Opinion: Presidential Punt Prevents Passage of Peoples’ Assembly
Written by Deepest House
“The heated debate on this issue has been going on for a long time now,” President Icarus said from 34 Goldenblock Avenue, the official residence of the president of Europeia. “There are both strong arguments for as well as against it and I view it as my duty as the elected voice of the people that both sides get the chance to express their feelings. I cannot, in good conscience, come to a fair decision on this topic on my own without neglecting either side, therefore per GI2 of the Constitution, I am hereby reserving the bill for the signification of the People's Assent via referendum.”
While President Icarus alleges strong arguments for and against, that’s true for nearly all meaningful legislation that comes before the president for signature, and in and of itself does not constitute sufficient reason for neglecting to sign or veto the bill. Additionally, the Senate completed the final bill package during a term in which the majority of senators ran on a platform supporting the passage of the Peoples’ Assembly. These candidates easily won election.
Indeed, both sides have had the chance to express their feelings. We have had public discussions ‘for a long time now,’ as President Icarus notes. Both proponents and opponents of the Peoples’ Assembly knew this this Senate term would likely be the decisive term for its debate and vote within our region’s legislative chamber. When the election came to pass, it was clear that candidates supporting the Peoples’ Assembly retained a clear mandate to continue working on the legislation and pass it for signature or veto from the president. There was no large scale opposition to the bill during the election.
The reasoning given by President Icarus is therefore specious. Additionally, the very nature of signing or vetoing a bill is ‘neglecting’ the other side. This is inherent in signing legislation and comes with the office. It would be absurd to suggest all bills should go to referendum, but if neglecting the other side is part of the calculus, it is easy to see how a president could send everything to a referendum.
The people have already spoken through their elected representatives. Everyone has had a chance to participate and share their perspectives. We, the citizens of Europeia, sent a staunchly pro-Peoples’ Assembly to the legislature this term with the expectation the Senate would complete its work and send a final bill to the president for signature. Throughout the Senate term and the finalization of the bill, there has been no coherent opposition against it. This is not to say that every citizen supports the legislation – of course that isn’t true. There are a few who have vocalized their opposition. However, an opposition minority doesn’t necessitate a referendum.
That President Icarus punted is a disservice to the citizens who elected this Senate, it stalls regional progress and advancement unnecessarily, and it unfairly caters to a minority crowd that has not been able to mobilize effective opposition to the passage of the Peoples’ Assembly.
Leaders lead. They gather information, identify and chart a path forward, and take the first steps to guide their constituency on that journey. This is why we elect presidents. We elect presidents to make decisions, tough decisions, and set us forward on the path to progress. In this case, all of the available information suggests robust support for the People’s Assembly with minority opposition. Sending this legislation to referendum was not a tough decision. It was a complete and total punt of presidential responsibility and an abdication of leadership from our highest office.
President Icarus has been a good president. One bad decision does not define a presidency, and this will not define Icarus’ presidency, either. However, it will remain on the record as the time when she decided to take the easy road instead of making a decision. That’s unfortunate for Icarus, and unfortunate for the office of the presidency.
Finally, it’s worth noting that both presidential candidates have also signaled that they would send the bill to referendum. However, their reasoning for that is much different: they know that the bill maintains widespread support. I believe they are unwilling to signal an intent to sign it because they are against it, but also they can’t say they’d veto it, given the widespread support it enjoys. Such a statement would potentially inhibit their Goldenblock hopes and dreams. That’s quite different from a president leaving office who is not running for re-election and can simply sign legislation consistent with public opinion and support clearly in favor of the bill. I could be wrong here, but this is a reasonable interpretation knowing their stance on the bill. Heck, I'd say the same thing.
Our Constitution empowers our presidents with significant authority to sign bills into law. We elect presidents to lead. Unfortunately, sending this bill to referendum is not leadership.
