Game Moderator Replacement Bill (Law'd)

[Franzl]

I think it's a necessary bill that would help Atlasia. Our current Game Moderator doesn't appear to be very interested in doing anything, so I believe it would make sense to allow the Senate to make such a decision in the interest of increasing activity.

The supermajority is required to keep this from being abused in the future.

[Franzl]

I don't think this bill is getting anywhere close to the problem. The ultimate 'mod' is essentially the real world. It is up to us to respond to real world developments. Bills on the economy and even the recent anti-piracy bill is exactly the sort of response we need. The down side to 'firing' the mod is that you may be unlikely to get an active replacement.

Sure, but real world developments keep us from passing lots of interesting legislation. Look at our Middle East Peace Act I and II. We definitely need the Game Moderator to inform us of the developments in order to react appropriately. Real world developments would be irrelevant because we passed something that likely never will happen in the real world.

I don't mind using the real world for a variety of things...I mean, we all talk in Atlasia about the "economic crisis". That's certainly adopted from real life.

Bottom line...we need a GM that will actually invest just a little energy into this...and that spirit has not been shown by the incumbent.

[Franzl]

I'm just curious as to what constitutional justification the Senate would have to pass this bill?

I'm unaware of anything in the Constitution concerning the role of the Game Moderator. I may be wrong, but I believe there's nothing to prevent the Senate from changing the way a Game Moderator may be put into power or thrown out.

[Franzl]

This legislative body derives its powers from Article I, Section 5 of the Atlasian Constitution. My question to this bill's proponents: which clause of this section allows us the authority to regulate the role of Game Moderator? I would prefer we not pass an unconstitutional bill here.

We're not regulating the role of the Game Moderator, but adding a way in which the Game Moderator may be removed. There is precedent for this:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/GM_Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see any reason that the Senate should not have the power to modify these guidelines, considering it was the Senate that passed the current rules as well.

[Franzl]

I disagree with the notion of allowing the GM to hold another office, as it seems to kind of be a conflict of interest to me. The person generating the headlines upon which the Senate should react should not be politically active, in my opinion.

[Franzl]

btw, I think there is at least one candidate interested in the job.

[Franzl]

Alright then, I think I'll go ahead and move to invoke cloture. The other aspects can be discussed at a separete time (such as dual office holding) if the need should ever arise. This bill should only be about removal from office, if you ask me.

I think we all agree that something needs to be done

[Franzl]

Aye

[Franzl]

Aye

[Franzl]

I think my fellow sponsor, MasterJedi, will agree with my request to attempt an override.

[Franzl]

Aye

[Franzl]

Just want to note a small difference.....the Cabinet Restructuring Act doesn't set any guidelines as to the appointment or removal of potential office holders. The GM Act, however, does. I think the 2 pieces of legislation are somewhat different. Why was the Senate allowed to set any guidelines regarding the GM at all then?

[Franzl]

Just want to note a small difference.....the Cabinet Restructuring Act doesn't set any guidelines as to the appointment or removal of potential office holders. The GM Act, however, does. I think the 2 pieces of legislation are somewhat different. Why was the Senate allowed to set any guidelines regarding the GM at all then?

Because for the cabinet, the guidelines are already explicitly stated in the Constitution. Presumably the Senate was allowed to clarify the methods of appointing the GM because it isn't actually mentioned elsewhere.

well precisely....but my point is: If the Senate was allowed to set those guidelines once, why would it not be able to modify those guidelines as the circumstances allow?

[Franzl]

Well that's fine....I respect your opinion, of course.

It'll be interesting to see in court, won't it?

We can always resort to a Constitutional Amendment, as proposed by Purple State, should the need arise.