Game Moderator Replacement Bill (Law'd)

[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.

[Ebowed]

Purple State, I don't know where you keep getting this 'precedent' stuff from.  There is no precedent that the Senate has the power to remove any presidential appointee, except through impeachment.

I suggest you check up on one of the court cases already regarding this matter...

[Smid]

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.

I agree, which is why this Bill is a simplification.

[afleitch]

Changing my vote to Aye.

Screw it, let's have a court case

[Marokai Backbeat]

Changing my vote to Aye.

Screw it, let's have a court case

Wore you down in private, did they?

[Ebowed]

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.

As written by the Supreme Court:

"Even when the officials do not belong to the executive branch (for example, judges), the President is responsible for their appointment. The only exception to this principle is that the legislative branch appoints its own officers. However, this exception is not relevant here; the Game Moderator is clearly not a legislative officer like the President pro tempore."

How exactly do you hope to get 10 people to appoint 1 person, btw?

[afleitch]

Changing my vote to Aye.

Screw it, let's have a court case

Wore you down in private, did they?

To be honest, I still think it's likely to be unconstitutional. But we need a court case to test this.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Changing my vote to Aye.

Screw it, let's have a court case

Wore you down in private, did they?

To be honest, I still think it's likely to be unconstitutional. But we need a court case to test this.

     I'll admit that a major factor in me changing my vote was that I felt confident that if it is indeed unconstitutional a court case would result in its nullification swiftly enough.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

[Smid]

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

Start preparing your brief, mate... I think the President is going to want you to challenge this one...

[MasterJedi]

I'm almost positive we need to do this on veto overrides so: This veto override has enough votes to pass. Senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

[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?

[Franzl]

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?

[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.

[Franzl]

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?

[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.

[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.

[Franzl]

Well that's fine....I respect your opinion, of course.

It'll be interesting to see in court, won't it?

We can always resort to a Constitutional Amendment, as proposed by Purple State, should the need arise.

[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.

[MasterJedi]

With 7 Ayes, 1 Nay and 0 Abstentions this veto override has passed and this bill becomes law.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Wiki'd!

[bgwah]

The Senate's tyranny shan't go unchallenged!