|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 2:08:04 GMT -5
Presidential and Prime Ministerial Powers Amendments (2019) Section 1. Enactment of the Presidential and Prime Ministerial Powers Amendments (2019) (1) This Act will be enacted immediately upon being signed by the President of Pacifica. Section 2. Basis for the Presidential and Prime Ministerial Powers Amendments (2019) (1) Recognizing that when the constitution was initially written, Pacifica was a temporarily founderless region with leaders not knowing if it would only be temporary or permanent. (2) Acknowledging that a founderless region is very vulnerable to attack and invasion by foreign nations and regions with malicious intent. (3) Realizing that at the time, the President of Pacifica needed increased power in order to effectively protect and defend the region. Now that we’ve a founder, there is less need for that. Section 3. Amendments to Article III. Presidency of Pacifica Article III of the Constitution of the Republic of Pacifica will be amended as follows: Powers and limitations of the presidency
(4) The President will be the head of state and lawful World Assembly Delegate of Pacifica, and will be responsible for regional diplomacy, military, security, and World Assembly affairs. (5) The President will be commander-in-chief of the military forces of Pacifica, and all appointments, commissions, and orders will be issued under their authority and in their name. (6) The President will be barred from directly introducing legislative proposals before the Regional Congress, but may coordinate with the Prime Minister or the Speaker to introduce legislation before the Regional Congress on the President's behalf. The President will not be barred from introducing and requesting enactment, amendment, or repeal of treaties; enactment or repeal of declarations of war; or confirmation of presidential appointees that legally require confirmation.
(5) (7) The President may sign or veto enactment, amendment, or repeal of a general law or resolution, or repeal of a treaty. Should the President fail to sign or veto enactment, amendment, or repeal of a general law or resolution, or repeal of a treaty, within seven days, it will automatically take effect and will no longer be subject to veto. (6) (8) The President may establish and revise an endorsement limit for Pacifica, and may summarily enforce such a limit. The endorsement limit will be no lower than half of the President's endorsement count, except in the event that Pacifica is founderless, in which case a lower limit must be approved by absolute majority vote of the Regional Congress. (7) (9) The President may pardon or commute the sentence of anyone convicted of a crime by the High Court. Pardon or commutation will be subject to approval by absolute majority vote of the Regional Congress. (8) (10) The President may appoint a Council of State to assist with programs and activities under the President's portfolio, and may dismiss Secretaries of State from office. subject to confirmation by absolute majority vote of the Regional Congress.
(11) The President may withdraw nominations of Secretaries of State prior to their confirmation, and may dismiss Secretaries of State from office following confirmation, but must provide a written statement to the Regional Congress explaining such withdrawal or dismissal.
(9) (12) The President may provide for the appointment and dismissal of deputies to their Secretaries of State. Section 4. Amendments to Article IV. Prime Ministry of Pacifica Article IV of the Constitution of the Republic of Pacifica will be amended as follows: Powers and limitations of the prime ministry
(3) The Prime Minister will be the head of domestic government and will be responsible for regional culture, education, integration, and media. (4) The Prime Minister may appoint a Cabinet of Ministers to assist with programs and activities under the Prime Minister's portfolio. The Prime Minister may dismiss such Ministers from office, but must provide a written statement to the Regional Congress explaining such dismissal. and may provide for the appointment and dismissal of deputies to such Ministers.
(5) The Prime Minister may provide for the appointment and dismissal of deputies to their Ministers.
Section 5. Amendments to Article V. High Court of Pacifica
Article V of the Constitution of the Republic of Pacifica will be amended as follows: (5) The President will consult the Prime Minister regarding appointment of the Chief Justice or, in the event of the Chief Justice recusing themselves, appointment of an Acting Chief Justice and Associate Justices, but will have final discretion over the submission of such appointees to the Regional Congress for confirmation. The President will disclose to the Regional Congress whether the Prime Minister agreed with such appointments.
(5) (6) Associate Justices will be automatically dismissed from office following conclusion of the trial(s) or review(s) for which they were appointed. Powers of the High Court
(6) (7) The Chief Justice will establish and may revise the High Court's procedural rules. Procedural rules may be revised in the preliminary phase of a trial or review by absolute majority vote of the High Court. Such procedural rules will be subordinate to the laws of Pacifica. (7) (8) The Chief Justice may preside over all trials and reviews, or may delegate responsibility for presiding over a trial or review to an Associate Justice who will be referred to as the Presiding Justice for that trial or review. (8) (9) The High Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies, by request of an affected party. (9) (10) The official verdict or opinion of the High Court in any trial or review will be binding on all government institutions and officials. |
|
Cormac
Administrator
Posts: 370 
|
Post by Cormac on Jan 29, 2019 2:16:29 GMT -5
Just to reiterate, I just wanted to chime in and say it's accurate that I support the above ideas. I think more power sharing between the President and Prime Minister, especially now that the region isn't founderless and vulnerable anymore, is a good idea. And since this wouldn't limit the President's external affairs powers much, it would still preserve the divided government system we've built.
I'll go over the specific language and such a bit more tomorrow to try to identify any issues like loopholes or whatnot.
Also, glad to see you getting so involved Pallerdy!
|
|
|
|
Post by Constie on Jan 29, 2019 11:03:21 GMT -5
I’m generally supportive of power sharing, however, this should arise from natural traditions of cooperation, not forced by legislation.
|
|
Cormac
Administrator
Posts: 370
|
Post by Cormac on Jan 29, 2019 13:14:13 GMT -5
I do think it's worth taking the perspective offered by Constie into account. That said, a few suggestions about the actual text, as I promised last night: Section 3. Amendment to Article II(6). Regional Congress of Pacifica (Powers of the Regional Congress) (1) The Regional Congress may declare war against another region or organization at the request of the President. However, in order for the President to request a declaration of war from the Regional Congress, he/she must be consulted by the Prime Minister. Upon being consulted, the President must request a declaration of war. I'm fine with power sharing, as in requiring that the President can only request a declaration of war with the Prime Minister's joint approval, but the highlighted provision does something else entirely. It effectively places the power to declare war in the hands of the Prime Minister, requiring the President to request a declaration of war after consulting the Prime Minister, even if the situation somehow changes. I would recommend removing the highlighted provision. (4) When not explicitly authorized in this constitution, the President will not meddle in the affairs of the Prime Minister I don't like this provision, primarily because I think it could get problematic in practice. There are areas of overlapping policy that will require coordination by both the President and the Council of State as well as the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers. An extreme interpretation of that provision would limit the President's ability to be involved in such overlapping areas to a significant, and in my opinion unacceptable, degree. I see you have the same provision under the powers of the Prime Minister, and for the same reason I'd suggest removing it as well. One other suggestion I have is to replace the instances of "he/she" and "his/her" with "they" and "their." This would bring the legislation into line with the rest of the Constitution, and more importantly, it will preserve maximum gender inclusivity in our legislation, which is an important standard to keep. That's all from me for now, though I'll go over this again later and see if I catch anything else. Good work as a start! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 13:22:39 GMT -5
I do think it's worth taking the perspective offered by Constie into account. That said, a few suggestions about the actual text, as I promised last night: Section 3. Amendment to Article II(6). Regional Congress of Pacifica (Powers of the Regional Congress) (1) The Regional Congress may declare war against another region or organization at the request of the President. However, in order for the President to request a declaration of war from the Regional Congress, he/she must be consulted by the Prime Minister. Upon being consulted, the President must request a declaration of war. I'm fine with power sharing, as in requiring that the President can only request a declaration of war with the Prime Minister's joint approval, but the highlighted provision does something else entirely. It effectively places the power to declare war in the hands of the Prime Minister, requiring the President to request a declaration of war after consulting the Prime Minister, even if the situation somehow changes. I would recommend removing the highlighted provision. (4) When not explicitly authorized in this constitution, the President will not meddle in the affairs of the Prime Minister I don't like this provision, primarily because I think it could get problematic in practice. There are areas of overlapping policy that will require coordination by both the President and the Council of State as well as the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers. An extreme interpretation of that provision would limit the President's ability to be involved in such overlapping areas to a significant, and in my opinion unacceptable, degree. I see you have the same provision under the powers of the Prime Minister, and for the same reason I'd suggest removing it as well. One other suggestion I have is to replace the instances of "he/she" and "his/her" with "they" and "their." This would bring the legislation into line with the rest of the Constitution, and more importantly, it will preserve maximum gender inclusivity in our legislation, which is an important standard to keep. That's all from me for now, though I'll go over this again later and see if I catch anything else. Good work as a start! I agree, I’ll make the changes as soon as I’m able to. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 13:52:34 GMT -5
I do think it's worth taking the perspective offered by Constie into account. That said, a few suggestions about the actual text, as I promised last night: Section 3. Amendment to Article II(6). Regional Congress of Pacifica (Powers of the Regional Congress) (1) The Regional Congress may declare war against another region or organization at the request of the President. However, in order for the President to request a declaration of war from the Regional Congress, he/she must be consulted by the Prime Minister. Upon being consulted, the President must request a declaration of war. I'm fine with power sharing, as in requiring that the President can only request a declaration of war with the Prime Minister's joint approval, but the highlighted provision does something else entirely. It effectively places the power to declare war in the hands of the Prime Minister, requiring the President to request a declaration of war after consulting the Prime Minister, even if the situation somehow changes. I would recommend removing the highlighted provision. (4) When not explicitly authorized in this constitution, the President will not meddle in the affairs of the Prime Minister I don't like this provision, primarily because I think it could get problematic in practice. There are areas of overlapping policy that will require coordination by both the President and the Council of State as well as the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers. An extreme interpretation of that provision would limit the President's ability to be involved in such overlapping areas to a significant, and in my opinion unacceptable, degree. I see you have the same provision under the powers of the Prime Minister, and for the same reason I'd suggest removing it as well. One other suggestion I have is to replace the instances of "he/she" and "his/her" with "they" and "their." This would bring the legislation into line with the rest of the Constitution, and more importantly, it will preserve maximum gender inclusivity in our legislation, which is an important standard to keep. That's all from me for now, though I'll go over this again later and see if I catch anything else. Good work as a start! All changes have been made! |
|
Cormac
Administrator
Posts: 370
|
Post by Cormac on Jan 29, 2019 13:57:58 GMT -5
I noticed in Section 6(6), you say the Prime Minister may dismiss any nominated or confirmed Minister. But unless I've missed something, you're not requiring confirmation of Ministers, only confirmation of the President's Secretaries? Not sure if you intended confirmation of Ministers and forgot to add that, or if you just copied the same language you had used for the presidency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 14:27:55 GMT -5
I noticed in Section 6(6), you say the Prime Minister may dismiss any nominated or confirmed Minister. But unless I've missed something, you're not requiring confirmation of Ministers, only confirmation of the President's Secretaries? Not sure if you intended confirmation of Ministers and forgot to add that, or if you just copied the same language you had used for the presidency. Aye, the proposal does not require confirmation of Ministers. I’ve fixed the language used. |
|
|
|
Post by lukatonia on Jan 29, 2019 22:13:19 GMT -5
I am against this amendment because the prime minister to be honest has no business declaring war. They have no power over FA.
|
|
|
|
Post by cataluna on Jan 29, 2019 22:23:00 GMT -5
This seems to be centralizing powers towards the PM more than necessary, if I'm reading these sections right:
(1) The Regional Congress may declare war against another region or organization at the request of the President. However, in order for the President to request a declaration of war from the Regional Congress, they must be consulted by the Prime Minister.
(2) The Prime Minister will hold the authority to author and introduce legislation directly in the Regional Congress.
(3) The Prime Minister will hold the authority to sign legislation into law, or veto it. Prime Ministerial vetoes are subject to Presidential Review by a two-thirds vote of the Regional Congress.
The Prime Minister does not need to be stronger. The emphasis on a strong congress enforces the republican nature of Pacifica. This seeks to address problems where there are none.
|
|
|
|
Post by qwabourharbour on Jan 30, 2019 3:01:25 GMT -5
Reiterating what Ham said, as the constitution states that the President is in charge of FA and military etc., and the PM is in charge of more regional affairs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 8:00:44 GMT -5
Reiterating what Ham said, as the constitution states that the President is in charge of FA and military etc., and the PM is in charge of more regional affairs. Changes have been made to the proposal after taking into consideration comments made and the opinions of others in the Speakers office, including Ham, to make the proposal more agreeable and reasonable while still ensuring that my main intent is able to be passed through the Regional Congress. |
|
|
|
Post by qwabourharbour on Jan 31, 2019 5:05:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure why the President is barred from authoring resolutions though.
Pls explain
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 13:30:33 GMT -5
I'm not sure why the President is barred from authoring resolutions though. Pls explain I thoroughly believe in separation of executive and legislative power. There needs to be a clear distinction between being a legislator and being a head of state. Furthermore, the President’s portfolio doesn’t really pertain to domestic matters as does the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s domestic and legislative agenda is bound to be much more extensive than the President, who has a different focus. However, as the proposal states, the President will be allowed to author and introduce foreign affairs treaties and world assembly resolutions. |
|
Cormac
Administrator
Posts: 370
|
Post by Cormac on Jan 31, 2019 14:01:27 GMT -5
I think we could probably now entirely do without the amendment to Article II, Section 6, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
If I can make a suggestion for how to format these amendments, I would do it this way to preserve some of the language that is already in the Constitution -- which is precise for a reason -- while still reflecting the changes Pallerdy is seeking to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 14:23:04 GMT -5
I think we could probably now entirely do without the amendment to Article II, Section 6, unless I'm misunderstanding something. If I can make a suggestion for how to format these amendments, I would do it this way to preserve some of the language that is already in the Constitution -- which is precise for a reason -- while still reflecting the changes Pallerdy is seeking to make. I'll make the changes soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2019 11:21:52 GMT -5
I motion to vote.
|
|
Cormac
Administrator
Posts: 370
|
Post by Cormac on Feb 3, 2019 10:05:57 GMT -5
|
|
Cormac
Administrator
Posts: 370
|
Post by Cormac on Feb 13, 2019 17:39:12 GMT -5
I'm going to actually withdraw my secondment for now, and ask that we hold off on these amendments for a bit, as I will be proposing amendments shortly that could impact these amendments depending on whether we decide to pass them. So I'd like to be a bit more deliberative with all of this. Thanks for being patient.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dino on Mar 11, 2019 21:57:48 GMT -5
The original poster of this resolution is no longer a Citizen. Should they return and wish to resurrect this resolution, they can do so by contacting me. However, only the original poster may request the resurrection. If someone else decides to adopt the resolution, they can repropose it in a new thread with the same or amended context as the orginial thread. With all of that in mind, I have decided to lock this thread and archive it.
|
|
