President Darcness Sends Controversial Amendment to Public Referendum




President Darcness Sends Controversial Amendment to Public Referendum
By Deepest House








(Europeia – May 22, 2017) – President Darcness today declined to sign or veto the Honored Citizen Restriction Amendment, which the Senate passed on May 21. By declining to sign or veto, the population of Europeia will decide the fate of the amendment at the ballot box. The Senate passed the amendment by a vote of four to two.

The amendment eliminates the right of the region’s honored citizens to speak without invitation in the Senate. President Darcness considered the law overnight before deciding to put the decision to public referendum. “This is an issue that I believe is best decided by the People themselves,” the president said in declining to sign or veto. “I hereby request that the issue of the People's Assent be discovered via referendum.”

Speaker of the Senate McEntire immediately slammed President Darcness for his refusal to sign or veto the legislation, which he presented to Goldenblock yesterday. “I would have preferred an outright veto,” he said.

“I was hoping, especially early into the President's tenure, that he would choose decisiveness, to either sign or veto the bill,” McEntire continued. “Instead, against the recommendation of the Attorney General, he has chosen neither path.” McEntire also took issue with the president’s intervention in what he saw as a Senate matter. “Let me be clear, this is a Senate issue. This is a question about who should speak on the Senate floor,” he emphatically stated upon hearing the news. “The Senate decided this issue.”

The Speaker of the Senate continued his indictment of the president’s decision, insinuating that Darcness’ decision undermines the value of the region’s senior legislative body and its ability to manage itself. “What disturbs me, though, is the lack of leadership here,” he said. “If we are going to have a referendum every time we don't have a unanimous vote in the Senate, why have a Senate?”

The amendment is the first legislative activity of the new Senate. Senator Leo introduced the amendment to the Senate on May 15 after the Citizens’ Assembly discussed the topic but ultimately failed to pass. The debate in the Senate, which included many honored citizens providing input, lasted nearly a week before the speaker called a vote. McEntire, Punchwood, Leo, and Mr. Verteger voted in favor, while Drexlore Greyjoy and Cerian Quilor voted against.

Public reaction to the referendum was mixed, with arguments for both sides quickly springing forth. PhDre supported the legislation. “It encourages [honored citizens] to actually run for Senate to directly impact Senate discussion for one,” he said. “It will also allow [honored citizens] to be honored without the reasonable concern of diluting Senate speaking rights.” Kuramia was unsure why the matter was even brought to referendum.

Erica vigorously supported the amendment, believing it grants too much political influence to unelected citizens. “It's your own responsibility to give your opinion exposure, not the Senate's,” she said, in regard to speaking rights allowing a prominent place for honored citizens to voice their concerns. “It should never have to be used as a platform to 'get a point across.’ All that does is grant political leverage to people who haven't been elected.”

Notolecta, infamous for his abrasive and unpolished behavior, quickly took the opportunity to question the merits of the legislation. “I don't know why we think a voice in the Senate ought to be restricted to 6 senators, it's just asking for ill-informed bad legislation,” he speculated. “If the Senators personally think they are less off because of [honored citizen] speaking privileges I don't give a [expletive],” Notolecta gruffly declared without regard to using crude language in the Palace of the People.

Senator Cerian Quilor, who voted against the amendment, pushed back against McEntire’s notion that President Darcness lacked decisiveness in the decision. “I think Darcness showed decisiveness, not a lack of it, here.” Cerian Quilor also questioned if an actual problem exists. "Someone still needs to explain (and defend) their claim as to what problem is being corrected with this removal," he asked.

Rach, the founder of the Freedom and Equality Party, which lists the revocation of honored citizen speaking rights as one of its core platform issues, issued a statement to the EBC regarding the president’s decision. “This referendum has been a slight speedbump, but it has made me so proud to see how so many people have responded positively to this concept,” she said. “The acrimonious opposition by a minority of people has been unfortunate and surprising.”

President Darcness defended his decision in an exclusive interview with the EBC. “This is a decision that affects our core democratic principles. The Senate was deeply split on this case, and so are the people,” he said. “It’s impossible to say signature or veto easily portrays the will of the people, so I want them to speak for themselves.”

Supreme Chancellor Mousebumples opened debate on the referendum today, which will continue for at least 72 hours. The referendum must receive a simple majority to pass.
 
There really isnt a my word against yours situation though. Its more like my word against your power to vote on legislation.
 
Can't vote if you're removed from Office for removing speaking rights from your trusted and respected advisors! I do hope I'm not giving anybody ideas :shifty:
 
So, remove speaking rights so that Senators cant potentially commit political suicide by deciding to remove an HC for saying things that a majority of Citizens agree with? That argument seems somehow undemocratic.
 
Drecq said:
So, remove speaking rights so that Senators cant potentially commit political suicide by deciding to remove an HC for saying things that a majority of Citizens agree with? That argument seems somehow undemocratic.
It isn't an argument, sorry, I'm just trying to have fun :(

I shouldn't even be awake, it's 6 am here...
 
They are the only kind of fun I have left. Please dont take this from me.
 
Rach said:
I'm planning on writing an article on it, but the idea that HCs did earn their status is mostly true at best. Most HCs did earn their status but not all citizens who have earned HC status have gotten it. There are a ton of omissions. Even recently, players like Hy and NES whose best work was a long time ago were only honoured recently. These guys should have been honoured a long time ago. It's a flawed system to begin with.
This is interesting.
 
Erica said:
Drecq said:
So, remove speaking rights so that Senators cant potentially commit political suicide by deciding to remove an HC for saying things that a majority of Citizens agree with? That argument seems somehow undemocratic.
It isn't an argument, sorry, I'm just trying to have fun :(

I shouldn't even be awake, it's 6 am here...

Drecq said:
Remember, I live east of you. :p

And arguments are fun.
ProTip for Erica, as she's new - Drecq (and Malashaan) like arguing and debating. They really do consider it to be fun. Hell, there's a thread in the Grand Hall somewhere where one of them went "You went and agreed with me, so we can't even debate anymore. :(" and then the other one said, "Well, let's make up some arguments for something we don't really agree with so we can debate about it some more!" And then the other one said, "Ok!" and proceeded to lay out a detailed argument for the other side.

Legal nerds like to argue. And I love reading it, though I don't usually engage because I don't have the same legal/judicial related background. xD
 
For the record, if I come back and run for Senate and am elected Speaker: I can guarantee here and now that I will automatically just grant speaking rights to HCs for the duration of that term unless they abuse the privilege.

Which you know would've been a lot easier if you all just left this stuff to the Speaker anyhow.
 
Trinnien said:
For the record, if I come back and run for Senate and am elected Speaker: I can guarantee here and now that I will automatically just grant speaking rights to HCs for the duration of that term unless they abuse the privilege.

Which you know would've been a lot easier if you all just left this stuff to the Speaker anyhow.
Once this amendment passes, the Speaker will have the discretion on whether or not to grant speaking rights, rather than having it assumed that they will be granted. So yes, I agree that Speaker discretion is important. And good luck with that election, pal.

Ya ever heard of the battle of Gonzales? :wink:
 
McEntire said:
And good luck with that election, pal.

Ya ever heard of the battle of Gonzales? :wink:
So text can often leave a lot of one's meaning ambiguous - one can often assume tone or intent when none is supposed to be present.

The tone to me seems a bit sarcastic on your part, but I'll admit I could be reading into it wrong.

I also don't quite see the point about the arguable start of the Texan Revolution unless someone is planning some kind of populist uprising.

In any case - you weren't really that active much of the time I was. A bit, but not much.

Generally speaking, I think there's a fair level of confidence in my legislative skills. I was an active Senator that assisted on multiple pieces and often offered input on CA debate.

I've apologized for any potential past mistakes on my behalf, and can only use my past experiences as a learning moment - and if I decide to return one day, it will be a desire to happily participate in the healthy discussion and development of this region we all care about.

But - hey maybe I mistook your tone.
 
Trinnien said:
McEntire said:
And good luck with that election, pal.

Ya ever heard of the battle of Gonzales? :wink:
So text can often leave a lot of one's meaning ambiguous - one can often assume tone or intent when none is supposed to be present.

The tone to me seems a bit sarcastic on your part, but I'll admit I could be reading into it wrong.

I also don't quite see the point about the arguable start of the Texan Revolution unless someone is planning some kind of populist uprising.

In any case - you weren't really that active much of the time I was. A bit, but not much.

Generally speaking, I think there's a fair level of confidence in my legislative skills. I was an active Senator that assisted on multiple pieces and often offered input on CA debate.

I've apologized for any potential past mistakes on my behalf, and can only use my past experiences as a learning moment - and if I decide to return one day, it will be a desire to happily participate in the healthy discussion and development of this region we all care about.

But - hey maybe I mistook your tone.
My tone was a little tongue in cheek. The Battle of Gonzales is, after all, known for its famous battle flag, which reads "Come and Take It." So you see, just a little light-hearted Texas humor. But yeah, come and take it.

Again, to me the whole thing is about Speaker discretion, so it strikes me as backwards to say that the whole thing could've been solved if you left it up to the Speaker. It already is up to the Speaker, and it will continue to be. This amendment allows Speakers discretion to grant speaking rights as they see fit, rather than having them assumed for HCs.
 
Of course the Speaker could already just have said: "For this term I rescind the speaking rights of all Honoured Citizens." and it would have been so.
 
Drecq said:
Of course the Speaker could already just have said: "For this term I rescind the speaking rights of all Honoured Citizens." and it would have been so.
Right, and this was not my proposal. I simply agree with Leo's proposal and have argued in favor of it because I think it's the right policy move.

And that's important too, the fact that it is a matter of policy. It's not that I don't want HCs speaking during my term. That's not what it's about. I don't want to block them out while I'm Speaker. I do not think that receiving an Ovation or a Triumph should come with a lifetime speaking pass on the Senate floor. I don't know how many times I can say that, or how much more clear I can make it. My hope is that those who have voted with the amendment (currently the majority) are voting that way because they agree with the simple policy point that I've made above.
 
We know you dont think that. No one was saying you do. I was just saying that the argument saying it gives the Speaker discretion is a faulty one, since the Speaker already has discretion. You simply dont want HCs to have lifetime speaking rights, which is fine. I disagree and I really dont see why anyone would be so vehemently for either side of this, especially since every argument youve brought forward was at best based on faulty logic, but you do you. And for the future: underline, red, and italic is overkill.
 
Drecq said:
We know you dont think that. No one was saying you do. I was just saying that the argument saying it gives the Speaker discretion is a faulty one, since the Speaker already has discretion. You simply dont want HCs to have lifetime speaking rights, which is fine. I disagree and I really dont see why anyone would be so vehemently for either side of this, especially since every argument youve brought forward was at best based on faulty logic, but you do you. And for the future: underline, red, and italic is overkill.
Did you not read my previous post, where I noted that the Speaker already has discretion? Or any of the other posts where I've made that point? I'll admit, I've been very disappointed at how quickly all of these debates have turned into passive aggressiveness. My point is that the debate should've been about that simple point I've made above, and much of it was not. Many resorted to cattiness and personal insults. I haven't actually seen you deconstruct my arguments to determine that they're based on faulty logic.

At this point, it doesn't matter, because it's done. You and I simply disagree on this. A majority of the Senate and the region agreed with me on it. Hopefully we can all move on. This debate has just made me discouraged in the way that Europeians speak to each other.
 
So... we're saying this highly controversial bill didn't really do much of anything in practice. Surprise surprise.
 
Back
Top