Recognition Procedure Act of 2015 (Tabled)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Establishing relations with the Mock Parliament is not just extending recognition toward a non-playable nation, but pretty much changing the way of how the game operates. It cannot be done by a single stroke of one man's pen.

Most of those who oppose the President's unilateral action are open to have a relations with South America. The issue is how to proceed with this. I, for one, fully realize the vacuum problem and either relations with South America or independent Northeast (if they really want this) are good solutions. BUT is should not be done hastily and without laying a workable frameworks. As I've said before, without certain framework and synchronization, the diplomacy will be chaotic waste of time.

If South America really wants to have a fruitful and workable relationship with Atlasia, I'll be the first to vote to confirm such a recognition.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

To build a playable relationship we must first recognise South America, then we can work out specifics.

Nonsense. Before the United States did recognize the People's Republic of China, there were unofficial contacts first.

By quick, official recognition, you're taking everything off the table, which is a diplomatic disaster.

This seems pretty blatantly unconstitutional. The power to recognise or not recognise a countries government is the presidents and the presidents alone. The senate does not have every power in this game.

According to the Constitution, the powers held by the president are as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nowhere does the Constitution grant the president the right to unilaterally recognize countries. By contrast, the Constitution does require the president to submit treaties and other diplomatic agreements to the Senate.

Precisely, there's a hole we're simply fixing in the most proper way.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

One of the practical problems with recognition of the Mock Parliament is mixing of it's politics with Atlasia politics, as seen there: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=218088.msg4727010#msg4727010

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Look, I don't like this executive order, and I don't think recognition should come now, but we're basically stripping the Presidency of yet another of its powers and the position itself has been made too weak over the past years.

Being an advocate on executive power, I'm not sure I can support this much as I dislike that executive order.

I understand, but we're talking about one person unilateraly changing the way our game is working. Such decisions cannot be made with a single stroke of pen.

I am a supporter of strengthening the presidential powers, and if elected to serve at the convention, I will fight for it, but this is a exception from the rule. Beside, as Truman pointed out in another thread, nowhere in the Constitution it is states that the President can do such a thing. We are fixing the black hole.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If one can establish that this is the power of the President, I would be inclined to oppose the legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

Whilst depriving the executive of authority should be a concern, I don't see us as having moved one direction or the other, certainly not enough to be concerned about the President being impotent constitutionally. That is not the case, as he can veto legislation, he can command the armed forces and has several express powers granted him under the Constitution. On top of all he has a vast ability and public medium through which to lead and guide the nation either in support of a policy agenda, reform proposal or both. Just because we have not seen this occur in the past few months under the Pax Eborecum (slight modification to the Latin here I apologize to all the fair sons and daughters of York), doesn't mean they don't exist.

Bore said it's unconstitutional, but Truman quickly pointed out nowhere in the constitution such thing is even mentioned (and Bore, unsurprisingly, provided no response). If anything, there's a black hole that need fixing.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I echo what Simfan is saying. I don't know the ins and outs of the US constitution, but everyone agrees that the president is solely responsible for recognising states, we've seen that with Truman in Israel and with Obama and Cuba, to name two.

Now there are no powers that the US president has that the atlasian president does not, so it logically follows that the atlasian president has the power to unilaterally recognise countries.

The Atlasian Constitution and other laws differs, sometimes very significantly, from the US laws.

You can't just make up a power that is nowhere to be found in our law because "Truman recognized Israel".

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The most important issue there is not the powers of the Presidency and the Senate, but that no single man shall unilaterally change the way our game is working. Such things must be done with the greatest inclusion possible.

This is also not just about South America. The same principle should apply for setting up another playable country, whether it may be an independent Northeast or a brand new thing.

Therefore, I'd like to propose an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

All right, a proposal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm underlining the "universe of this game" because without being in the same universe, the two would be simply parts of diffrent realities.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

So, you are supporting giving the President unlimited powers to change the setup of the game? Because that is what his executive order is about.

That's one. Second, the President can exercises his powers of issuing decrees, but with the boundaries of his legal mandate. It is the Senate that makes law and there is no law allowing bore to undertake such an action. You can't just create powers by wide interpretation of the "executive power". That is a tantamount for an imperial Presidency and rule by decrees, which would be utterly undemocratic and unconstitutional.

Third, there is a little thing called "check and balances". The Senate doesn't have absolute powers in the realm of legislating, but the President doesn't have absolute powers in the realm of executing.

Finally, you are talking about bore's mandate. We have a mandate too and I'd say even greater at the moment, because, unlike him, we are not neglecting our duties. And we are not going to be sidelined.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

1. Again, we are talking about something more consequential than simply extending a recognition. Relations with a playable nation is a revolutionary change that should not be taken so lightly.
2. President's power to issue executive orders is not unlimited.
3. What's irrelevant is using the U.S. example in this discussion. Atlasia is not a carbon copy of the United States. There's a legal black hole about the whole recognizing business and only the Senate can fix it. The President cannot create new powers by precedent.
4. Presidential powers are likely to be strenghed significantly during the ConCon, as there's a clear consensus about that something has to be done.
5. Bore is lucky he's still in office, because his neglect of his duties can certainly be considered impeachable, but we are very understanding and patient towards him if anything.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Precisely, PiT. There is no law, no provision about diplomatic recognition. You can't make up powers that are not entrusted to you. If anything's unconstitutional, that would be it.

Now, the GM simulates all events (which is, if we are honest, terribly dull) and the senate responds to them, with South America as a country they members of that board simulate their actions, the GM simulates the rest and the senate responds to it. This is not a massive change.

I disagree. There can be no working diplomacy without synchronization. Otherwise, it's just going to be either an inconsequential chaos or even duller events, which is a waste of our time and we've got a lot of important things to handle at the home front.

Second, an outright recognition is a terrible diplomatic blunder, taking all options off the table and leaving us no room to maneuver. If you are so fond of bringing up RL examples, here's one: before USA recognized the PRC there were years of informal talks and negotiations.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So?

The executive order cannot be mistaken for an act of law, it's just an executive action. And, since you refereed many times to the RL US politics, there were instances of an executive order being nullified by the act of Congress.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Technically, we're not even in the same universe now. Atlasia effectively operates within it's own world, and South America within it's own world.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

so, you claimed the president's actions were unconstitutional, and they clearly weren't.

During the entire discussion, bore's claims of his actions being constitutional were not supported by any substance beside him, repeating the same empty phrases like a parrot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe we can, especially given the fact this is a legal grey zone and only the Senate can make laws. The President can't establish legal precedents out of the void, there's absolutely no basis for that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Without a proper mechanism, we're not technically the part of the same universe. It would be like the US President recognizing the Kingdom of Rurithania.

And actions of such magnitude should not be taken so lightheartedly.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Please wake me up when you have a coherent argument to offer instead of "dumps"

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Please wake me up when you have a coherent argument to offer instead of "dumps"

My argument is the most coherent one which has been offered on either side of this debate.

I'm still waiting for the opposite side of this debate to prove that bore does have established powers to issue that executive order. I'm yet to see this.

The issue here is not isolationism. I want Atlasia to have a workable relations with the Mock Parliament. So does Cris, who supports this bill. If South America really cares about having a good relationship with Atlasia, you can wait a bit before we fix the legal issues. At this moment, we still have to make order at home before being diverted. This is the issue that can't be handled without proper thought, deliberation and care. I've explained this many times and I don't see any purpouse of responding to every angry post.

Oh, and one more thing. We, Atlasians, do not invade your parliament thread.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Does my fellow Senators have any suggestions, or the present text is satisfying?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Thank you for clarification, BK. However, I'd like to clarify one more thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems a bit contradictionary. Recognition is a form of relation, so President still can't put this into effect without the consent of the Senate.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Thank you for clarification, BK. However, I'd like to clarify one more thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems a bit contradictionary. Recognition is a form of relation, so President still can't put this into effect without the consent of the Senate.

yes- I essentially mean that it's valid for him to say that Atlasia recognizes another country, just like it would be valid for him to sign a treaty- it's just that neither mean anything until ratified by the Senate

Thank you, BK. It's great to have you back

In this case, I withdraw as a sponsor.