Game Moderator Replacement Bill (Law'd)

[Purple State]

I support this.  We after all do need an active Game Moderator to make the post effective.

Absolutely. I have yet to see real activity by the GM during my time in Atlasia. It is about time someone else took over the seat and this bill increases the likelihood that whoever takes over will be more active.

[Purple State]

I support this.  We after all do need an active Game Moderator to make the post effective.

I suspect you'll need more than that...

It definitely can't hurt...

[Purple State]

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.

A vacancy wouldn't seem too far from what we have now. Better we take the chance of getting a semi-active one than what we have now.

Ebowed may not have done a lot as GM, but the Senate didn't seem to respond when he did so I can see why he quit bothering.

I can't speak for before I entered the game, but the GM shouldn't be about posting a little thing every few weeks. If you are going to start a civil war in Canada there needs to be daily updates on what progress is happening. If the Daily Grind was updated semi-daily with events around the nation, from foreign policy to the economy, things would be far more interesting. The only issue is that the GM is really a crappy job. There is absolutely no incentive for anyone to want it. So either that needs to change or we should scrap the position and use the "real world," as afleitch said, as our mod.

[Purple State]

I am pretty sure the GM isn't in the Constitution at all? It was a position established by the Senate and, as such, can be regulated by the Senate. The power to create is the power to destroy.

[Purple State]

Perhaps allowing the GM to hold another office could help. Most active members hold some sort of office so it's tough to find a GM otherwise.

[Purple State]

As do I, but for future GMs. And I considered the "conflict of interest" part, but if we can remove the GM for grandstanding it shouldn't be a problem. I don't see a GM causing a massive earthquake killing the President or anything. Doesn't seem like it can be that harmful. We are all (mostly) rational people. Just don't let Xahar get his hands on it.

[Purple State]

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

Sounds good.

Aye

[Purple State]

Aye

[Purple State]

Aye

If this is unconstitutional there will be an Amendment to the Constitution.

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

Remind me why the original GM Act does not provide the precedent for the Senate to contribute to the control of the GM's position. That was clearly deemed as necessary in order for the President to appoint the GM. As the position is not in the Constitution, in addition to the acceptance of past Presidents of the GM position as a partnership between the presidency and Senate, I do not believe the GM falls under the President's "Principal Officers" clause.

As such, I would strongly urge Senators to change their votes to Aye and allow me to defend this legislation in court if it comes to that.

[Purple State]

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.

I didn't even propose the bill. I simply see the President and those he appoints as the aging dinosaurs of Atlasia, intent of allowing the game to fall into inactivity. I want robust and expansionary developments in my time as a Senator and I think this bill is a good start. I really don't care if the Senate or President is appointing the GM, so long as the GM is active. The President has made it clear that is not his agenda and I find it terribly upsetting to watch him squander the opportunity to make the game better.

As such, I think it is perfectly within the Senate's right, as made clear by Al when signing the GM Act, that the position is about cooperation between the Senate and President, rather than a Presidential appointment as described in the Constitution. As such, this bill is constitutional.

[Purple State]

     I'll change my vote to Aye, as Senator Purple State has assured me that he believes that there is a strong case to be made in favor of this bill's constitutionality.

Given that he does not know where the GM is actually mentioned in the constitution, and he is calling this bill constitutional on the basis that the Senate has previously expanded its power in this area before without constitutional justification, I would seriously question that.

Rhetorical question. It is mentioned once in the Budget Section of Article I. The only allusion to the process by which the GM is created in the GM Act, which essentially removes it from inclusion as a "Principle Officer" of the President, but rather a joint creation of the Senate and President through statute. That makes it the right of the Senate to change, by statute, assuming legislation passes with the President's signature or overridden veto. I can explain all of this more fully in a court case if you bring one.

[Purple State]

Why would I need to bring a court case?  Given that this bill is unconstitutional, as proven by the fact that you just introduced a constitutional amendment to ALLOW this bill... lol.

I'm sorry, but come on.

It's a backup in the queue in case the justices don't see it my way. But I trust they will when I present my case.

[Purple State]

This is one of those "letter of/spirit of" situations, in my mind. Unfortunately I'm unsure if this is truly unconstitutional (although the fact that you were concerned about it enough to propose a Constitutional Amendment to give yourselves power in this area raises questions), however, it's still an unprecedented overreach of legislative power, and the same justification can be made for wanting to remove any cabinet member, and talking about the "voice of the people being heard" is silliness, since the President is elected far more directly than the Senators here.

Another of my concerns isn't just that the Senate is sticking it's nose in what was granted as an executive decision, but that you're essentially instituting something that allows the legislature to go back in time an dethrone a GM that was selected by the President according the letter of the law, simply because you don't like him.

If you're going to start introducing constitutional amendments to give authority to (or reinforce) yourselves to remove a Game Moderator (which was never even remotely in the legislature's power) the logical conclusion of that way of thinking is to propose laws & amendments to give yourselves authority to intervene in any executive decisions if this body deems it fit to do so. This is not a parliament, and powers are separated, and the minute you start going back on previous decisions to remove people appointed to power by the President, you violate the spirit of the Separation of Powers and the very idea that this is a Presidential system at all.

I placed the Amendment in the queue to ensure that if someone proved the unconstitutionality of this bill that there was a backup plan in the wings. I also was in the process of a heated debate in which I had not fully developed the constitutional backing of my argument.

I do not claim our power to simply remove any and all presidential appointees. However, precedent in the case of the GM appears to indicate that the position was never intended as a "Principle Officer," but rather as a unique position determined by the President and Senate. As such, it is within the rights of this body to modify the position as it sees fit. The GM is very special and requires additional checks to ensure activity and discourage abuse of the position.

[Purple State]

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?

Not to mention, the Cabinet Restructuring Act specifically creates these positions as Executive Departments, while the GM Act does no such thing and clearly sets the role of the Senate in a position of authority over the GM.

That's a terrible way to pass bills, IMO. But such is the prerogative of the Senate,

I think there is enough gray area here that it warrants a constitutional test.

[Purple State]

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.

And I apologize for insinuating as such. I believe I may have let things get out of hand when Ebowed began posting his opposition and posted a Daily Grind update that appeared to simply target the Senate as retribution. The purpose of this bill, as I interpret from its sponsors, is simply to spur activity in Atlasia by allowing us to move beyond the inactivity of the current GM. I have no intention of yanking this power forthrightly from the hands of the President and will remove my proposed amendment from the queue as a show of good faith.

I hear where you are coming from and respectfully disagree regarding the constitutionality of this legislation. I imagine this will be an interesting case for the courts and I look forward to making that case with the permission of the Senate.