SO 2017-16 Speaker pro tempore of Parliament Act

I - Introduction

Authorizing the Prime Minister to relieve himself of his parliamentary duties from time to time, allowing him such liberty as to attend to his governmental duties in fuller capacity, we, the Parliament of the Union, do hereby create the office of Speaker pro tempore of Parliament.

II - Definitions

The "parliamentary duties" of the Prime Minister are defined as in Article III Section D Subsection 3 of the Constitution of the Union and in all laws associated with that clause.

III - Status and Duties

a - The Office of Speaker pro tempore of Parliament is hereby to be established following the enactment of this Act.
b - The Prime Minister may at any moment and for any duration of time choose to delegate his parliamentary duties to the Speaker pro tempore of Parliament.
c - By extension, the Prime Minister may at any moment revoke such a delegation of his powers.
d - However, if the Prime Minister is inactive on the forum for more than a week, the Speaker pro tempore of Parliament automatically receives the delegation of duties as per Article III Clause a of this Act, assuring the continuance of parliamentary proceedings.
e - Under no circumstances may any non-parliamentary duties be conferred on the Speaker pro tempore of Parliament.

IV - Election

a - At the opening of each Parliament, a vote is held amongst the senators to determine, by exhaustive ballot, the Speaker pro tempore of Parliament until the dissolution of that Parliament.
b - At any moment, a Senator may table a Motion of No Confidence in the Speaker pro tempore of Parliament which, having made its may through Parliament pursuant to the provisions enumerated in SO#2016-3 ("Parliamentary Procedure Orders"), Article II, dealing with ordinary Bills of Parliament, if passed, will force the immediate resignation of the incumbent Speaker pro tempore of Parliament, whereupon  the provision of Article IV Clause a of the Act must be re-executed.

V - Conclusion

We, the Parliament of the Union, do hereby enact this document and its provisions as an Act of Parliament.

March 12, 2017
Abdoa, Senator
Sepharich, Senator
Libertarian Democracy, Senator

I commend my Honourable friend for writing this Bill. Although it is a wonderful concept, I would like to point out to him that:

1) In my opinion, we should rename the office that is to be created to that of Vice-Speaker. This makes sure that there cannot be any confusion upon the offices in another Act of Parliament or other legal document that is hereafter to be passed.

2) In my opinion, it would be wise to explicitly add to Article IV that only Members of Parliament may run for the office. The way the provision is written down now, it seems to me that, as long as the vote is taken among the Members of Parliament, anyone can be elected to be [Vice-]Speaker.

1) I don't really like the sound of Vice-Speaker, but what about Speaker pro tempore?
2) Oh thank you for catching that! I cannot believe I forgot to put that in. Thank you very much!

Just a question though, should the full title read Speaker pro tempore of Parliament, as I put it in, or Speaker of Parliament pro tempore? Though I think the second sounds better, since the "pro tempore" part is not capitalized, it's less clear that it's actually part of the title. Thoughts?

Abdoa wrote:Just a question though, should the full title read Speaker pro tempore of Parliament, as I put it in, or Speaker of Parliament pro tempore? Though I think the second sounds better, since the "pro tempore" part is not capitalized, it's less clear that it's actually part of the title. Thoughts?

Though I like both of them, I think that Speaker pro tempore of Parliament should be used as the official title. This, I think for the reason that a person having trouble with the English and Latin languages, could think that, if we were to use 'Speaker of Parliament pro tempore' that that office is held by a [proper] Speaker, and that Parliament would be 'pro tempore'. With the former title, that confusion will not arise...

I do concur with the Rt. Hon. Nassau that the name of the post should be "Speaker pro tempore of the Parliament".

Additionally, this proposal lacks an establishment clause. The first clause of Article III should say something along the lines of "The office of the Speaker Pro Tempore of the Parliament".

Finally, in Article IV, Clause b, "Parliamentary Procedure Orders" is not a proper reference. It should be "SO#2016-3 ('Parliamentary Procedure Orders')".

I really like this idea, like some of you know I have stated before, although I think we should simplify the name to Speaker of the House because I had this idea, not saying that I get all of the power in this decision, and I based this Idea on the President of the Senate, from the American political system. Technically, the Vice-President (in the United States) has veto-power and could basically take over senate at any time, although he doesn't always have the time, which is why they created the office of president of senate, which isn't called Vice-President of The Senate, or the President of the Senate pro-tempore, it's called the President of the senate. That is why I believe we should simplify and shorten the name to President of Parliament.

Those are the only objections I have to the idea.

Libertarian Democracy wrote:I do concur with the Rt. Hon. Nassau that the name of the post should be "Speaker pro tempore of the Parliament".

Additionally, this proposal lacks an establishment clause.  The first clause of Article III should say something along the lines of "The office of the Speaker Pro Tempore of the Parliament".

Finally, in Article IV, Clause b, "Parliamentary Procedure Orders" is not a proper reference.  It should be "SO#2016-3 ('Parliamentary Procedure Orders')".

I have edited the bill to the effect of having an establishment clause. However, I contest your second point, as I am not referring to the bill SO 2017-03, I am referring to the Parliamentary Procedure Orders that were established and which are contained in that bill.

Also, to Sepharich, I think I would prefer the name Speaker pro tempore of Parliament to President of Parliament, because I think we should be avoiding any confusion: we would always have to make the distinction, whereas you could informally can the Speaker pro tempore just the Speaker, or the Speaker pt.

I co-sponsor this bill.

Abdoa wrote:

Libertarian Democracy wrote:I do concur with the Rt. Hon. Nassau that the name of the post should be "Speaker pro tempore of the Parliament".

Additionally, this proposal lacks an establishment clause.  The first clause of Article III should say something along the lines of "The office of the Speaker Pro Tempore of the Parliament".

Finally, in Article IV, Clause b, "Parliamentary Procedure Orders" is not a proper reference.  It should be "SO#2016-3 ('Parliamentary Procedure Orders')".

I have edited the bill to the effect of having an establishment clause. However, I contest your second point, as I am not referring to the bill SO 2017-03, I am referring to the Parliamentary Procedure Orders that were established and which are contained in that bill.

Then something more specific is required. (ie. "...pursuant to the provisions enumerated in SO#2016-3 ("Parliamentary Procedure Orders")..." or "...pursuant to SO#2016-3 ("Parliamentary Procedure Orders"), Article II...")

Libertarian Democracy wrote:

Abdoa wrote:

Libertarian Democracy wrote:I do concur with the Rt. Hon. Nassau that the name of the post should be "Speaker pro tempore of the Parliament".

Additionally, this proposal lacks an establishment clause.  The first clause of Article III should say something along the lines of "The office of the Speaker Pro Tempore of the Parliament".

Finally, in Article IV, Clause b, "Parliamentary Procedure Orders" is not a proper reference.  It should be "SO#2016-3 ('Parliamentary Procedure Orders')".

I have edited the bill to the effect of having an establishment clause. However, I contest your second point, as I am not referring to the bill SO 2017-03, I am referring to the Parliamentary Procedure Orders that were established and which are contained in that bill.

Then something more specific is required.  (ie. "...pursuant to the provisions enumerated in SO#2016-3 ("Parliamentary Procedure Orders")..." or "...pursuant to SO#2016-3 ("Parliamentary Procedure Orders"), Article II...")

Done!

Sepharich wrote:I really like this idea, like some of you know I have stated before, although I think we should simplify the name to Speaker of the House because I had this idea, not saying that I get all of the power in this decision, and I based this Idea on the President of the Senate, from the American political system. Technically, the Vice-President (in the United States) has veto-power and could basically take over senate at any time, although he doesn't always have the time, which is why they created the office of president of senate, which isn't called Vice-President of The Senate, or the President of the Senate pro-tempore, it's called the President of the senate. That is why I believe we should simplify and shorten the name to President of Parliament.

Those are the only objections I have to the idea.

The Vice-President does not have veto power.  In fact, he only can do two things in the Senate other than the ceremonial "chair" duties: he can vote only if there is a 50 to 50 tie, and he must certify the results of the electoral college vote.

Also, the Term "President of the Senate" refers to the Vice President.  The person who serves in his stead is the "President Pro-Tempore Of The Senate".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate

EDIT: I hereby co-sponsor the proposal

Libertarian Democracy wrote:

Sepharich wrote:I really like this idea, like some of you know I have stated before, although I think we should simplify the name to Speaker of the House because I had this idea, not saying that I get all of the power in this decision, and I based this Idea on the President of the Senate, from the American political system. Technically, the Vice-President (in the United States) has veto-power and could basically take over senate at any time, although he doesn't always have the time, which is why they created the office of president of senate, which isn't called Vice-President of The Senate, or the President of the Senate pro-tempore, it's called the President of the senate. That is why I believe we should simplify and shorten the name to President of Parliament.

Those are the only objections I have to the idea.

The Vice-President does not have veto power.  In fact, he only can do two things in the Senate other than the ceremonial "chair" duties: he can vote only if there is a 50 to 50 tie, and he must certify the results of the electoral college vote.

Also, the Term "President of the Senate" refers to the Vice President.  The person who serves in his stead is the "President Pro-Tempore Of The Senate".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate

EDIT: I hereby co-sponsor the proposal

Alright, I hereby declare myself stupid. I guess A.P. U.S. Government did nothing for me. Now that I have been reminded of it, I see that you are totally correct.

Also, I also co-sponsored above a couple of posts ago.

I humbly like to request that I be put as a co-sponsor of my Honourable friend's Bill.

I request that the Speaker invoke SO#2016-3 ("Parliamentary Procedure Orders"), Article II, Clause b and advance this proposal to debate.