[Breaking News] Senate Continues Debate About Questioning Amendment

EBC_Logo.png

breaking-news-Edited.png


Senate Continues Debate About Questioning Amendment
The Senate has re-opened the debate about the Questioning Clarification Amendment (2021), formerly known as the Contempt of the Senate Amendment.
Written by Klatonia




The "Contempt of the Senate Amendment" is back on the Senate floor. First presented on March 8 as the “Contempt of Senate Amendment (2021)”, it was rechristened “Questioning Clarification Amendment (2021)” on March 17. The bill is now described as “[a]n amendment [to the Senate Protocol Act (2020) and to Constitution IV (2019)] to establish a procedure for official questioning and testimony of the elected and appointed leaders”.

The first round of debates ignited passions over its penal provisions. With the Senate divided over the issue of bringing up criminal charges on those in contempt of the Senate, and President Calvin Coolidge not in favour of imposing charges, sponsor GraVandius removed it from the amendment and submitted a modified version on March 17.

The current motion establishes two distinct areas on the Europeian Forum in which Senators would submit “official questions and inquiries” to members of the Executive, including executive deputies. The first such area would be public, and the second area would be private and used to address “Secret or Top Secret information that the executive elects to not release to the public”. Should an Executive official “fail to substantively respond to questions posed by Senators within ten days”, the Senate would then have the power to remove said official with a simple majority vote (50%+1).

Senators are once again split on the question. On one side, Senators Malashaan and Common-Sense Politics have expressed reservations about the effectiveness of such measures without granting the Senate the power to compel testimony. Senators Forilian and Speaker GraVandius, on the other side, argue that the current motion grants the Senate more explicit political means “to escalate a conflict with a Minister to removal.” Senator Sanjurika, who first seemed to back the motion, revised their position after reading Sen. Malashaan’s arguments.

On April 7, Speaker GraVandius stated that the issues of testimony and those addressed in the motion are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, they started a separate discussion about compelling testimony and moved the current motion to a second reading.
 
Great write-up! That's an interesting discussion - also, glad to see a lot of content from the EBC recently!
 
Back
Top