Passed Amendment to the Constitution

The Speaker or Chairperson may assign this to a thread that has passed their respective house's legislative process.
Status
Not open for further replies.
EUKBICR

EUKBICR

The Devil
Citizen
Oct 25, 2020
1,729
175
Awards
6
Coat_of_Arms_UDS.png

A MOTION
To Amend The Constitution, Introduced into the Senate of the Union of Democratic States on the 26th of August, by @Glaciosia
As follows:
​
WHEREAS the Constitution is a living document, which should be updated as the desires and de facto structure of the Union Changes;
UNDERSTANDING the usefulness of a flexible Executive;
BELIEVING in the importance of a strong philosophical basis for Constitutional powers;

Section 1: Amendment of Article 1
1. The Constitution of the Union of Democratic States, Article III shall be struck out and replaced as follows:
“1. The President is the Head of State, Head of Government, and Leader of the Executive Branch, which executes the law and leads the region on behalf of the people.​
​
2. The President shall be elected every three months. Presidential Elections shall occur on the first day of January, April, July, and October. Elections shall be carried out in accordance with regional law.​
​
3. The President shall be elected alongside their Vice President, who shall act as a deputy and aide to the President. The Vice President shall act in their place when the President is unable to act, and as acting President in the event that the office of President becomes vacant.​
a). Should the office of the Vice President become vacant, the President shall nominate a replacement to the Senate for a confirmation vote.​
b). Laws may be passed that create a line of succession past the Vice President.​
​
4. During the term of the President, citizens may petition to recall the President and Vice President, provided that their petition has at least eight citizen signatures. After such a petition is presented to the Electoral Committee, a by-election for the office shall be held in which the incumbent officeholders shall automatically be on the ballot. Such petitions may only be submitted thirty days after the President assumes office.​
​
5. Following the passage of a law in the Senate, the President has five days to either promulgate the law and make it legally binding or veto it. Before promulgation or a veto, the President may consult the Attorney General for legal advice regarding the law and its impacts.​
a). Unless it is vetoed, a law automatically becomes promulgated after five days.​
b). The Senate may overturn a veto with a three-fourth supermajority.​
​
6.) The President shall have the following powers, subject to regulation by law:​
a).The issuance of Executive Orders, directions for the implementation of laws and regulations for the business of executive governance.​
b). The issuance of Persona Non Grata Declarations, which shall censure non-citizens and prohibit their entry into the region.​
c) Signing interregional agreements and introducing motions to ratify them into the Senate.​
​
7. The Executive shall be composed of the office of the President and Vice President, the Ministries and the Ministers who lead them.​
​
8. The Executive shall carry out the day-to-day executive governance of the region, including the regulation of foreign affairs, domestic affairs, cultural affairs, and some legal matters.​
​
9. Ministries may be established by law or by the President. Ministries will not automatically cease to exist following vacancy in the office of the President. Ministers may be appointed to and dismissed from Ministries by the President.​
​
​
10. The President shall govern the distribution and scope of powers between the different organs of the Executive, and the Ministers shall govern such distribution within their Ministries.​
a. The President shall have authority over the executive, and may override the actions of their subordinates within it.​
b). Ministers shall have subsidiary authority over their Ministries, and may override the actions of their subordinates within it.​
​
11. The Executive shall hold the following powers, subject to regulation by law:​
a). Accepting, denying and processing citizenship applications.​
b). The conduct of diplomacy and defense of the region.​
c). The administration of programs and initiatives for the benefit of the region.​
d). The prosecution of criminal law cases.​
e). The execution of the laws of the Union.​
f). These powers may be expanded upon via law, either in regard to the President or a specific Ministry.​
​
13. The position of World Assembly Delegate within the Union’s NationStates region should be held by the holder of the office of World Assembly Delegate as established in this constitution.​
a.) Vacancies in this office shall be filled by a Citizen appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.​
b.) The holder of this office shall be reconfirmed on the first day of Every March and September.”​

Section 2: Miscellaneous Amendments
1. Article 2, Clause 2, Sub-clause b shall be struck out.
2. A new sub-clause shall be added to Article 2, Clause 10 reading “Motions to ratify interregional agreements.”
 
My fellow Senators, this proposal is a long time coming, so I have included my statement originally drafted to propose this amendment a long time ago that I believe is still accurate. IT is our sacred duty to make of the laws of our Union the best legal system we could imagine, and I believe it is clear that this section of our constitution is not the best we could imagine. I hope this amendment will put our Executive on solid ground as we move forward to reform and support the other organs of government.

think it could be reasonably said in our current moment that the Executive branch is the primary organ of Union governance, or at least the first among equals. Most impetus for programs, developments and more comes from this branch more than any other, and the elections for the office are more deeply contested than those of the Senate. However, the constitutional paradigm at the moment is almost the complete opposite, giving extreme deference to the role of the legislature in every aspect of Union governance and most importantly failing to give a sturdy theoretical or legal footing to the actions of the Presidency.

The previous constitution was firmly rooted in the concept of delegation, and of powers resting directly in individuals:
1. The power to execute the law on behalf of the People shall be vested in a President.
Click to expand...

3. The President is the leader of the Executive branch of government, Chair of the Cabinet, Chief Diplomat, Chief Law Enforcer and Prosecutor of Crimes, Chief Immigration Officer, and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
Click to expand...

10. The President may, by written directive, delegate portions of their authority to Ministers, who may further delegate portions of their authority to subordinates. A Minister, and the offices which derive their authority from it shall form a Ministry.

11. The President may not delegate their authority to sign or veto a bill, submit nominees to the senate, or dismiss their direct subordinates including the Vice President and Ministers.

12. The authority, directives, and instructions, of an office are subordinate to those of the office or offices from which their power was derived.
Click to expand...

Under this system, the President themselves holds authority, which is then delegated to their ministers-as-individuals, and delegated from their to individual staffers, etc. This is theoretically sound but results in some unusual provisions, such as:

14. The President shall wholly delegate their prosecutorial duty to an Attorney General who shall act as the Government's chief prosecutor. ….
Click to expand...

This seems silly to me, and is more reminiscent of a constitutional monarchy than a republic. One is called to ask why the President has an authority which they must delegate, and which they themselves cannot exercise?

Our current constitution operates in both similar and different ways. It avoids the awkward verbiage of the previous one, yet fails to respond with a firm legal/theoretical process. A consequence of this is, for example, the confusion surrounding the attorney general.

Like the previous constitution, ours gives the President a series of titles. However, it couches them in references to the Presidents role in executing the law:
1. As Head of State, Head of Government, and as leader of the Executive Branch, the President executes the law on behalf of the people. In this, the President acts as Chief Diplomat, Chief Law Enforcer and Prosecutor, Chief Immigration Officer, Commander in Chief, and Chair of the Cabinet.
Click to expand...

Thus, this much less clearly demonstrates a grant of authority to the President. There is a further establishment of the Cabinet:

5. The President shall appoint a Cabinet of Ministers which shall carry out the day-to-day executive governance of the region, including the regulation of foreign affairs, domestic affairs, cultural affairs, and some legal matters. The President or Vice President may be a Minister.
a). The President shall hold the right to regulate the Cabinet as they see fit.
b). Ministries may be established by law or by the President. Ministries will not automatically cease to exist following vacancy in the office of the President.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)
It could potentially be inferred here that the Cabinet holds the power to “regulate foreign affairs, domestic affairs, cultural affairs and some legal matters” rather than the President personally. However, the constitution continues to lay out a series of powers and their rules for their delegation, originating from the president and emanating thence forth:

6. The President shall hold a variety of powers which may be delegated to their Cabinet Ministers or the Vice President. These powers include:
a). Executive Orders, directions for the implementation of laws and regulations for the business of executive governance...
e). These powers may be further delegated by Cabinet Ministers to their subordinates; delegated powers are inferior to their source.
Click to expand...
Hence a confusion arises, between a person-oriented and an office oriented model of power, further accentuated by the description of the Attorney General:

7. The office of the Attorney General shall exist as a Minister within the Cabinet, conforming to the same rules. The Attorney General shall … prosecute those who have broken the law…
Click to expand...
How does this mandate relate to the description of the president as acting as “Chief Law Enforcer and Prosecutor” ? Is that merely a symbolic title, bereft of power? Or, has the forceful delegation of power from the previous constitution been maintained and merely made implicit?

Despite its muddling, our constitution maintains the fundamental theory behind the previous constitution: that of personal authority and the delegation thereof. However, we have seen in the actions of our legislature and our president that we believe the power to rest in institutions, not individuals. Primarily in the manner the Executive Affairs Act UL-034.4.1.a : “The President shall establish the extent of the authority granted to the Ministry through the Order establishing it.”

I propose the following: That the President individually be vested with the authority as Head of State, Head of Government and Commander in Chief, the ability to nominate persons as they are allowed currently, the right to promulgate laws by their signature, and to issue executive orders and declarations of persona non grata. Furthermore, they shall lead the Executive.

The Executive is, quite simply, the organ of the region which does things, and what currently constitutes the ministries and the president themselves. I propose that it would be made up of the Office of the President and the Vice President, the Ministries as independent established institutions separate from the persons who lead them, and the collective or Cabinet of Ministers. The President's power over the executive affairs of the region comes not directly to them but from their absolute command of the Executive. Similarly, Ministries are vested with powers, exercised at the discretion of their leader, their Minister.

Importantly, the Executive is clearly and specifically granted the power to do its job in my proposal:
8. The Executive shall carry out the day-to-day executive governance of the region, including the regulation of foreign affairs, domestic affairs, cultural affairs, and some legal matters.
Click to expand...

11. The Executive shall hold the following powers, subject to regulation by law:
a). Accepting, denying and processing citizenship applications.
b). The conduct of diplomacy and defense of the region.
c). The administration of programs and initiatives for the benefit of the region.
d). The prosecution of criminal law cases.
e). The execution of the laws of the Union.
f). These powers may be expanded upon via law, either in regard to the President or a specific Ministry.
Click to expand...

In sum, this proposal which I have worked on for months and attempted to gain feedback from every corner does not fundamentally alter the function of our government, but reestablishes its nature on firm footing.

Additionally, provisions have been made to remove the lengthy and inconvenient periods where the Senate cannot act near the end of its term, which when combined with the actual elections severely weaken its ability to do anything, and clarifies the provisions for interregional agreements.
 
One question, does it mean that the President doesn’t have to make a cabinet?
 
Seems fairly technically sound. I do agree that there are a bunch of inconsistencies that ultimately are a thread of almost all of the Union's previous constitutions. I do think, that while this is giving further emphasis to an office-based leadership, there are concerns of a President simply taking all responsibilities without any delegation as well, which would ultimately create problems in the end, and also create essentially a constitutional monarchy in itself. I do think that there needs to be some constitutionally established delegation in a sense, but I do not have a strong enough opinion here to oppose or provide any amendments at this time.
 
I would argue that it would be entirely possible for a President to do the exact same thing under our current, delegation-ish based system. The entire point of such a system is that power resides in the President first, and others second. Several previous presidents and vice-presidents served as ministers during their term, and little complaint arose.

This proposal diffuses power to some extent and stays steady in other aspects, but I doubt it could be argued that this proposal would bring us closer to a constitutional monarchy.

There is a technical increase in power granted to the executive in explicitly providing that
c). The administration of programs and initiatives for the benefit of the region.
is a power of the Executive, but this is a codification of an incredibly long-standing precedent in the way the executive functions, and one already established in statute.

Otherwise, I pretty strongly disagree with the idea that this brings us closer to a monarchy than previously. Our strongest bulwarks against an individual president doing everything is that it is quite frankly, untenable to do (speaking as a former officeholder) what is done by the members of the cabinet. In our current paradigm, most of the work of the executive is done by the president and their ministers, with maybe one or two workers in each ministry alongside. Ministers aren't really political offices that could be seen as holding real power- they are workers (independent workers asked to come up with ideas and sometimes manage a small staff, but workers none the less) who serve at the will of the president. If we transitioned to a system where ministers had more power, this would likely still not be a concern, as their power would then remain as it was, and a few modifications to this system to decrease the power of the president over the ministers would have your goal achieved.
 
Overall I think this is fine as it is, and I believe that the concern I mentioned(an executive who wields sole executive authority leading to a strange constitutional monarchy) is easily avoidable enough.

I move to close debate.
 
Debate is now closed. Since no amendments were proposed, we now move to formal voting. Those in favour may say Aye, those against may say No.
 
Ayes to the right-4
Nows to the left-0
I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. The bill is passed.
 
I move to protest violation of the Senate Rules and Procedures. (I am the speaker and I protest myself.)
 
The motion is seconded and there are no objections. Since the violation was closing the debate, I will reopen debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back