Game Moderator Replacement Bill (Law'd)

[Smid]

Aye.

[afleitch]

I am going to Abstain on this one. Bacon King's post has caused a little 'itch.'

[Marokai Backbeat]

Though I hate intruding on Senate business, I must say speaking simply as a citizen I fear the precedent this would set. What's to stop the Senate from removing the Secretary of Forum Affairs, or any other position, perhaps even the one I hold? If you have that authority, or can give yourselves that authority, what's the point of the President's power in this area anyway?

This is definitely an expansion of legislative power over the executive that I'm a little worried about where it could lead to. I sympathize with what you're trying to do, but breaching the separation of powers in such a way is not the proper route.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I am going to Abstain on this one. Bacon King's post has caused a little 'itch.'

     I shall abstain as well. I strongly oppose violating the Constitution for any reason, & I have found Bacon King's argument to be rather persuasive.

[Purple State]

Aye

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

[Marokai Backbeat]

Would this Senate just like to abolish the Presidency?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Devilman88]

I agree with Sen. Purple State. A position like that should be up to the Senate or the citizens of Atlasia, not the president. (Sorry, but I had to put my two cents in.)

[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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Can we all remember this isn't a Parliamentary system yet, please?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[HappyWarrior]

Aye.  The Game Moderator should simply be someone active and should be removable from office if he does a lax job as Ebowed has over the past few months.  I do not understand why President Jesus has kept him on for as long as he has.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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.

[Ebowed]

     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.

[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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Smid]

Since the GM doesn't exist in any practical role, perhaps we should abolish the position, and then re-establish it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Since the GM doesn't exist in any practical role, perhaps we should abolish the position, and then re-establish it.

     Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through just to get an inactive GM out of office.