Office of the Vice President

[Q]

Bienvenidos a la Oficina del Vicepresidente de la Republica de Atlasia.

Thanks for stopping by!  Please feel free to speak with me here at my office or contact me by personal message.

It is an honor to be able to serve this great nation of ours.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Q
Eleventh Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia

[Ebowed]

Welcome to the Office of the Vice President of Atlasia.
Bienvenidos todos a la Oficina del Vicepresidente de la Republica de Atlasia.

No hablo en espanol.

[Q]

The Vice President

Memo

To: Members of the Atlasian Senate


As a reminder, per Senate Regulations:

- The confirmation hearings for President Ebowed',s Cabinet nominees should be wrapping up in less than 18 hours from now.

- A Senator may ask for the voting to begin immediately if debate on a particular nominee has ceased for 24 hours.

- Debate will cease 72 hours after the nomination was brought to the floor unless a Senator requests an extension on the debate.

Thank you.

Q

[Q]

I see the Governors' right to carry out redistricting as an important one, because it is the only instance in which the Governors must work together, but also the Governors have historically tried to keep their respective regions together in a particular district as much as possible.  It makes very little sense to me, then, that we should even have different regions and districts if only a handful of states get switched up between the two.  It really seems like a pointless exercise as the process is currently acted out.  I'd like to see the Senate pass a resolution recommending to the Governors that a goal of their process should be to create districts as different from the regions as possible.

Thoughts from the Senate on this matter?

[Јas]

I see the Governors' right to carry out redistricting as an important one, because it is the only instance in which the Governors must work together, but also the Governors have historically tried to keep their respective regions together in a particular district as much as possible.  It makes very little sense to me, then, that we should even have different regions and districts if only a handful of states get switched up between the two.  It really seems like a pointless exercise as the process is currently acted out.  I'd like to see the Senate pass a resolution recommending to the Governors that a goal of their process should be to create districts as different from the regions as possible.

Thoughts from the Senate on this matter?

If I may make a submission, such a resolution would probably be beyond the power of the Senate. Only a constitutional change could mandate a change in how the Governors deal with redistricting.

Personally, I agree with you that there is no need to have similar regions and districts. As I've said elsewhere, I would advocate maintaining the five regional seats, and having five national seats elected, all together, by Single Transferable Vote.

[jokerman]

I see the Governors' right to carry out redistricting as an important one, because it is the only instance in which the Governors must work together, but also the Governors have historically tried to keep their respective regions together in a particular district as much as possible.  It makes very little sense to me, then, that we should even have different regions and districts if only a handful of states get switched up between the two.  It really seems like a pointless exercise as the process is currently acted out.  I'd like to see the Senate pass a resolution recommending to the Governors that a goal of their process should be to create districts as different from the regions as possible.

Thoughts from the Senate on this matter?

Yes, any attempted mandate from the Senate would be unconstitutional.  And, let me say personally, if the Senate tried to release some kind of optional resolution I would completely ignore it.  I, Cosmo Kramer, was elected by the voters of my region to be Governor and fufill the constitutional duties it entails, and the Senate has no right to be ordering me how to do my job.

[Q]

It's not beyond the power of the Senate to voice its opinion on what is the best action by the governors on this issue.  This does not obligate the governors to follow the Senate's recommendation, however, so a resolution to this end is not unconstitutional by any means.

[Јas]

It's not beyond the power of the Senate to voice its opinion on what is the best action by the governors on this issue.  This does not obligate the governors to follow the Senate's recommendation, however, so a resolution to this end is not unconstitutional by any means.

I see. Yes, I would agree with you here, but I would ask is there any point in passing a resolution which will, more likely than not, fall on deaf ears?

[Q]

I see. Yes, I would agree with you here, but I would ask is there any point in passing a resolution which will, more likely than not, fall on deaf ears?

It would acknowledge that the way the process is currently carried is not an effective one.  The governors, historically, have felt some unreasonable desire to keep their regions as much in one district as possible.  In the last round of redistricting, I was the first to label you a "freedom fighter" for standing up to the other governors in their desire to continue this trend.  Ideally, we could change the "culture" of the redistricting process from protectionism to pragmatism.

[ilikeverin]

In the last round of redistricting, I was the first to label you a "freedom fighter" for standing up to the other governors in their desire to continue this trend.

Pssh, that's nothing, I literally labelled him a freedom fighter

[Јas]

I see. Yes, I would agree with you here, but I would ask is there any point in passing a resolution which will, more likely than not, fall on deaf ears?

It would acknowledge that the way the process is currently carried is not an effective one.  The governors, historically, have felt some unreasonable desire to keep their regions as much in one district as possible.  In the last round of redistricting, I was the first to label you a "freedom fighter" for standing up to the other governors in their desire to continue this trend.  Ideally, we could change the "culture" of the redistricting process from protectionism to pragmatism.

Certainly, if it achieved (or made progress towards) that aim then your proposal would be worthwhile.

[The Dowager Mod]

I am transmitting my immediate resignation to you.

[Q]

I believe that it would be prudent to consider anti-troll legislation as soon as possible so that troublemakers who contribute nothing but profanity and insults are not allowed to take root in this great nation of ours.

If any Senators or other citizens have any thoughts on this matter and how specific legislation might work, please let me know.

[Gabu]

I believe that it would be prudent to consider anti-troll legislation as soon as possible so that troublemakers who contribute nothing but profanity and insults are not allowed to take root in this great nation of ours.

If any Senators or other citizens have any thoughts on this matter and how specific legislation might work, please let me know.

The only thing that the Senate could do on that subject is to bar these people from holding elected office, and I think the people can take care of that on their own.

[Peter]

We have two punishments that will in any way be punishments:
1. Denial of vote
2. Denial of office (which is also a part of denial of vote)

Any law that attempts to restrict the political content of people's posts will run into free speech issues certainly. Presuming you are referring to Hawkeye, banning gratuitous insults will be difficult.

The only actual way to combat people who you regard as "trolls" is to pass a constitutional amendment banning them (I considered this as a possible solution to the Assad problem), and I have seen this done in several micronations to deal with problem posters.

[Yates]

Obviously, a problem arises in how we would define "troll."

[Q]

We have two punishments that will in any way be punishments:
1. Denial of vote
2. Denial of office (which is also a part of denial of vote)

Are these current punishments for some offense, or would these be the possible punishments?

The only actual way to combat people who you regard as "trolls" is to pass a constitutional amendment banning them (I considered this as a possible solution to the Assad problem), and I have seen this done in several micronations to deal with problem posters.

This was exactly what I had in mind.

[Peter]

We have two punishments that will in any way be punishments:
1. Denial of vote
2. Denial of office (which is also a part of denial of vote)

Are these current punishments for some offense, or would these be the possible punishments?

1 is presently used; 2 has not been used, but is possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was exactly what I had in mind.[/quote]

Then you probably would want something along the lines of:

1. [Name of person] is hereby banned from voting in any election, being a candidate in any election and holding office under the Republic of Atlasia at both federal and Regional levels of government.
2. This Amendment applies to his present alias and any alias he may adopt in the future.
3. The Senate may enforce this Amendment through appropriate legislation, however, determination of the ownership of an alias shall be made through the judiciary.

[Q]

Can someone please tell me what the rules for the nationwide vote on the change in election laws are?  Can inactives and new voters participate?  Can people repost and edit ballots?

[MasterJedi]

Can someone please tell me what the rules for the nationwide vote on the change in election laws are?  Can inactives and new voters participate?  Can people repost and edit ballots?

This is the bill that said how the vote would be held and that is all we have. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=38862.msg868194#msg868194

[Peter]

I would argue that at the least parts of Article V of the Constitution continues to apply, depending on whether you construe this vote as an "election" or not.

If you do construe it as an election then all of Article V applies, as does the Activity Requirements section of the ESRA.

[Q]

If you do construe it as an election then all of Article V applies, as does the Activity Requirements section of the ESRA.

Brilliant, Senator.  This is what I'm going with for now.

[Q]

I really haven't taken full advantage of this office, so I hope to do some dusting and be ready to better utilize it during my next term.

[Q]

The Vice President

My fellow Atlasians:

I address the nation tonight with a heavy heart.

I can scarcely recognize the man who has so nobly served as president of our republic, who has been a friend and mentor to me, and who I have had the supreme honor of serving alongside in the Senate, the Cabinet, and the executive branch for nearly a year now.

The recent events that have engulfed our nation are unnecessary and unfortunate.  It is my belief that the President is not the leader we recently re-elected.  Rather, I feel that he is temporarily - I hope - under duress, and that he will return to his normal self soon.

Therefore, it is my intention to ask the Cabinet to declare President Ebowed "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" in advance of his pending impeachment trial in the Senate.  It is my hope that this declaration will be necessary only on a temporary basis and that we will be able to enjoy Ebowed',s continued leadership again at some point in the future.

I urge the nation to remain calm.  This matter is but momentary, and I believe that it will soon be in our past.

Thank you.