amendment.