Game Moderator Replacement Bill (Law'd)

[Bacon King]

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.

[Bacon King]

Nay.

Sorry for not being here when cloture and final vote was sped through, but the Senate lacks authority to assert itself here.

Even if you want to assume that the GM should be treated as any other presidential appointment (which it's clearly not), this would still be an unconstitutional and unprecedented breach of the executive's power. Does the Senate have the authority to unilaterally remove, say, the SOFA, based on a simple parliamentary motion?

If the Game Moderator is inactive it's the President's responsibility to remove him. Anything else would be total disrespect of the principle of separation of powers on which Atlasia is based.

[Bacon King]

Would this Senate just like to abolish the Presidency?

Give us some time, would you?

Can someone give me the reference to the GM in the Constitution? Or do we simply count this as someone the President appoints for himself? If so, I would like to simply bring a bill to establish our own GM and ignored the President's. We can appoint our own officials as well.

If we go down that road, then we might as well start appointing our own president and governors too because that is just as Constitutionally unsound.

You do understand how liberal republican government is supposed to work, right? Separation of powers? Baron de Montesquieu and all that?

[Bacon King]

Would this Senate just like to abolish the Presidency?

Give us some time, would you?

Can someone give me the reference to the GM in the Constitution? Or do we simply count this as someone the President appoints for himself? If so, I would like to simply bring a bill to establish our own GM and ignored the President's. We can appoint our own officials as well.

If we go down that road, then we might as well start appointing our own president and governors too because that is just as Constitutionally unsound.

You do understand how liberal republican government is supposed to work, right? Separation of powers? Baron de Montesquieu and all that?

The GM has nothing to do with the President. It is not a position regarding policy or legislation. It is like the game's intelligent designer. Nothing in the Constitution gives the President the power to simply pick that person. Shouldn't the people, who we represent, have more of a say in who this person is? The Senate should appoint a GM, have the power to remove that GM, etc.

Why should the Senate do this, exactly? There is no precedent at all for the legislature to make appointments, or fire someone (besides impeachments).

I also don't understand your plea to "the people" because the President is, y'know, directly elected by "the people" and everything.

[Bacon King]

The Senate appoints a PPT and there is no constitutional prohibition for the Senate to appoint a GM as an officer of its body, as the GM is not much more than a necessary part of the Senate's ability to function.

PPT is an internal officer of the Senate. The Game Moderator is in no way directly affiliated with the Senate, nor should it be. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Your comments have made clear to me, Purple State, that this bill is nothing but an attempt at a legislative power-play. I want nothing to do with it.

[Bacon King]

A question to those who have voted for this bill. The argument seems to be, for the basis of this bill's legality, that the Senate can somehow remove a Game Moderator without impeachment because the Senate also passed the bill saying that the President can appoint a Game Moderator.

By this philosophy, I'd like to inform all of you that we've had the power to remove anyone in the President's cabinet at will for three years now. I repeat my call that this bill is an egregious breach of this body's constitutional authority and should not be passed.

I urge my fellow Senators to change their votes. It is clearly unconstitutional. Is an annoying an prolonged court case really worth it, considering that this bill does nothing but send a signal of our aggression against the executive's defined power anyway?

[Bacon King]

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.

[Bacon King]

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?

Because this modification is excessive. It unilaterally shifts a presidential responsibility to the legislature just because we think we can do it better.

I must admit that my opposition to this bill became heated after Purple State insinuated that the President doesn't represent the people and that it is rightful of the Senate to take away from the executive what he doesn't do well. I viewed these comments as inflammitory, incorrect, and undemocratic; from these remarks I believe I misinterpreted the intent of the bill's sponsors. I apologize.

Regardless, however, I remain firm that this bill is both unconstitutional and excessive in reach. I suppose now we'll see in court.