Congress Hall (National Assembly Thread)

[DKrol]

Vote of Confidence, May of 1789:

Be it resolved:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Debate will last 48 hours, allowing players to make their points as to why the Government should or shouldn't have the confidence of the House. After that a simulated vote will be held automatically, so factions must inform me of how they plan to vote.

Mr. Speaker,

I rise in opposition to this Vote of Confidence. My reasoning for doing so is simple - the proposed First Secretary has not formed a Government that has the absolute confidence of this house. In a statement provided to the major newspapers of the nation, the gentleman from Charlottesville announced his Government would be built of Democratic-Republicans, Whigs, and Westerners. That formula does not a Government make, sadly. The gentleman from Charlottesville of the Democratic-Republicans commands 17 votes. The gentleman from Middlesex of the Whigs commands only 9 votes, and the gentleman from Kentucky of the Westerners has only 6. Those forces combined supplies the proposed Government with only 32 votes.

Of the total number of men duly elected by the people of this nation and sworn into office in accordance with our Constitution, the gentleman from Charlottesville does not command a majority. On any motion, his proposed Government could be defeated. It is my belief that the First Secretary must be able to form a Government that can survive and pass legislation with no support from the Opposition, which the proposed Government cannot. I am aware that a grand bargain was been established with the gentleman from Augusta for the Patriots of the South to abstain from this vote, and for the proposed Government to formally receive the confidence of the house but I do not believe that such an arrangement is in the best interest of our nation. Our First Secretary must be able to act with confidence and swiftness as the needs of the nation demand. The proposed Government cannot do that.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to this motion.

I yield.

[DKrol]

Federal Courts Act, 1789:

Be it resolved:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Speaker,

This resolution will be the bill of the Tory faction for this sitting of the National Assembly. We believe it a fundamental principle that the federal judicial system should be strong and empowered from the very earliest days of this grand experiment.

Although we are in the Opposition, the Tory's will not sit passively by and allow the First Secretary and his Minority Government to ram-rod this House with their ideas. This House will not be an echo-chamber for the Minority Government. We will stand strong and proud and advocate for the issues and policies which we discussed, stood for, and were elected on in these most recent elections.

I yield.

[DKrol]

Mr. Speaker,

I am opposed to the proposal from the Gentleman from Lexington. I believe that any state being admitted to the Union must be a non-slave, free state. Slavery is abhorrent, a great moral wrong which no self-respecting person can claim to support while also preaching on the American qualities of patriotism, liberty, and freedom. We must limit slavery to the states where it is currently, regrettably, practiced and begin the process of removing it from those states in due course. This is the only good, Christian path forward on this issue.

I yield.

[DKrol]

Mr. Speaker,

I present the following bill, to serve as the legislation of the Tory Faction for this meeting of the National Assembly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that a strong and empowered Senate is well within the image of this new government that we set out to create. This bill aims to be the first in what will hopefully be a series of bills to improve and embolden the Senate as the ultimate check on the whims and desires of some of the more radical members of this body.

I yield.

[DKrol]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Speaker,

Maine is a largely independent area. They are a wild and rugged bunch, making a living on their own and in a very specific manner. They are not even in physical contact with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Governor and Legislature of which claim jurisdiction over it. Why? What sense does it make? None.

I yield.