MA: Re-Establishment of a Lieutenant Governor Amendment (Debating)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay, but this wouldn't be a deal-breaker by any stretch of the imagination.

[Talleyrand]

Nay, but this wouldn't be a deal-breaker by any stretch of the imagination.

Nay, because there's a different amendment I plan to introduce that might make an Assembly confirmation more acceptable, but this won't be a deal-breaker like Mr. X said above.

[Kitteh]

Nay

I'm of the same mind as Mr. X and TexasDem.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Aye, not that it matters.

[Gass3268]

Nay

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I introduce the following amendment.  This fixes something that has gone overlooked in the Constitution - since the Judge is no longer nominated only for an individual case, this language is irrelevant:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Talleyrand]

Why have you proposed eliminating reconfirmation?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Why have you proposed eliminating reconfirmation?

That was put in there when we appointed Judges to oversee cases after they were announced to have been made.  It's not needed; I don't think we've ever held a reconfirmation vote; and if a judge acts irresponsibly, he can be recalled.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Although that really doesn't belong in an amendment dealing with reinstating the LG, now that I think about it.  I'll propose this as a different amendment.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Nay, but this wouldn't be a deal-breaker by any stretch of the imagination.

Nay, because there's a different amendment I plan to introduce that might make an Assembly confirmation more acceptable, but this won't be a deal-breaker like Mr. X said above.

Do you have this amendment ready?

[Talleyrand]

I'll sponsor this and bring it to a vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 3 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 4 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article II, Section 2 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article III, Section 1 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article III, Section 2 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article III, Section 6 of the Mideast Constituition is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article IV, Section 1 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VI, Section 1 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All clauses of the Mideast Constitution (i.e. Part 1 of Article III, Section 5) not modified by this Act shall remain intact.

[/quote]

This is my amendment. If the wording is unclear, please inform me.  

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What all are you changing?  Can you just crop it down to whatever changes from the current form of the bill are?  We don't need to vote on the whole new thing... and it's hard to follow exactly what's being amended when you make such a big amendment.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I apologize if only current Assemblymen are allowed to post here, if so just let me know and I won't do it again, unless elected to this most distinguished body at some future date.  Speaking as a private citizen and a proud Mideasterner, I just wanted to take a moment to urge the members of the Mideast Assembly to vote against this amendment.  Although I don't doubt for a second that the amendment was introduced with the best of intentions, the People would be better served by a strong Lieutenant Governor with the power to make joint appointments to fill Assembly vacancies (even if he/she runs on a ticket with the Governor).

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 3 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 4 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article II, Section 2 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article III, Section 1 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article III, Section 2 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article III, Section 6 of the Mideast Constituition is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article IV, Section 1 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VI, Section 1 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All clauses of the Mideast Constitution (i.e. Part 1 of Article III, Section 5) not modified by this Act shall remain intact. [/quote]
[/quote]

I've bolded the changed sections.

While I agree with you, Senator X, in order to ensure this bill has a clear pathway to passage if it goes to a public vote, we will need to give up either joint appointments to the Assembly or a confirmation process for a Lieutenant Governor. I would prefer not to give up either, but I picked the former because the Right has expressed reservations about it on multiple occasions.

I will change this bill to remove a confirmation process for a Lieutenant Governor if my fellow Assemblymen and Mideasterners so desire.

And all Mideastern citizens can post here, Senator X, so no worries.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I suggest you re-word the Court part to be something like "adds the words 'blah blah blah' before the word 'blah'", that way if the other amendment passes, we don't have to start this from scratch.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 3 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 4 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article II, Section 2 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article III, Section 1 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article III, Section 2 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article III, Section 6 of the Mideast Constituition is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article IV, Section 1 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VI, Section 1 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All clauses of the Mideast Constitution (i.e. Part 1 of Article III, Section 5) not modified by this Act shall remain intact.

[/quote]

I've bolded the changed sections.

While I agree with you, Senator X, in order to ensure this bill has a clear pathway to passage if it goes to a public vote, we will need to give up either joint appointments to the Assembly or a confirmation process for a Lieutenant Governor. I would prefer not to give up either, but I picked the former because the Right has expressed reservations about it on multiple occasions.

I will change this bill to remove a confirmation process for a Lieutenant Governor if my fellow Assemblymen and Mideasterners so desire.

And all Mideastern citizens can post here, Senator X, so no worries.
[/quote]

Personally,  I think we'd be better off giving up the confirmation piece instead.

[Talleyrand]

I suggest you re-word the Court part to be something like "adds the words 'blah blah blah' before the word 'blah'", that way if the other amendment passes, we don't have to start this from scratch.

Could you give an example of what you mean, Inks? Sorry, I'm slightly confused.

[Kitteh]

Personally,  I think we'd be better off giving up the confirmation piece instead.

I agree with this.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I suggest you re-word the Court part to be something like "adds the words 'blah blah blah' before the word 'blah'", that way if the other amendment passes, we don't have to start this from scratch.

Could you give an example of what you mean, Inks? Sorry, I'm slightly confused.

That was my example.  What exactly do you want to change here?

[tmthforu94]

Honestly, all of these nitpicks on whether or not their should be joint appointments for this or that...they aren't really a big deal. Let's all keep in mind that there will be tickets, so the two individuals serving as Governor and Lt. Governor will likely get along and have a similar ideology. I don't think it makes much difference one way or another, and it certainly won't affect my vote on this amendment.

TexasDem, on Article II Section 2 Clause I, change it to what Inks amendment placed it as. Because if the other amendment passes (which I assume it will) and then we pass this, this would overwrite it.

In essence, change it to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, no... I didn't mean that either.  Because my amendment may not pass by the people.  Unless you want to postpone this amendment until after the vote is taken on my amendment.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Honestly, all of these nitpicks on whether or not their should be joint appointments for this or that...they aren't really a big deal. Let's all keep in mind that there will be tickets, so the two individuals serving as Governor and Lt. Governor will likely get along and have a similar ideology. I don't think it makes much difference one way or another, and it certainly won't affect my vote on this amendment.

TexasDem, on Article II Section 2 Clause I, change it to what Inks amendment placed it as. Because if the other amendment passes (which I assume it will) and then we pass this, this would overwrite it.

In essence, change it to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If they're just nitpicks, then I assume you would have no problem allowing joint Assembly, Senate, and Court appointments?  The joint Assembly appointment is not just a nitpick, it is one of the most important powers this office would have.  This is being watered down to nothing, I hope the members of this great body see that and fight to preserve this as a powerful new office.  First we gave a major concession (from what I understand, a concession on what Governor Tmthforu94 viewed as one of his two biggest issues with the bill) by allowing the LG to run on a ticket with the Governor.  That was supposed to be in exchange for everything else (including joint appointments remaining intact), including him making a concession on his other big concern (allowing joint Assembly appointments).  I know this from my time in the Assembly.  Then it became just joint Assembly appointments and not joint regional Senate and court appointments.  Now we are asked to get rid of joint Assembly appointments simply in exchange for confirmation by the Assembly during vacancies?  I wouldn't normally be so stirred up about this (especially having left the Assembly), but as some of you may know this legislation is very important to me and I can't just watch it die a death of a thousand cuts without at least trying to sound the alarm.  And it's not like this is the first time a major bill has been watered down to nearly nothing and we saw how that turned out...

Anyway, I urge the honorable Assemblymen of the Mideast not to water down this bill and to fight for joint Assembly appointments!  During my time in the Assembly, I was a major proponent of compromise, but there is a time and place for everything.  This is the time and place for holding firm and standing your ground!  Thanks and Dave bless

[tmthforu94]

If they're just nitpicks, then I assume you would have no problem allowing joint Assembly, Senate, and Court appointments?  The joint Assembly appointment is not just a nitpick, it is one of the most important powers this office would have.

I think the Governor should have a little more say than the Lt. Governor in terms of overall appointment, after all, he is the chief executive. All I'm saying is that the decision made by this body won't affect how my final vote is. I'm just trying to get a version through that will pass the public vote, and I don't think this would pass with joint appointments on everything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Lt. Governor shouldn't be nearly as powerful as the Governor - that isn't how it is in real life and that isn't how it should be on here. I'd rather establish the position with a considerable amount of power and see how that works, and if more duties are needed, add them later. I'd rather do that then making it overwhelming from the get-go, to be quite honest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're saying this as though I'm fighting to block it from happening, and I'm not. While I did give TexasDem some input on this amendment, I believe it was mainly he and Gass who came up with it. My big thing in terms of appointments was not requiring Assembly approval for Assembly appointments. I personally don't think the Lt. Governor should be making joint appointments for Assembly if he's going to be presiding over the Assembly, but if it's needed to get this thing through, so be it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just have to say, once again, that all this argument over joint appointments and what-not is a little over dramatic considering that we're elected a ticket for Governor and Lt. Governor. Had we not done so, I would find it to be more important. By my judgement, I think there will be very few times that there will be a major disagreement between the Governor and Lt. Governor over appointments.


Barring some major change to this, I don't think this bill is watered down to the point of irrelevancy. This is overall a good amendment, and it gives the Lt. Governor some actual responsibilities, something it didn't really have the first time around. The disagreement is how much power the Lt. Governor should have - some think a lot, some don't. The objective needs to be to find that happy medium, pass it, and then treat it as a guinea pig. I'll just inform you guys now - this amendment isn't going to be perfect when we're done with it. Changes and adjustments will probably be made throughout the years.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If they're just nitpicks, then I assume you would have no problem allowing joint Assembly, Senate, and Court appointments?  The joint Assembly appointment is not just a nitpick, it is one of the most important powers this office would have.

I think the Governor should have a little more say than the Lt. Governor in terms of overall appointment, after all, he is the chief executive. All I'm saying is that the decision made by this body won't affect how my final vote is. I'm just trying to get a version through that will pass the public vote, and I don't think this would pass with joint appointments on everything.

Fair enough, except I'm not asking for joint appointments on everything, I'm saying joint assembly appointments are really important and giving that up is giving up more than is necessary to get this passed.
[/quote]