|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 9, 2015 23:44:10 GMT
Parliamentary Head Establishment Act [PHEA]
NOTING that there is an inherent imbalance between Cabinet and Parliament. CONCERNED that this imbalance is damaging towards the parliament. NOTING that the ability for Cabinet ministers to vote in parliament is a right given to them by the constitution and should not be tampered with. Further NOTING that political parties play a lackluster role in the region. WISHING to expand the role of political parties within the region.
THIS BILL HEREBY DECLARES:
Section 1.
I. The non-cabinet position of 'Head of Parliament (henceforth known as HoP) will be established. II. This position is under the administration of the MoIA and derives all such power from the Internal Affairs office. III.The position is not to be connected to or influenced by the Cabinet unless outlined below. IV. Cabinet ministers cannot hold this position nor can the Lord-Chancellor or the Chancellor. V.The position is to be displayed on the World Factbook Entry, but must be separate from the Cabinet (See: Chief Justice's positioning) Section 2.
I.The position will be assigned by the leader(s) of the political party with the largest amount of memberstates in the region II.The position will have a term lasting two (2) months. III.The HoP can only be re-assigned if the incumbant HoP resigns or the term ends. IV. If the assigning party loses half of its memberstates and is no longer the largest regional party the HoP must resign and be re-assigned by the largest regional party. V. If the HoP leaves their political party they must resign. VI. If the largest regional party refuses to assign a HoP the position will remain unfilled until another party reaches the status of largest regional party. Section 3.
I. The HoP may elevate bills with a majority for chancellory approval. II.This power is cloned in all respects from the power given to the Minister of Internal Affairs. III.The Minister of Internal Affairs reserves the right to revoke this power from the HoP for a period of one (1) ministerial term. Section 4.
I.By order of this bill the HoP is given the power to veto parliamentary bills. II.A period of one (1) day must have passed before a bill can be vetoed by the HoP. III.Once vetoed the bill cannot be floored again until the conclusion of the HoP's term. IV.A veto may only be overturned by a 4/6 Cabinet majority. V.Constitutional amendments cannot be vetoed.
Endorsements:
Unfallious Vista Major Sulania Markotovia AOS
Denouncements:Vladovaskia Acro |
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major on Mar 9, 2015 23:45:28 GMT
ENDORSED
|
|
|
|
Post by Sulania on Mar 9, 2015 23:51:30 GMT
I hereby Endorse this bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acro on Mar 9, 2015 23:54:35 GMT
Endorsed, though im iffy on the ability for the MoIA to rescind the offices authority
|
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 9, 2015 23:57:34 GMT
Endorsed, though im iffy on the ability for the MoIA to rescind the offices authority He can only revoke the power of the HoP to grant bills to the Chancellor, since it is the MoIA's primary power in the first place as in the constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by Markotovia on Mar 10, 2015 0:11:40 GMT
ENDORSED
|
|
|
|
Post by Everestopia on Mar 10, 2015 0:15:09 GMT
Endorsed
|
|
|
|
Post by AOS on Mar 10, 2015 0:26:12 GMT
i endorse
|
|
Ruclax
Court Administrator
Posts: 328 
WA Member: Yes
CFN Political Party: Liberal Party
|
Post by Ruclax on Mar 10, 2015 2:05:53 GMT
Does this not just reciprocate the duties off Minister of Internal Affairs, but I have a bigger concern.
I understand why you are proposing this bill however;
-The HoP and his/her power to veto Bills: The power to veto Bills is specifically given to the Chancellor only- see Article V of our CONST
To veto a Bill is in of itself a great power especially when it comes to this online game. After much work on the Bill and votes, it is fitting that the Head of State be the only one to have such power. Including a non-cabeint member, as you wish the HoP to be, in that veto power would diminish the authority of the Chancellor but more importantly reciprocate the Chancellor's CONT right to his sole veto power.
In essence having the HoP being able to veto Bills means that he/she is borrowing power not from the Minister of Internal Affairs but from the Chancellor, whom that very power is vested in, which then means the CONST would need to be amended and you would need a clause which states that Chancellor shall relegate and allow his veto power to be shared with the HoP. But this would open up another can of worms because if the HoP veto's a Bill that the Chancellor deems worthy of law then the Chancellor would have to override said veto which would also need to be very very very carefully explained in the Bill and then amended in the CONT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 10, 2015 8:19:22 GMT
Does this not just reciprocate the duties off Minister of Internal Affairs, but I have a bigger concern. I understand why you are proposing this bill however; -The HoP and his/her power to veto Bills: The power to veto Bills is specifically given to the Chancellor only- see Article V of our CONST To veto a Bill is in of itself a great power especially when it comes to this online game. After much work on the Bill and votes, it is fitting that the Head of State be the only one to have such power. Including a non-cabeint member, as you wish the HoP to be, in that veto power would diminish the authority of the Chancellor but more importantly reciprocate the Chancellor's CONT right to his sole veto power. In essence having the HoP being able to veto Bills means that he/she is borrowing power not from the Minister of Internal Affairs but from the Chancellor, whom that very power is vested in, which then means the CONST would need to be amended and you would need a clause which states that Chancellor shall relegate and allow his veto power to be shared with the HoP. But this would open up another can of worms because if the HoP veto's a Bill that the Chancellor deems worthy of law then the Chancellor would have to override said veto which would also need to be very very very carefully explained in the Bill and then amended in the CONT. While the constitution does state that the executive veto is a right given to the Chancellor it does not say that it is the sole and only veto power within the region. The HoP derives power from the MoIA de jure but de facto its power comes from the parliament itself. It's imperative that the MoP not be under influence from the cabinet and I feel that if the Chancellor were given power to override Parliamentary vetoes it would diminish the role of the MoP in balancing the power of parliament and cabinet entirely. |
|
Ruclax
Court Administrator
Posts: 328
WA Member: Yes
CFN Political Party: Liberal Party
|
Post by Ruclax on Mar 10, 2015 19:08:09 GMT
Does this not just reciprocate the duties off Minister of Internal Affairs, but I have a bigger concern. I understand why you are proposing this bill however; -The HoP and his/her power to veto Bills: The power to veto Bills is specifically given to the Chancellor only- see Article V of our CONST To veto a Bill is in of itself a great power especially when it comes to this online game. After much work on the Bill and votes, it is fitting that the Head of State be the only one to have such power. Including a non-cabeint member, as you wish the HoP to be, in that veto power would diminish the authority of the Chancellor but more importantly reciprocate the Chancellor's CONT right to his sole veto power. In essence having the HoP being able to veto Bills means that he/she is borrowing power not from the Minister of Internal Affairs but from the Chancellor, whom that very power is vested in, which then means the CONST would need to be amended and you would need a clause which states that Chancellor shall relegate and allow his veto power to be shared with the HoP. But this would open up another can of worms because if the HoP veto's a Bill that the Chancellor deems worthy of law then the Chancellor would have to override said veto which would also need to be very very very carefully explained in the Bill and then amended in the CONT. While the constitution does state that the executive veto is a right given to the Chancellor it does not say that it is the sole and only veto power within the region. The HoP derives power from the MoIA de jure but de facto its power comes from the parliament itself. It's imperative that the MoP not be under influence from the cabinet and I feel that if the Chancellor were given power to override Parliamentary vetoes it would diminish the role of the MoP in balancing the power of parliament and cabinet entirely. Firstly, Let's clarify some things legally here. Veto power is given to the Chancellor. Specially in Article 2 clause 4 "The Executive Veto is to be given to the Chancellor' and in Article 5 clause 1 "veto Parliament and Cabinet legislature"(in reference to the duties of the Chancellor) No where else in the CONST does veto power come up. No where else in the CONST does veto power come up in association with another office pertaining to parliamentary legislation. Due to these facts the legal interpretation of who is allowed to veto what, in regards to a court of law looking at this,.... would be that only the Chancellor can veto Bills. The CONST only mentions veto power in association with the Chancellor therefore any rights to veto legislation belong to that office and that office alone. So should the majority want the HoP to have the power to veto Bills it needs to be in the CONST as in the Articles regarding Parliamentary Functions. And if such an act were to be considered then the role of HoP would counter the legislative role of the Chancellor who is given veto power. There would be confusion and legal disputes as to who can veto what and who can override what. Really it would be a legal mess. Again even if the majority want this...it must be considered a Amendment to the Constitution not merely a Bill proposing a new office. Secondly regarding your last post, With respect to you, of course, No. The HoP cannot derive any power de jure(from a entailment or right) from the Minister of Internal Affairs because the Minister of Internal Affairs can not veto legislation. In addition, the parliament, evidently, cannot veto it's own legislation. So when you talk about veto power...said ability does not and can not legally and constitutionally derive from the Office of Minister of Internal Affairs or the Legislative Branch as a whole because both of them do not legally hold veto power. So the right to veto legislation does not flow from either of those two government mechanisms. |
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 10, 2015 19:34:38 GMT
While the constitution does state that the executive veto is a right given to the Chancellor it does not say that it is the sole and only veto power within the region. The HoP derives power from the MoIA de jure but de facto its power comes from the parliament itself. It's imperative that the MoP not be under influence from the cabinet and I feel that if the Chancellor were given power to override Parliamentary vetoes it would diminish the role of the MoP in balancing the power of parliament and cabinet entirely. Firstly, Let's clarify some things legally here. Veto power is given to the Chancellor. Specially in Article 2 clause 4 "The Executive Veto is to be given to the Chancellor' and in Article 5 clause 1 "veto Parliament and Cabinet legislature"(in reference to the duties of the Chancellor) No where else in the CONST does veto power come up. No where else in the CONST does veto power come up in association with another office pertaining to parliamentary legislation. Due to these facts the legal interpretation of who is allowed to veto what, in regards to a court of law looking at this,.... would be that only the Chancellor can veto Bills. The CONST only mentions veto power in association with the Chancellor therefore any rights to veto legislation belong to that office and that office alone. So should the majority want the HoP to have the power to veto Bills it needs to be in the CONST as in the Articles regarding Parliamentary Functions. And if such an act were to be considered then the role of HoP would counter the legislative role of the Chancellor who is given veto power. There would be confusion and legal disputes as to who can veto what and who can override what. Really it would be a legal mess. Again even if the majority want this...it must be considered a Amendment to the Constitution not merely a Bill proposing a new office. Secondly regarding your last post, With respect to you, of course, No. The HoP cannot derive any power de jure(from a entailment or right) from the Minister of Internal Affairs because the Minister of Internal Affairs can not veto legislation. In addition, the parliament, evidently, cannot veto it's own legislation. So when you talk about veto power...said ability does not and can not legally and constitutionally derive from the Office of Minister of Internal Affairs or the Legislative Branch as a whole because both of them do not legally hold veto power. So the right to veto legislation does not flow from either of those two government mechanisms. The constitution can be interpreted in many different ways. However, unless it specifically states something like 'Veto power is to be given to ONLY the Chancellor' then this bill does not go against that. The power to veto bills comes from the bill itself, as written in Section 4 Article I. That article does not go against the Constitution as no where in there does it specifically say that veto powers can only be utilised by the chancellor. This bill does not tamper with the chancellery veto. It does not remove power from any office continued within the constitution. The Constitution does not say that new offices can only be established through amendments either nor does it say that any bills proposing new offices must have a clear 'power path' outlining where the position derives its power from. The fact of the matter is this very well may be a loophole/oversight in the constitution, but right this second this bill right here does not go against the constitution, only your personal interpretation of it. Everyone has a personal interpretation and, while I say this with the utmost respect for you, your status as judge does not mean that your interpretation is worth anything more than mine. I've read the constitution, I understand it and have gone to measures of creating this bill so that it doesn't require an amendment. Secondly I resent your statement that HoP would cause confusion around 'who could veto or override what' because it is clearly outlined in the bill in very plain English. HoP is granted veto power to any bill proposed that is 1 day old and can only be overridden by a 4/6 cabinet majority. Simple. The Chancellor can do the same, the only difference being he can veto any bill regardless of how old it is. Doesn't look like a legal mess to me. |
|
Ruclax
Court Administrator
Posts: 328
WA Member: Yes
CFN Political Party: Liberal Party
|
Post by Ruclax on Mar 10, 2015 19:54:53 GMT
With respect,
Yes, the Constitution can be interpreted in may ways sure absolutely however it does matter where that interruption is coming from. If I were not a judge then my interoperation would be, like yours, our best guess and I would hope that it would hold on in a court of law. However again, I do take my status seriously because I want to look out for the legal well-being of the region and part of that status is being abel to help with legislation. To work with members of parliament like yourself to craft legislation that would benefit the people and keep our great Commonwealth legally stable.
Having said that I am giving you my interoperation of the Constitution as it relates to your Bill because and having this conversation because I believe that is is not legally sound.
Look, the Power to Veto is given to the Chancellor as it pertains to the legislative branch. Now if you want to create an office with the same power then it needs to be written in the CONST. Why? Because the CONST is our legal foundation and if a certain office as the authority to veto Bills, even one day old, if must be reflected in our CONST. I don't see where questions arise from this point. Is it not important to have our CONST reflect the exact mechanism of parliamentary function?
The comment about the loophole is exactly what I am trying to stop here. There should not be loopholes in the CONST. It should be made plain and clear in the CONST ready for all to see just who can do what, even if it means mentioning a small office such as the HoP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 10, 2015 20:21:28 GMT
With respect, Yes, the Constitution can be interpreted in may ways sure absolutely however it does matter where that interruption is coming from. If I were not a judge then my interoperation would be, like yours, our best guess and I would hope that it would hold on in a court of law. However again, I do take my status seriously because I want to look out for the legal well-being of the region and part of that status is being abel to help with legislation. To work with members of parliament like yourself to craft legislation that would benefit the people and keep our great Commonwealth legally stable. Having said that I am giving you my interoperation of the Constitution as it relates to your Bill because and having this conversation because I believe that is is not legally sound. Look, the Power to Veto is given to the Chancellor as it pertains to the legislative branch. Now if you want to create an office with the same power then it needs to be written in the CONST. Why? Because the CONST is our legal foundation and if a certain office as the authority to veto Bills, even one day old, if must be reflected in our CONST. I don't see where questions arise from this point. Is it not important to have our CONST reflect the exact mechanism of parliamentary function? The comment about the loophole is exactly what I am trying to stop here. There should not be loopholes in the CONST. It should be made plain and clear in the CONST ready for all to see just who can do what, even if it means mentioning a small office such as the HoP. Your fight against loopholes in honourable, but you're taking it out on this bill and that's not right. The only way to fix loopholes is by patching them up with amendments to the constitution. It is a constitutional failing that a clause is not contained within it preventing the creation of new offices. It is not a failing of this bill. I would challenge any claim against the legality of this bill under this iteration of the constitution because it is simply wrong. This bill is legal, the flaw is within the constitution and, while I hope it is patched, right now it means that this bill does not go against any clause, article or section of the constitution and is completely sound as a bill and as a law. Of course it would be nice to have the constitution mention the office of HoP, of course it would, but it's not required to happen. No where in the constitution does it say that offices need to be established via amendment and that is the point I'm trying to express here. |
|
Ruclax
Court Administrator
Posts: 328
WA Member: Yes
CFN Political Party: Liberal Party
|
Post by Ruclax on Mar 10, 2015 20:45:24 GMT
Thanks. But I'm not trying to patch up loopholes I'm trying to prevent them.
The CONST is flawed in that it does not express those things which you mentioned and needs to. So I commend this Bill for even pointing this out.
Although,
I stand firm with my reasoning as to the legality of this Bill. My problem is not with the creation of new offices. My problem with the power this office is hoping to have, being the veto.
My arguments are all aimed at the fact that the HoP's veto power needs to be a added to the CONS as an Amendment. Yes, it's the CONST that I am looking to fix while at the same time pointing out that you need to fix the CONST before this Bill is passed. Because the veto power is rested solely in the Chancellor. So any other office having such a power in legislative affairs needs to be affirmed in the CONST first.
|
|
