House Bill: The Department of Peace Resolution (Failed)

[NeverAgain]

First, I want to thank Rep. OneJ for sponsoring this legislation, and thank Speaker Yankee for bringing it to the floor. This is a bill I have screamed to everyone and their mother about, so I have gotten a lot of complaints that I want to address - Q+A style.

Q: Article IV, Section 2 of the Atlasian Constitution states that it is the duty of the President "to establish such executive departments". Wouldn't this be unconstitutional, as the legislative branch has no authority OVER the executive branch, as they are checks to each other?

A: Entirely see the perceived problem here. As Truman had mentioned, this looks to be unconstitutional as stands. But the Constitution gives the power to President, it does not revoke the Congress from giving the option to the President, for his/her consent or denial. I entirely see that if the President does not consent to it, then the Department shall not be integrated into the executive branch, and there can be no further motions (like a veto-override). To clarify this to be a resolution, requiring the President's signature to become law, I ask for an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Q: Why create a redundant department? The SoS already is tasked with Peacekeeping?

A: Now, this is a core issue. What is the purpose of Departments? As stated by the constitution - they are "necessary for the execution of the laws". But there goes the question of what is a law? Is there an Atlasian law requiring 'peace'. Not in any word, no. But I think that stems the question of what are our laws if not reflective and codification of our morality. The purpose of the Department of State is for maintaining foreign affairs, while that covers peacekeeping, peacekeeping is not covered solely in foreign matters, it must be addressed at home too. But you may ask, well we have a domestic Department, the SoIA, which is tasked with all Domestic Affairs (aside from Law, currently). Yes, we do, but is their major goal peace? No. The same goes to the SoS. Neither are tasked with defending the fundamental human right of peace.

I agree that this Department would cover some things that the SoS and SoIA have currently, but that is the purpose. These branches are tasked with such broad and important goals, they should focus on those, and let there be a Department who can be a person not tasked with solely protecting our nation's reputation, as the State Department is, nor tasked with all broad Domestic Affairs, as the Secretary of Internal Affairs is. Let there be a Department who's sole goal is to protect our morality and our basic human right to Peace. That is what this bill does, for which it would be very different than any Department's duties thus far in our new Nation's history.

Q: If you want Peace so much, then why not have the SoS and SoIA report on Peace?

A: One of the major things this resolution will do is to mandate that the proposed Secretary of Peace make at least monthly reports on Peace, which is not something the other Secretaries are tasked with. Therefore establishing that this Office MUST be active, if to continue. But to the question, I entirely agree that the SoS and SoIA should be mandated to make reports, but if they are to make ones respectively on peace both on foreign matters, and domestically, ignoring their other duties to do so, then we agree that Peace is the highest of important goals here! So why not have a Department that would do these goals, and let the other Departments be tasked with their own duties.

Q: Other Departments can/and are going entirely inactive, why are you increasing their number, when we are having an activity crisis with the ones we have currently?

A: The Activity Crisis is a MAJOR problem, and one that I think should be addressed ASAP. But ensuring the activity of other Departments is not the goal of this legislation. As to this Department's Activity, there are clear guidelines as to what this Department must do (monthly Peace Reports, updates on Peace Issues, ensuring that Atlasian Foreign aid is dispersed properly, among MANY other things stated in this resolution. If anyone feels it necessary to add more 'teeth' to the Department, if falling inactive, they are welcome to propose ideas.

I am here for any/many more questions! Thanks!

[NeverAgain]

Doesn't the department of state to this already? This seems redundant.

Literally, JUST answered this.

Q: Why create a redundant department? The SoS already is tasked with Peacekeeping?

A: Now, this is a core issue. What is the purpose of Departments? As stated by the constitution - they are "necessary for the execution of the laws". But there goes the question of what is a law? Is there an Atlasian law requiring 'peace'. Not in any word, no. But I think that stems the question of what are our laws if not reflective and codification of our morality. The purpose of the Department of State is for maintaining foreign affairs, while that covers peacekeeping, peacekeeping is not covered solely in foreign matters, it must be addressed at home too. But you may ask, well we have a domestic Department, the SoIA, which is tasked with all Domestic Affairs (aside from Law, currently). Yes, we do, but is their major goal peace? No. The same goes to the SoS. Neither are tasked with defending the fundamental human right of peace.

I agree that this Department would cover some things that the SoS and SoIA have currently, but that is the purpose. These branches are tasked with such broad and important goals, they should focus on those, and let there be a Department who can be a person not tasked with solely protecting our nation's reputation, as the State Department is, nor tasked with all broad Domestic Affairs, as the Secretary of Internal Affairs is. Let there be a Department who's sole goal is to protect our morality and our basic human right to Peace. That is what this bill does, for which it would be very different than any Department's duties thus far in our new Nation's history.

[NeverAgain]

I still hold the belief that there should be a Department of Peace, but I am more than willing to compromise if needed to ensure that we can establish Peace in the national narrative.

If this Amendment is acceptable to the People's House, with changes proposed by Rep. Simossad, and changes proposed by Mr. Truman (and changing all wording to an "executive commission"), then I will accept it. In this new bill, I see it's extreme necessity in the wake of the abolition of the NSC, and other foreign policy counsels.

I thank everyone for their comments, and amendments. And look forward to bipartisan support of this change.

[NeverAgain]

This is a recommendation and should be clarified as such, I ask Mr. Truman's amendment to be adopted into the current amended bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[NeverAgain]

I am going to address this in segments.

One:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cool. That's not what this resolution does. I don't think through this resolution's statement of "assisting peoples struggling with violence, both in foreign lands and at home" actually meant "invade the middle east. spread democracy."  But who knows.

Two:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Keeping our reputation abroad secure is really the major goal of the Secretary of State. State has an important role in foreign peace, undoubtedly, but that isn't the major goal of the Department, and merely a role added on over the years. This resolution's new commissioner will not be taking away that task but doubling down on it, and ensuring that we really put the ideals of peace and non-violence (for both foreign and domestic affairs) on an equal playing field that our other needs and desires are.

Three:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I mentioned, the scope of the resolution is not about the other departments. The mentioning of "peace reports" produced by other departments, is a suggestion, but I think just is not #1 satisfactory to the real demand for peace affairs to be part of the daily dialogue, and #2 seems a bit silly when looking at the fact that these other departments should not be tasked with peace, in comparison to their much more targeted and direct duties. That's why establishing this commissioner to be able to allow these said departments to do their targeted tasked, while also working with them to ensure peace is upheld.

Four:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This resolution is not causing the inactivity of other departments? Their inactivity seems to be the executive's and executive's alone. This actually got me going on the issue of  activity and the demand for it from our executive departments, and so we can address that at a later date (a conversation I would love to have, and we desperately need). But I don't see where this causes a "negative consequence" on the other executive departments. My statement had nothing to do with the perceived negative consequences on other departments, as I see there to be none directly stemming from the establishment of this commissioner.

Five:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, first off, I am sorry to hear you'll not be supporting it. Second of all, I think "making something good out of it" is not really necessary, if your new proposal is not about creating a Commissioner for Peace, which we are here to discuss. Third of all, if you do have amendments or other thoughts, I'd love to hear them.

On the issue of amendments, Mr. Speaker, would you mind clarifying what you mean here:

So any further amendments to remove such wording?

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, first off, I have a hard time seeing a Trumpesque appointment of someone of that nature to this Commission. Secondly, I would doubt that this person (a war seeking hawk, as I believe the analogy is portraying) would accept a position with the set boundaries like this Commissioner, due to the fact that they of course have zero control over our military and are tasked only with peacekeeping operations involving other departments. My "original intentions" are those that are displayed in the bill and I would find it quite impossible to see how such a person would be able to pursue hawkish goals through this Commission. Third off (sidenote), the blame would and should be on the President that would appoint such a person, not this commission's strict guidelines that would likely prevent such a person from being appointed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I am stating the purpose of the Secretary of State. It was designed, originally, to protect and serve Atlasian interests abroad. I entirely think that Peace must be upheld over that, that's why I am so committed to the establishment of this Special Commission.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This office has a clear point - to protect peace. I guess I am in the same boat, on how you think that this makes no sense. I am perfectly fine with disagreement, and in fact thrive on it. You "attempting to explain it to me" is really a pretentious ideal here. I love debate, but when you apparently walk into any discussion with the intent of explaining why they are lesser to your own ideals, and not the disagreements over the issue, then no ground will be made. This is about the Commission of Peace and the possible issues with that, I have been more than happy to address other ideas as I did early on and am doing through discussion.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not "in love" with this idea, I believe it is a necessity in our current world. We see a world that has never been so close to war, specifically nuclear war, since 1953 as shown by the famed doomsday clock. We see a world that is at the threat of man-made global climate change that will cause the polar ice caps to melt leading to the sinking and flooding of many of our world's cities, the decimation of our wildlife both animal and plant, and new massive natural disasters, the likes of which the world has never seen. So, am I in love with this idea? No. I believe that we MUST do this to secure the future of our world.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thank you for your assurance of my rights. I do not believe it is a "bad idea", and I do take offense (as I assume the other members who have and are attempting to build on this idea) that you are making an arbitrary decision to not talk about the content and details of this bill, and instead succumb to petty whines against these ideas that many have spent time trying to improve.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Other's ideas and bills of which you disagree with are "unfortunate episodes"? I would hope that this ideal won't continue as you take your office, as debating on the issues (whether you agree or not), with the knowledge that they deserve to be heard, is central to being a legislature. In any case, I would hope that all legislators who have issues with this bill would come forward before a vote is taken, so they can be addressed with full character.

Thank you.

[NeverAgain]

Me being sure that I am correct on this issue is no more "pretentious" then the idea that a redundant government department can bring us "peace in our time" or whatever.

And don't start lecturing me about peace. I'm more dovish than you are, so trying to win the argument with this anti-war shtick won't cut it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus. You are more than welcome to be sure of your idea, that's the whole point of debate. But, when you get to a point that you seem to be not only entirely discounting the ideas of those that are here, and making personal insults for those whom hold said ideas, that's when it crosses the line. We are here to discuss this issue and it's ramifications alone, and not make judgement calls on myself or other individuals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this is not a Department. It is a Commission. A Commission that will work with and through Executive Departments to ensure that peace programs and ideals are protected in our Government. As we've already established. There is no Department with the direct goal of peace, and even if attempted would hinder their work on their more direct matters. That's why this is so key. A centralization of peace programming is what this establishes. Of course there is overlap, and this Commission will help foster overlap between all parts of the Executive Branch in pursuit of Peace.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This kind of got to me here, I'll address it as it hit me. First off, the implication that I am putting on a facade so that I can what? seem more dovish? is so injurious to my own integrity, I do not know where to begin. I don't know where you are getting your facts on my political positions or stances, or the basics in what I believe of humanity, but you should probably find a new source. Secondly, I am not lecturing you about peace? I am attempting to explain this resolution, in the attempt that we can move beyond petty quibbles, and try to get all sides on board here. I, again, welcome your insight on improving how peace can be addressed, and would love to hear it. But coming to the table, as you have, with a lit match on the proposal before us, doesn't advance anything.

Thirdly. The idea that because you see yourself as more "dovish" (very VERY broad word, and has zero meaning when used in a comparison like this), and therefore reserve more authority on peacemaking and procedure is entirely absurd and frankly offensive to those that may be more "hawkish", but still have more experience than any of us will ever have on these issues in our lives.

Fourthly, going back a bit to what I mentioned earlier. Your framing of me taking days to make this bill, days to argue for it, and now weeks waiting, with baited breath, for a resolution on the matter, as being an anti-war shtick, is either a feeble attempt to once again, with unfounded principle, attack my integrity, or overestimate my desire to please those that view themselves with the broad stroke of "dovishness". Or both. Whatever it is, it needs to stop as we should be and must be focused on this bill in the context of the millions of families all over the world and at home, that will be affected by the decision of this body to organize our peacemaking process to protect their basic humanity.

I ask you to focus on their lives, and not petty attacks on me or my character.

[NeverAgain]

So any further amendments to remove such wording?

I didn't see this because it was at the bottom of a long post and it blended in.


It was a response to previous Enduro posts about the existence of language structured in the form of a suggestion similar to that of the Naturalization Bill when it had lines like "a record of community service would help", which obviously rather vague and so forth. The now former Representative implied such was present in the bill, so I was asking if he planned or desired an amendment to remove such.

Gotcha, I was hoping there wasn't some wording nightmare that needed to be resolved. Anyways. Good stuff.

Are we ready to move to some voting, if no one has more questions? 🐴

[NeverAgain]

I will remind the Representatives that this has been amended to not be a "Department", but instead a separate commission on Peace. This Commission will work with all standing Departments, but is not one itself.

[NeverAgain]

I can understand some of these concerns, and would've loved to talk about them. I am deeply disappointed that some of them were not brought up until now, and were never mentioned at all during the ample time we had for debate. I hope that Representatives do consider legislation fully and bring questions up promptly in the future.