Structure, size and elections of Senate/House (Debating)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Now the vote is closed.

RESULT of the PRINCIPLE VOTE on FLUCTUATING MEMBERSHIP
NAY (14)
AYE (4)
Abstain (3)

With a majority opposed, this proposal has been rejected.

RESULT of the PRINCIPLE VOTE on HOUSE ELECTIONS
At-Large (13)
Districts (5)
Regionally (2)
Abstain (1)

With a majority in favor, the Convention has elected to establish At-Large elections for the House of Representatives.

With these last two principle votes completed, this is what we have so far in terms of a draft of the new National Legislature:

2 House Congress (Senate + House of Reps)
       Senate: 2 Members/Region (6 total), Region's regulate elections
       House: 9 Members, elected at-large (PR)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I think it would be a good idea to include a general description of how the House should be elected, but we needn't make it too technical. Something akin to Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution would be appropriate: we would simply state the basic process for electing Representatives and leave the details to Congress.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I will introduce an amendment incorporating the results of the last several principle votes shortly.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Changes Made by This Amendment

• Incorporates VP as "President of Congress"; allows him to break ties in the Senate (1.2)
• Incorporates Principle Vote to leave Senate elections to the Regions (2.1)
• Outlines impeachment procedure (2.5, 3.4)
• Renames Senate PPT the "Senatus Princeps" (PPT literally translates to "president for the time being," which is a strange title for the permanent presiding officer) (2.3)
• Sets HoR size at 9 Members, elected at-large (3.1)
• Allows each chamber to establish its own rules of order (4.1, 4.2)
• Outlines legislative process
• Incorporates result of principle vote on Federal Powers (6.1)
• Incorporates limits on Congressional authority found in US Constitution (7.1-7.5)

Delegates have 24 hours to object to Truman's amendment. HOWEVER, because it will be much easier to adopt this amendment and then make changes as necessary that it would be to reject this text and then start again from scratch, I respectfully ask that you refrain from objecting to this amendment. This is by no means a final text nor is it intended to settle every question before us: rather, my objective was to incorporate the changes made by the last several principle votes and to move to a text closer stylistically to the other Articles currently being drafted.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seeing no objection, Truman's amendment has been ADOPTED.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Thoughts? I know it's finals season/the holidays, but we can't afford to let the debate die.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

     Interesting point about the name of the PPT. It reflects the difference in the role in the United States versus Atlasia, so I agree that we should have a more fitting name for it.

I suppose I agree, just as long as it is not a Senate Speaker, and is something similar to a Senate President, I'll be fine with it.

We could use Prime Minister (or similar) to avoid confusion of having two people with 'President' in their title - and as PMs are generally Heads of Government and Presidents are generally Heads of State.

I'd rather we abstained from using parliamentary titles, especially considering the existence of the Mock Parliament game. Calling the Senate leader "Prime Minister" might also create confusion for those familiar with parliamentary systems, as the post would not have any executive powers. I proposed "Senatus Princeps" (literally "Senate Leader") because that was the title given to the most senior member of the Roman Senate, a position that bears certain similarities to our PPT. I agree that we should avoid something along the lines of Senate President, especially considering that the VP has been styled "President of the Congress" - such only leads to confusion.

If there is a strong desire among the delegates to replace "Senatus Princeps" with another title, we could hold a quick principle vote to settle the matter.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I agree, clearly we do not want to be using parliamentary titles, but we should not be using Latin terms either.

To be fair, "President Pro Tempore" is Latin as well, and Atlasia has obvious historical ties to the Roman Republic. I don't want to get into a long argument about names, however; is there another title you would prefer? We've already named the House leader the "Speaker" and the VP the "President of Congress," so the two most obvious titles are in use. I suppose we could always just leave it up to the Senate itself (in fact, that might be the best option).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I agree, clearly we do not want to be using parliamentary titles, but we should not be using Latin terms either.

To be fair, "President Pro Tempore" is Latin as well, and Atlasia has obvious historical ties to the Roman Republic. I don't want to get into a long argument about names, however; is there another title you would prefer? We've already named the House leader the "Speaker" and the VP the "President of Congress," so the two most obvious titles are in use. I suppose we could always just leave it up to the Senate itself (in fact, that might be the best option).

Does the Vice President need an additional title? Although, as you said, it will be best to leave it up the the Senate.

I think it's important, constitutionally speaking, to distinguish the VP's role as President of Congress from his role in the Administration. In the past, we've had vice presidents who have played an important role in advancing the president's agenda, even serving on the cabinet. I see this as a good thing (it prevents the office from becoming the "bucket of warm piss" that it was under the U.S. Constitution), but it's important to separate these partisan responsibilities from the nonpartisan job of coordinating the two houses of Congress. On a more stylistic note, naming the VP the "President of Congress" allows us to allude to this second duty without launching into a long-winded, legalistic description of the post (one that would almost certainly be imperfect and subject to frequent amendments, as the VP's current role as President of the Senate has been).


I hereby introduce a motion to strike the title "Senatus Princeps" from the text and replace it with the word "leader," allowing the Senate to select their presiding officer's title. Delegates have 24 hours to object.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Very well. A vote is now open on Truman's proposal. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain. Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

By a vote of 10 AYES, 0 NAYS, 5 Abstentions, and with two votes invalid and eight members not voting, this amendment has been ADOPTED.

The text for this Article is now as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I like the idea of president of congress.
Although I would like to be defined in the constitution as well.

I think it would be best to leave the duties of Congressional officers to Congress itself. That way, tweaks to the legislative process can be accomplished quickly, rather than through the drawn-out process for amending the Constitution.

On another note, I've been thinking about the limitations on simultaneous officeholding. I'm thinking something along these lines:

- No person may hold the office of President or Supreme Court Justice simultaneously with any other office
- No member of Congress may serve as a member of both houses simultaneously
- No member of Congress may simultaneously serve as VP
- No Representative may serve simultaneously as Senator or as a Governor
- No Senator may serve simultaneously as a Representative or as a member of a Regional government
- Members of Congress CAN serve as cabinet secretaries, as can the VP
- Representatives CAN serve simultaneously as members of their Regional legislature/judiciary

The last measure is intended to boost interest in serving in the House: based on the structure of that branch, the workload per Representative should be lighter, so it shouldn't be a problem for a member of the House to serve simultaneously in the Regional legislature/judiciary. I exempted the Senate from this provision because potentially the Regional legislatures might elect the Senate and because the workload for that body would be presumably greater.

I'd be interested to hear any thoughts y'all might have on the matter.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

So nine members of the House, and two Senators per region...doesn't that seem like a lot?

Be that as it may, both of the questions you raised have already been answered by a democratic vote of this chamber: for good or ill (and I am inclined to say the former), the House of Representatives shall consist of nine members and the national map of three Regions. Those issues are no longer on the table for further debate. You are free to introduce an amendment limiting each Region to one Senator, but I would advise against it: a three-member Senate would be too small to appropriately represent the will of the electorate and would be disproportionately more influential than the House (as each Senator would be, in effect, the equivalent of three Representatives).

I don't discount the danger of governmental bloating, however: this is why I suggested allowing citizens to serve as members of the House and as Regional legislators simultaneously. Keep in mind that we are already reducing the number of offices nationally as a result of consolidation: under the current plan, there would be 40 Regional and federal offices, as opposed to 53 currently.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

So nine members of the House, and two Senators per region...doesn't that seem like a lot? Even if we cut it down to three or four regions, that's still at least 15 Congressmen, compared to the 10 Senators we have now. Maybe keep one regional Senator, and have, say, seven members of the House?

Or one regional Senator and then two House members per region. Leaving there to be 9 legislators for the 3 regions.

Again, as I stated above, we have already held principle votes on the size and structure of the House of Representatives. The democratically-expressed will of the Convention is for the House to consist of 9 members elected At-Large by the national electorate. We are not re-litigating these issues.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

So nine members of the House, and two Senators per region...doesn't that seem like a lot? Even if we cut it down to three or four regions, that's still at least 15 Congressmen, compared to the 10 Senators we have now. Maybe keep one regional Senator, and have, say, seven members of the House?

Or one regional Senator and then two House members per region. Leaving there to be 9 legislators for the 3 regions.

Again, as I stated above, we have already held principle votes on the size and structure of the House of Representatives. The democratically-expressed will of the Convention is for the House to consist of 9 members elected At-Large by the national electorate. We are not re-litigating these issues.

My apologies, I didn't see that before responding.

No worries - just so long as we're on the same page.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Alright, folks, lets get this show on the road! The current text of this Article, as of the adoption of the most recent motion, can be read here. I ask that every delegate take a moment to read through this text and wrack their brains for any last-minute alterations or additions that might need to be made. If there is no further debate, I WILL CALL A FINAL VOTE ON THIS ARTICLE IN 48 HOURS TIME. If you have ANY questions or concerns about this Article, I ask that you send me a PM or post them in this thread sometime the next two days; otherwise, I will assume that everything is perfect and will go ahead with the final vote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I motion for a final vote on this Article. Delegates have 24 hours to object.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

A final vote is now open on this Article. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain. Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

By a vote of 15 Ayes, 0 Nays, and with eight delegates not voting, this Article has been ADOPTED.

As such, I hereby declare debate to be CLOSED in this thread.