EBC By-Election Debate - Citizen's Comments

[centre]
EBC Debate - Citizen's Comments
From the Europeian Broadcasting Corporation, one of Europeia’s premier Media groups.
Keeping Europeians and the world informed since 2009.

---

---

JGlenn-Sopo Debate[/centre]

As can be seen here the two candidates for the open seat for the By-Election to the Senate have been battling it away and debating their views. I ask for citizens of Europeia to either leave their questions for the two candidates here, best ones asked to the candidates under the Debate's rules, or offer their views to the Candidates answers and replies.

So... citizens of Europeia. What do you think about their opening statements?

 

[Notolecta]

Ministers are deputies. Deputies are those individuals the President appoints to carry out some of his day to day responsibilities and functions such as overseeing welcoming or leading the Navy.Since ministers are charged with overseeing a small portion of the executive function, which as a whole is the responsibility of the President, they are deputies. Also if the cabinet members are not deputies then I guess they didn't have to be confirmed and aren't actually legally defined or exist in side of statue. Now it is possible for something to exist and not be in written law; however, if there is another position defined and restricted within law that holds the same function as the unwritten position then the name really doesn't matter because regardless of what you call them they are the exact same as deputies and thus are deputies.

If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, you can call it a chicken, but it's still a duck.

 

[JGlenn]

Reread Constitution V..... They are defined. ^_^

Edit: Or just below:

EA3. (2) In the execution of Government on the People's behalf, the President shall have specific authority and responsibility to appoint and oversee Ministers to a Cabinet such as to maintain the effective function of Government, including recruitment and welcoming, Citizen integration, and management of foreign affairs. The People may by law provide further requirements and structure for the Cabinet.

LA7. (1) In order for any appointed person or persons to serve on the High Court of Europeia or on the Cabinet of Ministers, the approval of the Senate is required.

 

[Notolecta]

I thought the deputy language was suppose to replace the word minister? This is what we get for rushing the dang Constitution through. It was sooo important to get it finished during the 5 year anniversary that we sacrificed quality in the process.

 

[Indycar Racing]

I would have to disagree with your interpretation Notolecta. Their are two separate sections in which deputies and ministers are mentioned separately. I read this as allowing the president to create other executive offices in addition to having the basic ministry structures.

 

[Notolecta]

I would have to disagree with your interpretation Notolecta. Their are two separate sections in which deputies and ministers are mentioned separately. I read this as allowing the president to create other executive offices in addition to having the basic ministry structures.

Indy it wasn't originally like that. The original intent at the time seemed to me to replace the work minister, but somewhere along the line they added the minister part back in apparently do to a conflict of wording where the word minister was left elsewhere. The main theme of the reforms and the new constitution was to deregulate and open things up, which is why the word deputy was being used because it was a more broad term than minister, not that it really matters from a judicial point of view since it was defined either way. The definition for deputy could easily and was meant to cover ministers. I was looking at the records and it was added during swaks speaker ship, but I'm still not sure exactly why the minister language was put back it. One could argue that ministers were suppose to be a more specific group within deputies, in which case they would still be deputies, but to argue that they are completely separate positions gets weird, for it would mean that two separate groups were created for the same function, splitting up the executive responsibility, which is completely redundant.

 

[Indycar Racing]

I would have to disagree with your interpretation Notolecta. Their are two separate sections in which deputies and ministers are mentioned separately. I read this as allowing the president to create other executive offices in addition to having the basic ministry structures.

Indy it wasn't originally like that. The original intent at the time seemed to me to replace the work minister, but somewhere along the line they added the minister part back in apparently do to a conflict of wording where the word minister was left elsewhere. The main theme of the reforms and the new constitution was to deregulate and open things up, which is why the word deputy was being used because it was a more broad term than minister, not that it really matters from a judicial point of view since it was defined either way. The definition for deputy could easily and was meant to cover ministers. I was looking at the records and it was added during swaks speaker ship, but I'm still not sure exactly why the minister language was put back it. One could argue that ministers were suppose to be a more specific group within deputies, in which case they would still be deputies, but to argue that they are completely separate positions gets weird, for it would mean that two separate groups were created for the same function, splitting up the executive responsibility, which is completely redundant.

I agree with you that ministers are subset of deputies. So I believe they should not receive different treatment.

 

[Vinage Vinage]

Well.... a new question to the candidates and a new item to discuss here

The population has been on a steady decline for a few weeks now - what should our Senate do about it?

 

[HEM]

I thought the deputy language was suppose to replace the word minister? This is what we get for rushing the dang Constitution through. It was sooo important to get it finished during the 5 year anniversary that we sacrificed quality in the process.

The Constitution wasn't "rushed through", debate started last summer in the City Council, continued on and off there and in the Grand Hall for half a year, spent a month in the Senate for precise review, and then passed.

There were babies conceived and born in the time we discussed this Constitution.We could have waited until our tenth anniversary to vote on it, and there would still be errors. Still be things people disagree on. There's a point where you say, "stop", and finish it up, otherwise we'd still be quibbling over sentence tenses.

 

[Notolecta]

I thought the deputy language was suppose to replace the word minister? This is what we get for rushing the dang Constitution through. It was sooo important to get it finished during the 5 year anniversary that we sacrificed quality in the process.

The Constitution wasn't "rushed through", debate started last summer in the City Council, continued on and off there and in the Grand Hall for half a year, spent a month in the Senate for precise review, and then passed.

There were babies conceived and born in the time we discussed this Constitution.We could have waited until our tenth anniversary to vote on it, and there would still be errors. Still be things people disagree on. There's a point where you say, "stop", and finish it up, otherwise we'd still be quibbling over sentence tenses.

Your saying that you didn't purposefully make it fall on the 5th anniversary? You also forget that over that year there were vast periods of time where no one was actually paying attention to it. You do realize I'm not the only person that think the implementation of the constitution should have and could have waited right?

 

[Vinage Vinage]

If you felt it was rushed, couldn't you as a Senator now revisit it and say your piece on it in the Senate?