Talk:Amendment to the executive chancellor act (inter)
From The Kodiak Republic Wiki
Amendment to the executive chancellor act (inter) Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/18/2023 9:36 AM
Tabled by Jonn Stevens, MGA, DPPK An amendment to form a line of succession for Kodiak. Voting is currently set for the 1st of September https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Amendment_to_the_executive_chancellor_act_(inter) The Kodiak Republic Wiki Amendment to the executive chancellor act (inter) An amendment to form a line of succession for Kodiak. ACTIONED on ## month ####, ## Aye, ## Nay, ## Abstain.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/18/2023 9:38 AM
@Assembly Member debate is now open
Masaia Kånoă | Danslandia (UKN) — 08/18/2023 9:39 AM I agree with this amendment
Simon T. Arlandova — 08/18/2023 9:40 AM I agree with this amendment too
Masaia Kånoă | Danslandia (UKN) — 08/18/2023 9:40 AM Especially since due to the chaos that happened during last term, I think it is necessary to have a deputy chancellor so that the values of the chancellor be carried on even if they are incapacitated.
Simon T. Arlandova — 08/18/2023 9:41 AM Yes The article ensures that in the unfortunate event of the Chancellor's death, incapacitation, or resignation, there is a smooth transition of power to maintain stability in the Kodiak Republic. By installing the Deputy Chancellor as the acting Chancellor, it allows for a seamless transfer of leadership without causing confusion or leaving a leadership vacuum. The Deputy Chancellor, who assumes the role of acting Chancellor, is typically someone who has been working closely with the Chancellor and is familiar with the responsibilities and functioning of the government. This ensures that there is someone in charge who already has knowledge and experience in managing the affairs of the republic, which helps maintain stability and efficiency during the transition period. This provides stability and increased leadership.
SRG16( Northern Cagas) — 08/18/2023 10:32 AM I also agree with rhe amendment Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/18/2023 3:00 PM 3.1 - In the event of the death, incapacitation, or resignation of the Chancellor of the Kodiak Republic, the Deputy Chancellor will be installed as acting Chancellor.
3.2 - After a cabinet has been formed, it is the duty of the Chancellor to form a line of succession between his ministers, so that in the event the Deputy Chancellor is dead, incapacitated, or has resigned, the role of acting Chancellor may pass down the line of succession. 3.3 - Any acting Chancellor will serve in that role until the next General Election the Kodiak Republic, where they may run for a full term. If the individual was acting Chancellor for less than one year, they are eligible to serve 2 full consecutive terms. If they were acting Chancellor for more than one year, they may only serve one more full consecutive term.
Changes to grammar + clarity
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/18/2023 3:02 PM
Can the member please add a bit more context to your comment what do you mean by + clarity? Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/18/2023 3:23 PM I refined your amendment to add clarity where it was lacking
Jonn Stevens (DPPK)
pinned
a message
to this channel. See all
pinned messages .
— 08/18/2023 3:23 PM
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/18/2023 3:24 PM
Thanks I’ll replace it once I get home
Jonn Stevens (DPPK)
pinned
a message
to this channel. See all
pinned messages .
— 08/18/2023 7:10 PM
Vladimir Khlebnikov — 08/20/2023 7:50 AM I disagree with the amendment The main focus should be opening new elections as fast as we can Making a successor, even if a temporary successor for emergencies, is somewhat anti-democratic Giving the national assembly executive authorities temporarily as the representatives of the people would be a better idea
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/20/2023 7:55 AM "The Chancellor has been killed in a horrific terrorist attack! The nation is in chaos and urgently needs a new leader!" "Hold up, gotta have my 100% democratic elections first. Can't have any autocracy slipping in here now."
Vladimir Khlebnikov — 08/20/2023 7:56 AM
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/20/2023 7:56 AM Are you suggesting that the National Assembly appoint the new Chancellor, or that the Assembly act collectively as the Chancellor?
Vladimir Khlebnikov — 08/20/2023 7:57 AM 2nd one, until the elections
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/20/2023 8:01 AM That could potentially be three years of waiting
Vladimir Khlebnikov — 08/20/2023 8:01 AM The so-called line of succession is appointed by the Chancellor, not elected by the people. The Deputy Chancellor being installed as the Chancellor is quite anti-democratic imo
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/20/2023 8:02 AM The Deputy Chancellor has to be approved by the National Assembly as part of the Cabinet approval process.
Vladimir Khlebnikov — 08/20/2023 8:03 AM That doesn't mean he/she was elected by the citizens
Vladimir Khlebnikov — 08/20/2023 8:04 AM And I meant host new elections as swiftly as possible, didnt mean we should wait till the next election season
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 8:04 AM The Assembly and winning party are elected by the citizens. It would make sense that the Chancellor and their cabinet are a known commodity to the citizens throughout the election process
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/20/2023 8:06 AM Do you mean entire general elections, or a special election just for the Chancellor?
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 8:06 AM The citizens are a part of the process by electing the General Assembly. The executive is that which the Assembly feels commands the confidence. It doesn't make sense to call all new elections in a parliamentary system simply because the party leader of confidence is removed by some issue
Vladimir Khlebnikov — 08/20/2023 8:06 AM Special elections English isnt my primary language, sorry if im using wrong phrases or words
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/20/2023 8:07 AM It's fine, I was just clarifying 👍
Braughn F. G. Kryos — 08/20/2023 8:08 AM Neither is the Chancellor.
Vladimir Khlebnikov — 08/20/2023 8:10 AM He's the leader of the ruling party The citizens voted for his party But they didnt vote for the appointed deputy
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/20/2023 8:11 AM By extension, they voted for his Deputy Chancellor as well
Vladimir Khlebnikov — 08/20/2023 8:12 AM Hmm To a certain extension, yes, but for him to assist the Chancellor and the ruling party, not for him to act as the new Chancellor
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/20/2023 8:14 AM That is a duty inherent in the position of Deputy Chancellor The people vote for the parties. The Chancellor/Deputy Chancellor/Ministers are a package deal that come with the party when you vote for it.
Vladimir Khlebnikov — 08/20/2023 8:17 AM You know what Im actually convinced I'll vote for abstain
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 8:19 AM Notably, I am against the amendment. I don't believe that it is right that the full executive power be re-invested in the deputy. I believe that in such an occasion as the loss of the Chancellor, the cabinet should work in committee whereby the Deputy, as Acting Chancellor, may only make decisions on matters of specific urgency.
Vladimir Khlebnikov — 08/20/2023 8:20 AM Uh
Vladimir Khlebnikov — 08/20/2023 8:20 AM
Similar ideas but Im still abstain
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/20/2023 8:20 AM I don't believe this amendment prevents that?
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 8:21 AM The amendments intention as I understand it is to specifically empower the Deputy with all the powers of the Chancellor. To make a specific example - it would permit the Acting Chancellor to appoint new cabinet members, possibly to replace themselves for example. I feel that should only be done with the documented approval of >50% of the cabinet.
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/20/2023 8:22 AM Hmm, a fair point.
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 8:23 AM For example, in the previous term of government, the Deputy was from a different party to the Chancellor. While I don't believe we should have a full new election, I do believe that the Cabinet should rule by committee. I note this is still as it is today, where my Deputy is from the DPPK. My loss under this amendment could mean a radical change in direction to the policies elected by the people Some change is to be expected, but it should be that the vast powers of the Chancellor devolve not onto one individual, but onto the cabinet as a body
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/20/2023 8:25 AM Cabinet as a whole could still make radical changes in policy.
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 8:27 AM But at least it would be done with the input of the cabinet. The question isn't about perfect prevention. Its about improving the likelihood.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 12:53 PM
I can understand mr wards concerns with the bill but frankly I find them unrealistic. Even if we do take in to account what happened last term if the member remembers he was appointed deputy chancellor and was made to make decisions along with the acting chancellor and quite frankly the idea that a committee in my opinion could effectively run a country for possibly three years is ridiculous even more ridiculous if we take in to account the committee might not be from one party such as from the national coalition let’s say party a wants to go and do one thing but party b opposes it party c also has their own way they want to run the country. Objectively wale a committee mabye would have worked in the past now with party’s with such different platforms i find that it would be difficult for them to effectively run a government I think in best case scenario the government would be slower to respond to issues that demand attention and worst case we are in deadlock for the whole term having someone step in as acting chancellor and be able to handle the issue effectively is the best way to handle it (in my opinion) Even if we lessen the power of the role of acting chancellor
Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/20/2023 10:53 PM I'm confused as to why we need this amendment. It takes away any alternate options available. Effectively enforces a line of succession style which is not necessarily the most suitable for Kodiak's style of governance and is not guaranteed to always be suitable. Where a line of succession only works in the assumption that the line is actually active otherwise you will do this dance multiple times, whereas the cabinet as a whole can simply continue with the intended policy (under the assumption that they are aware and briefed) and as needed select their representative leader/spokesperson, sure there is no officially recognised Chancellor but it does not prevent the cabinet from deciding how they believe they should govern the remaining term. If it turns out they want to select a new leader and propose as such to the GA, and therefore also reshuffle the cabinet, then they may. If they do not, then that flexibility can work in our favour.
A cabinet and a 'committee' are no different in our specific method of governing, the cabinets aren't guaranteed to be on the same page, ergo selecting a new Chancellor by succession isn't guaranteed cooperation - perhaps they have less legitimacy even as they are not elected but merely approved. The only exception of course is that the Chancellor can simply prevent things from entering the government queue - but not from the private members queue. So it's not really a comparison.
With that said, if the line of succession is what the GA wants - I would urge the GA to observe that as written this passes executive power and whether that is the completely permissable given the citizens have voted for a specific person to hold executive power. They do not elect a cabinet, indeed, Chancellors don't even need to reveal their cabinets until the approval vote. I would suggest we examine if we want full executive powers to pass in this way.
In any case, if the GA is not satisfied with the cabinet after the unintended absence of the elected Chancellor, the GA does not need to wait out the rest of the term in inaction. Whether that be exploring legal means of 'no confidence', or simply continuing legislatively - as we saw last term.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 11:08 PM
i will address these points one by one
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 11:18 PM
one: we need this amendment because every time a chancellor has left us it has been a complete and utter disaster as i said before in my previous comment the executive committee does not work it is ineffective and slow it rarely yields any legislation in a term and is incredibly slow to respond to any issue that is why we have a chancellor to make quick decisions and to implement policy dont think we can point to a time in our seventh republic where a excutive commitee did not crash and burn Two: there is no guarantee that a government committee would be active either actually every time we have had one it seems they have been as inactive as possible in fact go to say there has never been a especially "active" executive committee
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 11:27 PM
Three: but why.. why should we go through the lengthy process of reshuffling the cabinet when we already have a perfectly fine approved cabinet its just a waste of time that could be used governing
Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/20/2023 11:31 PM I'm going to break into OOC here, but I feel this is okay as you are talking about inactivity to argue this.
This is in a whole, incorrect as an observation. The cause of inactivity is not in fact because (to use the recent example) because one of our members who happened to be Chancellor got banned from discord. Inactivity periods do not suddenly begin at that point.
The recent inactivity slump has been going on for months and started long before the last Chancellor was removed due to RL reasons. It is an active slump that exists across the whole of nationstates. It is also factually incorrect to claim that the cabinet was suddenly inactive at that point - the cabinet had not produced anything as yet prior to the Chancellor being RL incapacitated.
Secondly, the GA was actually quite active until the latter few weeks of term, and you will recall that the Chancellor was already gone long before.
However let us move to your next point, and narrow the discussion to the cabinet.
Point two we can say exactly the same for a succession model - because we are using the same inactive cabinet.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 11:32 PM
Four: but the cabinet does not have the final say the chancellor does he always makes the final decision at the end of the day it does not matter at all if the cabinet is divided because the chancellor is the authority but it certainly matters if the excutive commitee is devided beuse that means nothing gets done
Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/20/2023 11:32 PM A succession would also require reshuffling of the cabinet anyway, you will need a new Deputy, and a new minister.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 11:32 PM
but the assambly does not need to approve it it doesent take three days for that to happen
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 11:33 PM Yes it does.
Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/20/2023 11:33 PM We're talking about cabinet shuffling?
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 11:33 PM
when was i approved to become acting chancellor
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 11:33 PM All changes to cabinet must be approved. The only standing precedent is that appointees take office immediately unless rejected
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 11:33 PM you didn't stop being Deputy Chancellor. The nature of DC is that it is AC when the C is missing. That's literally its only purpose
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 11:34 PM
even when you where appointed dc
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 11:34 PM Because it was never put through, due to the resignation of the president, I wasn't DC. At best I was provisional DC pending approval
Jonn Stevens (DPPK)
OP
— 08/20/2023 11:34 PM
the public service was incapible of doing the task
Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/20/2023 11:35 PM I already mentioned that this is perhaps the only difference, due to executive perogative for a Chancellor to refuse to put things in the government queue.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 11:38 PM
he does not only refuse things he also is commander and chief and does make final desions leaving a responsibility that was up to one person to a group of individuals translates well for you?
Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/20/2023 11:38 PM I question why the GA doesn't simply exercise their powers to fix their disatisfaction.
Chancellors serve at the discretion of the majority of the GA, and the GA President themselves is by nature serving at the discretion of its members. There is an argument to be made that if only a short amount of time remains in a term, then sure it is best to get the acting leadership close it out.
However, the GA is not powerless to give themselves new leadership.
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 11:39 PM Sorry, where is the Chancellor named Commander of the armed forces?
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 11:41 PM
might have been mistaken on that point but they do not at all control the military (not in plans and what not but if i remember correctly they have something to do with it)
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 11:42 PM The defence forces are an executive ministry. The Chancellor isn't a commander of the military forces. he cannot command action. The Ministry cooperates like any executive department seeking approval or disapproval of plans and with a length of personal autonomy for granular actions like any department. The military officials make plans, the minister and chancellor approve or deny.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 11:43 PM
seeing as how the GA as of late has never in my knowledge done this i find it unlikely, they would in the near future
Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/20/2023 11:43 PM Hence my question - and therefore my reminder that the GA is empowered and should realise this.
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 11:44 PM this is such a strange argument to me - did you want the GA to vote you out?
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 11:45 PM
if they wanted new leader ship they should have if i am a bad leader they should
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 11:46 PM Why is their inaction seen as a failure to lead then - if not instead an acquiescence to your acceptability? the KWP and CKA, and certainly with support of the DPPK, could have easily thrown out the cabinet last term. instead the CKA and KWP participated dutifully in the GA This does somewhat effectively lead me back to my original point. I don't think etching a specific and singular response to a crisis of the Executive is the best way forward. Inflexibility I think actually begets more problems than the status quo has. I mean, lets not mince words. Tobias is my Minister for his competence - Tobias is also my deputy as a reward for political support. He was not selected to be the second best Chancellor right now if something happened to me. but that's exactly what this amendment would enforce
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 11:53 PM
seeing as the status qo as you put has not worked once maybe we should replace it and quite frankly maybe we should stop giveing out roles for political support the role of DC should have a purpose that is to fill the executive for the rest of term intel elections so we dont have a possibly dead locked government for any amount of time
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 11:55 PM my major concern with this is that we're attempting to repair a larger problem with a system that doesn't affect it. A crisis of the Kodiak Flu ((inactivity)) is not solved by making new political machinery. The problems you cite are real and important, but they aren't caused by the Chancellor nor the political process as it stands
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/20/2023 11:56 PM
but they are may i ask if a executive committee is so good why do we have a Chancellor why don't we just have a committee
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/20/2023 11:57 PM You tell me - you are present in the cabinet. To what level would you consider my work in the cabinet to be authoritarian vs collaborative? Which bills have been presented exclusively by my will? Which actions have been taken without input?
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 12:00 AM
i mean one the Emergency Education Appropriations Act 654 the minister who wrote the bill itself wasn't even for the bill initially and you did say something witch is currently said in the cabinet so will not share W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 12:01 AM sure, and in the end did he withdraw his support? Or did he work with cabinet to address our ongoing budget crisis? Work in Committee =/= utopian hivemind
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 12:04 AM
yes but he wouldn't have done it i believe if you had not pushed him at least not to the extent that was needed and again the comment you made when he stated his hesitance and at least one other minister was aginst it also
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 12:06 AM I feel like you're confirming my point for me here. The Cabinet discussed the issue, and elected to follow my lead after discussion and discourse. IF that isn't collaborative committee I'm not sure what is.
This cabinet could easily and obviously continue on without me, even with our ongoing Flu issue. The amendment as presented here would not work effectively for our cabinet. Tobias is struggling and often absent. Would it be your preference I force his resignation?
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 12:13 AM
i mean no but at the moment Tobias can be absent if he was acting chancellor id have no doubt he would be able to take over and i wouldn't what happened in the cabinet that day as the cabinet took your lead ill high light the specific comment in the cabinet(for you not for the GA) and if permitted ill explain the rest of the arugement
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 12:16 AM No, I don't think its worth breaking cabinet secrecy simply for more evidence that cabinet worked as a team. I am absolutely convinced that if cabinet truly felt they disagreed with me they would have felt both empowered and capable to override my decisions. And I am not convinced that whatever specific record you post will undermine that fact.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 12:18 AM
then let us forget that last bit in any case i still find a executive committee is less effective at governing then a actual chancellor
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/21/2023 12:23 AM I don't see how this amendment prevents the Assembly from moving to lose confidence in the AC?
Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/21/2023 12:25 AM It doesn't, I am offering that this issue isn't something that we cannot already handle. What it does is enforce one particular method for the Chancellor to deal with possible untimely absences, whereas I prefer the Chancellor given the freedom to do so how they see fit - as part of their inherent duties.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 12:27 AM
but what if the chancellor cant outline that we got lucky with jason corey that wont always happen
Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/21/2023 12:27 AM That is a failing with the Chancellor, and I am comfortable the GA is empowered to deal with it if we see fit.
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 12:28 AM Is there a Chancellor that hasn't presented at least a general platform for election?
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 12:29 AM
no but we are not talking about platforms we are talking about succession i see your point but not every chancellor has the mind to think that far ahead.
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 12:31 AM Who? Who hasnt?
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 12:31 AM
so far at least two i believe
Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/21/2023 12:32 AM To me that is still a failure of the Chancellors if that is the case, not the system.
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 12:32 AM still waiting to know who Barber had Luchens Luchens had Tonessen Edwards had Oule Groves had Oule Corey had Stevens Ward has Virsturm that's over a generation of leaders 18 years
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 12:34 AM
weasly Karlson (im iffy on that one becuse i belive he was just inactive) and luchens they never sated what they wanted to happen and your dispproveing my arguement with what i want to happen anyway? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 12:36 AM if my argument is we don't need to make a change to the flexibility because its working fine now - and I present 18 years of it working fine as it is. How is that me supporting your position?
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 12:45 AM
because you presented me a list of C and there DC see as how that's what i want to happen little confusing. but in any case, that isn't also 18 years of it working fine its 18 years of chancellors who did not need to step down and a couple times we got lucky no important issues came up
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 12:46 AM what are you talking about? During the Acting Tonessen cabinet we were literally being invaded
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 12:47 AM
you forget that we had a cesefire
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 12:48 AM I'll let the occupied territories know that they weren't an important issue 👌
Jonn Stevens (DPPK)
OP
— 08/21/2023 12:58 AM
that is a strawman and may i ask how well did we do in geting those back during that term
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:00 AM I think you simply forgot and instead of accepting it I think you're bandying out the idea of strawman instead of addressing the facts on the ground
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:01 AM
no what you did was not address the arguement at hand and instaed tryed to use a strawman
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:01 AM chancellors who did not need to step down and a couple times we got lucky no important issues came up me: War? you: strawman Fine I'll entertain this what in your definition is an important issue other than the loss of 10% of our territory? because you immediately moved the goalposts from "no important issues" to "well we didn't immediately take the occupied territory back so the cabinet failed" you can't have it both ways cabinet can't have had no important issues and "failed" in the important issue it did have
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:07 AM
but we weren't fighting a war and you didn't even bring it up you tried to say that i didn't think that having the GN occupy parts of our country was a important issue and not only did we not get them back if i remember correctly we didn't even try i know i was minister of defense
Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/21/2023 1:10 AM Maybe there's been a misreading or miswording somewhere. I am very confused though. You said a couple times we got lucky and no important issues came up.
But clearly you feel there was an important issue and that cabinet failed to deal with it, is that right? Or am I misreading, genuinely apologies if I am I'm just trying to unconfuse myself :P
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:12 AM
ok fine yes it was important issue and we failed but doesnt that help my point we as a committee failed to take care of it in the absence of a chancellor
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:13 AM No because there isn't a persuasive case having a chancellor would have been the difference. the army was at that point mostly autonomous as well as supported by rebel groups the cabinet worked within the ceasefire to rebuild - and even with luchens he was working collaboratively within the cabinet he even appointed additional members to cabinet specifically to work wtih them your argument is disprovable because its not related to the facts on the ground "it would have been better with a chancellor" is not falsifiable the immediate previous construction of the cabinet suggested the chancellor wasn't more important as luchens than as tonessen
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:16 AM
that is also untrue because we solved the issue the next term with a actual chancellor you don't think it would have been even slightly better with one
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:16 AM solved* TGN went bankrupt because the ceasefire was too long Edwards didn't solve it because he had a magic title. Timing solved it
Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/21/2023 1:19 AM I'll credit John Edwards for proactively pushing to make it a priority when timing presented itself. As one should as Chancellor.
We will never know of course, but if the timing had occurred in the Luchens term, it is likely that the remaining cabinet and the GA would have ratified the peace treaty as well - as it was the best course of action in my humble opinion. Do you really think that without a Chancellor we would have simply ignored the peace talks? I would like to think we're better than that, or we shouldn't be sitting in these chambers.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:20 AM
no but i think it would have been easier to achieve with a chancellor leading the cabinet to its full extent i can not see a senario where haveing a chancellor would not help
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:27 AM Cool well the current convention still empowers an acting chancellor so I'm not sure to what extent the amendment is necessary
Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/21/2023 1:28 AM The Republic rightfully in its current setup ensures that government can continue so long as the General Assembly exists, and of course the Public Service's many workers continue to do their jobs. The General Assembl is always empowered to act, and always empowered to right wrongs.
I don't think anyone is arguing the existence of the Chancellor would not be some kind of positive during a crisis, after all - the people elect one to lead, however I am not convinced removing control of how succession works from the Chancellor who is elected to lead the executive Government will be a positive. The Chancellor should, as duty requires, ensure succession during a crisis is adequate should they be incapacitated. How is their prerogative in my opinion.
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/21/2023 1:28 AM How about rewording the Amendment to make it a legal requirement that the Chancellor establish some form of succession?
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:30 AM Why do we need to legislate that - when the assembly can ask the chancellor for their preference as part of the selection process
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:31 AM
my argument just changes to why shouldent we just codify something that is constitutionally dubious
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:31 AM this bill was rejected by the assembly in 651, and it feels like we're tying hands just for the sake of tying them. It doesn't resolve the problems it identifies if cabinet is inactive, this won't fix it if cabinet is active, this isn't needed if the GA doesn't like cabinet, this doesn't create the power to remove them - they already have it
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:33 AM
that is assumeing the entire cabinat is inactive and also the leagaity of it
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:33 AM No, it isn't. exactly zero of the problems of the luchens cabinet are solved by this (which is why it was rejected before) exactly zero of the problems of the Corey cabinet are solved by this (which is why it should be rejected today)
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:35 AM
actually it does solve one problem well a couple but specifically this one what was my legal right to be acting C
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:37 AM your legal right as AC was developed over 30 years of convention and judicial acquiescence
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:38 AM
But it was not stated in any law
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:38 AM that's the point Kodiak is a common law state it is not possible for the assembly to write laws that cover every single minutea of every avenue of every system in the entire nation
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:40 AM
but for something as important as the person who is leading the nation you dont think its important to clarify that
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:41 AM not when its already clear the executive consists of the cabinet - no because you aren't clarifying, you're altering you're empowering one person over the cabinet in a non dubious way in contravention to the present convention The major difference here is where you see missing information as a weakness I see our conventions and traditions as a strength
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:44 AM
ok then ill grant you that (im not trying to ignore the answer but i want to bring this up again) but i must ask you again why exactly do we have a chancllor W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:45 AM I think its unfair to stretch my argument against empowering a new person over the cabinet to cabinet should never have a leader
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:46 AM
but if the channcllor is not needed why have the role
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:46 AM You're misunderstanding the argument
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:47 AM
no im saying if the chancllor is not important enough that we dont need them for one term why have them at all
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:47 AM The Chancellor is the authority by which the executive executes. The Deputy has authority on the basis that the Chancellor empowered them as Deputy and the cabinet as a committee. The way the Chancellor runs his cabinet is their prerogative. That is the constitutional reading.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:48 AM
if we can run the counrty fine with out a chancellor why have one
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:48 AM The Cabinet retains power because the Chancellor selected them. Legislating a specific succession steals power from the executive Again - you're missing the entire point The Constitution empowers the Chancellor They are the ultimate executive authority. When they are absent, the powers of their cabinet still derive from the office of Chancellor Its the same reason why there is no legislation on how many ministers there are - and no official deputy position
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:49 AM
but we can do with out the chancellor when appropriate
Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/21/2023 1:50 AM The deputy isn't an official position? Then this Amendment would be useless
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:51 AM That's correct. It was an invented position during the Barber Admininistration in preparation for the upcoming war It has been a running convention since then that a deputy exists as empowered by their chancellor - usually as a "just in case" Its actually been relatively rare for every department to have a cabinet minister. Often in history there have been only 5 cabinet members instead of 7 or 8
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:52 AM
wait a second then could theoretically then i may be misunderstanding a chancellor could just if they wanted to just not have a cabinat
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:52 AM I mean they could, but I haev a feeling the assembly might have some strong feelings about that The assembly already has the right to force a cabinet on the chancellor
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:54 AM
so we are making a line of succession for roles that dont even officaly exist
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:54 AM Well, I'm not. Image
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 1:56 AM
so I'm making a line of succession for roles that don't even officially exist
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 1:56 AM To be fair, your amendment only refers to the DC Given the convention of DC being a position, I would think it would exist with enough hutzpah that it would still pass a court challenge.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 2:01 AM
welp im tried and going to bed i will probely withdraw this in the morning i mean as long as its not a real postion
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 2:03 AM it is a real position. one that has existed for over a generation
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 2:04 AM
but not a official one witch would make the amendment useless
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 2:05 AM Jonn - As much as I would like you to withdraw the bill because I don't like it, I refuse to let you do it over a misunderstanding The Seventh Republic is not run singularly by the exact words of the laws on the page. It is built of conventions, norms, laws, traditions, as well as a constitution. It would be impossible to rebuild after the flu otherwise, and none of us have the energy to write the chapters long bills required otherwise What you see as a bug is literally one of our greatest features The amendment does not need to refer to the establishment of the DC to still make rules for it. it is known for almost 20 years the point of a deputy, what their purpose is. sure, in future a law may inturrupt that convention making the amendment innaccurate - but that's the point of a flexible system. To be ready to make changes as necessary to ensure the smooth running of the nation. For example - what if the ((discord)) parliament is subject to some sort of terrorist attack ((nuking/deletion))? and we end up with just 10 members? do we want to try to rebuild with 8 cabinet positions? Or 1 chancellor and the approximate needs of the executive? the lack of specific codification is what allows the government to expand and contract to meet the needs of the citizens W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/21/2023 2:12 AM ultimately it is the responsibility of all of us as MGAs to work as a whole to protect our republic. it will never be protected by paper - only by patriots
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/21/2023 2:15 AM
ok then i wont withdraw it the assembly can just vote on they want it they will vote for if not you get the idea
Braughn F. G. Kryos — 08/21/2023 4:50 PM I agree with Mr. Ward. Usually, I am all for the detailing out of legal processes, especially when it comes to pegging power with responsibility. However, I believe that the best way to ensure that the power of the Chancellor is closely intertwined with responsibility is to simply allow the cabinet to enforce it. Perhaps the Deputy Chancellor acts as the face of this committee-minded version of executive authority, the chairman, you might say, but the cabinet agrees on how to carry out policy together.
This does, however, leave us in a dire situation concerning the unhappy and hopefully unlikely occurance of a violent assassination of the Chancellor during a national crisis. I do believe that the Deputy Chancellor should be authorized to make some level of executive decisions immediately, without specifically consulting every member of the cabinet. This may be an item for debate and the restructuring of this act.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK)
pinned
a message
to this channel. See all
pinned messages .
— 08/24/2023 8:01 PM
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/24/2023 8:06 PM
I believe I have a idea to restructure this amendment that may be slightly better then the current format I’m going to edit it now
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 08/25/2023 1:30 AM
Never mind did some thinking bad idea just going to leave it as it is
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 09/01/2023 3:08 PM
@Assembly Member sense i forgot to give the 24 hour objection period yesterday i will do it to day and start the vote for the bill tomorrow i hope thats acceptable so if there are no objections the vote will begin in 24 hours
Braughn F. G. Kryos — 09/01/2023 3:08 PM I second the motion
W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 09/01/2023 6:52 PM No objections.
Spiritualandia — 09/01/2023 7:10 PM le objection = nein
The Republic of Arcasis (DPPK) — 09/02/2023 2:33 AM Aye EasyPoll BOT
— 09/02/2023 4:00 PM
Question Do you Approve of The Amendment to The Executive Chancellor Act (inter)
Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain
Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ [9 • 47%] 🇧 ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ [9 • 47%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [1 • 5%] 19 users voted
Settings
- alarm_clock: Poll already ended (9 hours ago)
- spy: Anonymous Poll
- one: allowed choice
- lock: No other votes allowed
Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: f6c09a7e Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— 09/02/2023 4:01 PM
@Assembly Member voting is now open for the amendment to the executive chancellor act (inter) Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP
— Yesterday at 7:26 PM
@Assembly Member with 9 for 9 against and 1 abstaining this bill is rejected
