The White House (Jan 2006)

[Max Power]

The President appreciates this kind gift, and in return, has nominated Lt. Gov. Everett to the position of Ambassador to the UN.

Bribery!

Something  tells me this isn't the last we'll hear of the Teapot Cheesecake Dome U.N. Deal, Q.

[12th Doctor]

This just in. 

It appears that members of the outgoing administration, under the direction of campaign directors of  Vice-President Emsworth's campaign, have vandalized the White House, stealing all the coffee makers and coffee cups in the building.  This was accompanied by a message writen on a bathroom wall, in lip stick, which read "NO JOE IN THE WHITE HOUSE".

More on this story as it develops.

[Joe Republic]

Luckily I don't drink coffee or use the women's bathroom, so the vandalism doesn't affect me one bit.

[12th Doctor]

Luckily I don't drink coffee or use the women's bathroom, so the vandalism doesn't affect me one bit.

It was the men's room.

[Joe Republic]

Luckily I don't drink coffee or use the women's bathroom, so the vandalism doesn't affect me one bit.

It was the men's room.

Somebody working in the White House uses lipstick in the men's room?  I didn't think Naso still worked here.

[Max Power]

Luckily I don't......use the women's bathroom

You don't?!?

Somebody working in the White House uses lipstick in the men's room?  I didn't think Naso still worked here.

Naso doesn't work there. He does, however, live in the White House basement. It's the president's responsibility to feed him and to give him something to drink, plus letting outside every day (don't worry, the White House has an electric fence, so he won't run away.

[Joe Republic]

Good evening, once again.

I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate all of my Cabinet nominees on their successful confirmations, and to thank the Senate for conducting the hearings with maturity and expediency.  I would also like to congratulate Senator Al on his election as President Pro Tempore.  The Senate has clearly made the right choice, and I look forward to working with him over the coming months.
   
And now to business, as they say.

I would firstly like to tackle the budget.  Although it has already been mentioned that it needn’t be a top priority on the agenda any more, especially given the pressing concerns surrounding forum affairs reform, I am still keen to see it completed.  Given the ailing state of the deficit, it is certainly a top priority to me that we don’t let it get worse by prolonging the inevitable task ahead.

The next item on my agenda is an amendment to the Official Senate Procedural Resolution, whereby allowing the President the power to introduce legislation directly to the Senate.  I am currently in the process of drafting this amendment, and seeking sponsorship from a senator.  I realize that there may be some sizeable opposition to this measure, but I would like to assure any concerned citizens that this is merely a procedural formality.  There is no possible way that such a power could possibly be abused, as all existing checks and balances will of course remain in place.

In closing, I would like to again turn to the issue of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s concerns about our newly confirmed Secretary of State, True Independent.  I understand your concerns, Mr. Prime Minister, but once again I assure you that his interests are a vivid reflection of those shared by all Israelis who wish for peace.  His comments on the security wall were made in the spirit of compromise, which of course is a tenet that is essential throughout the entire peace negotiations.  I urge you and your government to respect his positions, and appreciate the hard work he will undertake for your proud nation.

Thank you, good night, and Dave bless Atlasia.

[Ebowed]

The next item on my agenda is an amendment to the Official Senate Procedural Resolution, whereby allowing the President the power to introduce legislation directly to the Senate.  I am currently in the process of drafting this amendment, and seeking sponsorship from a senator.  I realize that there may be some sizeable opposition to this measure, but I would like to assure any concerned citizens that this is merely a procedural formality.  There is no possible way that such a power could possibly be abused, as all existing checks and balances will of course remain in place.

If it's only a mere procedural formality, why is there such a big fuss over it?  Easy:  because it's not just a formality.  It would critically alter the way the Senate does its business.  The fact remains that you are trying to make it so that the President can just introduce legislation to the Senate without having the sponsorship of any of the people who would actually vote on the bill's passage.  That doesn't even make any sense.  If you have legislation to propose, a Senator should be willing to sponsor it for you.  If it's so bad that no Senator will sponsor it, then that means either the Senate is out-of-touch with Atlasia, or the President is:  the former has ten persons while the latter is one person, so take a guess.

There was also talk of making presidentially introduced legislation with "special priority":  I see no reason that Senators who were elected to write bills have their bills shafted to the back of the queue in favor of bills written by someone elected to sign or veto said bills.

Regardless of all this above, your defense of this idea sounds like a chapter right out of Bush's defense of the USA PATRIOT Act.

[Joe Republic]

If it's only a mere procedural formality, why is there such a big fuss over it?  Easy:  because it's not just a formality.  It would critically alter the way the Senate does its business.

Not really.  In fact, that's quite a big over-estimation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It makes perfect sense.  The issue I have is not so much that I fear the bill will not be supported by a single senator.  It is the fact that I have to submit my bill to a senator, wait for them to read it, wait for a response from them to see if they like it and then wait for them to introduce it.  Then, if I realize I made a slight mistake or forgot something just after it's introduced, I then have to contact the senator again, tell them my amendment, and then wait for them to amend that post.  This change is a step toward better political expediency, not merely a way to lord it over the Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it turns out that no senator would support the bill in the first place, then obviously that would mean the bill would fail, and I would hardly be in a position to complain about it.  Therefore, the balance of power would remain firmly in place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I realize this might seem just a little unfair, and therefore I've been working on a compromise idea.  While senators' legislation is guaranteed one of four spots on the Senate floor, as is now, presidential legislation would be given a fifth spot as and when it is introduced (subject to a similar queue).  This does not change the order of business as far as senators are concerned, and presidential legislation is therefore treated as 'additional' to Senate business.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not defending the suppression of civil rights here.  I'm defending a procedural amendment, the effect of which is being vastly overstated by yourself.

[Bono]

If it's only a mere procedural formality, why is there such a big fuss over it?  Easy:  because it's not just a formality.  It would critically alter the way the Senate does its business.

Not really.  In fact, that's quite a big over-estimation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It makes perfect sense.  The issue I have is not so much that I fear the bill will not be supported by a single senator.  It is the fact that I have to submit my bill to a senator, wait for them to read it, wait for a response from them to see if they like it and then wait for them to introduce it.  Then, if I realize I made a slight mistake or forgot something just after it's introduced, I then have to contact the senator again, tell them my amendment, and then wait for them to amend that post.  This change is a step toward better political expediency, not merely a way to lord it over the Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it turns out that no senator would support the bill in the first place, then obviously that would mean the bill would fail, and I would hardly be in a position to complain about it.  Therefore, the balance of power would remain firmly in place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I realize this might seem just a little unfair, and therefore I've been working on a compromise idea.  While senators' legislation is guaranteed one of four spots on the Senate floor, as is now, presidential legislation would be given a fifth spot as and when it is introduced (subject to a similar queue).  This does not change the order of business as far as senators are concerned, and presidential legislation is therefore treated as 'additional' to Senate business.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not defending the suppression of civil rights here.  I'm defending a procedural amendment, the effect of which is being vastly overstated by yourself.

The effective elimination of the separation of powers is a supression of civil rights.

[Joe Republic]

What?  Like I said, all existing checks and balances are still in place.  I won't be getting a vote in the Senate, and the senators will still debate and vote on bills as usual.

In any case, my second-in-command already has a casting vote and various administrative duties in the Senate, so I'm not sure what aspect of the separation of powers you're concerned about now.

[Bono]

What?  Like I said, all existing checks and balances are still in place.  I won't be getting a vote in the Senate, and the senators will still debate and vote on bills as usual.

In any case, my second-in-command already has a casting vote and various administrative duties in the Senate, so I'm not sure what aspect of the separation of powers you're concerned about now.

I'm concerned that the power of the president is to put laws into action, not to write them, adn this fundamentally changes that.
As for the VP, his vote comes from his position as President of the Senate, not as VP.

[Ebowed]

It makes perfect sense.  The issue I have is not so much that I fear the bill will not be supported by a single senator.  It is the fact that I have to submit my bill to a senator, wait for them to read it, wait for a response from them to see if they like it and then wait for them to introduce it.  Then, if I realize I made a slight mistake or forgot something just after it's introduced, I then have to contact the senator again, tell them my amendment, and then wait for them to amend that post.  This change is a step toward better political expediency, not merely a way to lord it over the Senate.

So in other words, the problem here is impatience.  Apparently you're too good to wait to have your bill introduced like everyone else, when that isn't even the job you were elected to do.  You may as well change your title to "Nationwide Senator."

The fact is, everyone goes through this process; none of the constituents who have written bills for me have ever told me that they should just be able to propose it themselves, because - this may come as a surprise - they weren't elected to propose bills.

And if a Senator takes a while to review a bill you want introduced, consider it a good thing- they're going to eventually vote on the bill, anyway.  You'll never vote on it, just sign it assuming it passes.

If it turns out that no senator would support the bill in the first place, then obviously that would mean the bill would fail, and I would hardly be in a position to complain about it.  Therefore, the balance of power would remain firmly in place.

Well, yes; a bill introduced without the help of anyone who would actually vote on the bill's passage does not look too good in the Senate.  Anyway, as learned from above, your intention in doing this is impatience and expansion of presidential powers, not introducing bills that nobody in the Senate will support.  I apologize for misjudging your intentions.

I realize this might seem just a little unfair, and therefore I've been working on a compromise idea.  While senators' legislation is guaranteed one of four spots on the Senate floor, as is now, presidential legislation would be given a fifth spot as and when it is introduced (subject to a similar queue).  This does not change the order of business as far as senators are concerned, and presidential legislation is therefore treated as 'additional' to Senate business.

Ah, excellent; finally, a loophole to take advantage of.  Say, Mr. President, I've got a great bill but I don't think it should wait its turn.  Mind introducing it for me?

I'm not defending the suppression of civil rights here.  I'm defending a procedural amendment, the effect of which is being vastly overstated by yourself.

I'm not overstating anything.  You want to:
1. Change how the Senate does its business;
2. Change what you are elected to do;
3. Allow bills introduced by one person to go to the floor immediately, regardless of their urgency.

I was not comparing this bill to violations of civil rights, just your defense of it.  "It's a mere procedural formality; this won't be abused; all the checks and balances remain in place," etc.  Sounds like someone defending the PATRIOT Act, that's all.

[Joe Republic]

I'll respond to this later when I have time, and after I get over just how rude you are.

Edit:  Actually, I won't bother.  I think a more sensible place for this argument would be in the actual Senate debate, when it takes place.

[Ebowed]

I'll respond to this later when I have time, and after I get over just how rude you are.

Edit:  Actually, I won't bother.  I think a more sensible place for this argument would be in the actual Senate debate, when it takes place.

Questioning your intentions and pointing out a loophole in your proposal is more snarky than rude.  Certainly I've been snarky, but only to get my points across.  When I write in my typical style of speaking like this, fewer people bother to read it.  It is nothing personal at all Joe, this is just, IMO, a bad plan and I'm giving my reasons why I believe so.

We shall debate this in the Senate, then.

[Max Power]

So it would make the President somewhat like the D.C. Representative, where they can introduce and debate legislation, but they can't vote on it, Joe?

[Joe Republic]

So it would make the President somewhat like the D.C. Representative, where they can introduce and debate legislation, but they can't vote on it, Joe?

That's pretty much exactly it, but also that presidential legislation would be treated as 'additional' to the Senate's usual business.

[Gabu]

Well, on one hand, I can't really see why allowing the President to introduce legislation is necessary, given that he can just get a senator to do something...

...but, on the other hand, I can't really see how it would particularly hurt.  It's true that a president could potentially abuse this by introducing a huge deluge of bills to clog up the Senate's business, but so could a senator.

I will say, however, that I don't think any special preference should be given to presidential legislation.  Even if we ignore the problem that has already been stated that senators could just get the president to introduce something, thereby having the legislation shoot to the front of the line, I really don't see how such a provision could help anything.  There seem to be a lot more potential abuses of such a thing than what is made up for by its benefits.

[MasterJedi]

I'd support the President being able to introduce legislation but I won't support it if it has special priority.

[Sam Spade]

So, when is the President going to get a Senator to introduce his legislation so that he won't have to get a Senator to introduce his legislation no more?

[Joe Republic]

...but, on the other hand, I can't really see how it would particularly hurt.  It's true that a president could potentially abuse this by introducing a huge deluge of bills to clog up the Senate's business, but so could a senator.

I will say, however, that I don't think any special preference should be given to presidential legislation.  Even if we ignore the problem that has already been stated that senators could just get the president to introduce something, thereby having the legislation shoot to the front of the line, I really don't see how such a provision could help anything.  There seem to be a lot more potential abuses of such a thing than what is made up for by its benefits.

My compromise idea will address both concerns outlined in both paragraphs.  It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best anyway.

As we know, four spaces are granted for all legislation at any one time.  I plan to allow a fifth place to be opened up, specifically for presidential legislation.  There would only be one extra space, so for argument's sake, if I introduced a deluge of bills, they would each have to wait their respective turns for that single space.

As you can see, this does not actually affect the current system for legislation introduced by senators.  Nobody's bills would be 'shunted back' by presidential legislation, because they would be treated as a separate queue.

[Joe Republic]

I'd support the President being able to introduce legislation but I won't support it if it has special priority.

Please see my response above, as I hope it addresses that concern.

[Joe Republic]

So, when is the President going to get a Senator to introduce his legislation so that he won't have to get a Senator to introduce his legislation no more?

I'm still in the process of drafting it.  The OSPR is quite complex in terms of formulating amendments, and I also need to check for constitutional conflicts.  It should be ready within a reasonable amount of time, i.e. soon.

[Joe Republic]

Greetings once again.  I just have two announcements to make.

Supreme Court nominations

It gives me great pleasure to announce my choices for the Supreme Court vacancy.  After a great deal of thought, and some very helpful advice from my Cabinet, I have concluded that Associate Justice Peter Bell is clearly the most suitable person for the position of Chief Justice.  I can't think of anybody more qualified to interpret our Constitution than the man who wrote most of it.

This of course leaves a vacancy in the Associate Justice position.  Of all Atlasian citizens, only a select few are so keen and so well-versed in constitutional law in general.  Of these few, I believe Emsworth is clearly the most suitable for a position on our Supreme Court.

Once again, I would like to take the opportunity to commend former Chief Justice KEmperor on his incredible tenure.  He has truly set the standard for all who will follow him.

First Cabinet meeting

Last night from approx. 2000-2045 EST, a Cabinet meeting was held to discuss various pressing issues of the day.  Present at the meeting was myself, Attorney General Brandon H, and Secretaries Supersoulty, Dubya and Alcon.  Vice President Defarge and Secretary True Independent sent their apologies.

Although specific details and the transcript will remain confidential, I will say that the general topics of discussion included the Supreme Court nominations; a plan to dramatically reform the Dept of Forum Affairs; a preliminary plan for a new voting system; and reform ideas for the defense budget and relevant policy.

I'd like to thank the Cabinet members for attending.

[Emsworth]

Mr. President, thank you for the nomination. I look forward to the confirmation hearings, and (if confirmed) to serving alongside Peter Bell and Ernest.