General Debate Topic for the 10th Session of Parliament

As per Article 1 of the General Debate Act, I do hereby, in my capacity as Founder, create a General Debate Topic for the current Session of Parliament.

I would ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans concerning proposals of law for this Session of Parliament?

And if so, if he has directed any of his Ministers to write such proposals, or whether he plans on writing them himself.

Nassau-Windsor wrote:I would ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans concerning proposals of law for this Session of Parliament?

And if so, if he has directed any of his Ministers to write such proposals, or whether he plans on writing them himself.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I am planning on making some bills with my party, although they will most likely need substantial editing.

I would like to ask my Rt. Hon. friend the Minister of Development [Libertarian Democracy] whether he has given some instructions to the Roleplay Moderator [Hashkin] on the implementation of Our Region's Members onto Our Regional Map?

I would like to ask the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister [Sepharich] whether or not he will approve of a Bill that would make it possible to give some positions, including his own and that of President, in commission if the incumbents fear that they will be incapable of being suitably active in Our Region for a longer period of time.

I would also like to hear the opinions of other Ministers, when they are not the same as that of the Prime Minister.

The Role Play Moderator has been given broad discretion to regulate RP as they see fit.

Libertarian Democracy wrote:The Role Play Moderator has been given broad discretion to regulate RP as they see fit.

Thank you for this answer. Have you also given him [Hashkin] a period of time until landmasses should be claimed by the Members?

Since I need to justify this post by proving that it does not relate to an Act that has already been put to Parliament, I will say that this post is regarding a potential Act amending SO#2017-39 "Terms of Office Act", or a possible amendment to the Constitution.

While browsing the Constitution, I noticed a provision that may render Article 7 of SO#2017-39 illegal.  Specifically, this line:

"if the previous term was cut short by the invocation of Article II Section F of the Constitution of the Union, the period of time between the instants 0000 UTC on the day following the official declaration of result which elects him to the position of Prime Minister and 2400 UTC on the day which is exactly one hundred and twenty two (122) days later"

While Article II, Section F, Subsection 1 of the Constitution does mandate that

If the Prime Minister is removed, the WA nations in the Region must elect a new Prime Minister for a completely new term

Article IV, Section 3, Subsection 3 of the Constitution further mandates that:

A new term shall begin on the first of a month

The concern with Article 7 of SO#2017-39 is that because it commands that a new Prime Ministerial term begin the day following the by-election, it would violate Article IV, Section 3, Subsection 3 of the Constitution. Because of the start of a new term after the removal of a Prime Minister being regulated by both of the cited Constitutional provisions, in order for Article 7 of SO#2017-39 to be legal, it would need to be amended to change the start of the new term from the day after the by-election to the 1st day of the next month.

Any thoughts?

I thank my Rt. Hon. friend very much for finding this problem: it actually solves one of the main problems with SO 2017-39. I propose that we amend the Act to that effect (I can take care of writing the bill for that since I wrote the original). A byproduct of this would be that if a Motion of No Confidence is passed at the beginning of the month, the incumbent would still retain office for the rest of the month. Can anyone else think of a solution to this rather annoying circumstance?

Abdoa wrote:I thank my Rt. Hon. friend very much for finding this problem: it actually solves one of the main problems with SO 2017-39. I propose that we amend the Act to that effect (I can take care of writing the bill for that since I wrote the original). A byproduct of this would be that if a Motion of No Confidence is passed at the beginning of the month, the incumbent would still retain office for the rest of the month. Can anyone else think of a solution to this rather annoying circumstance?

I think the office (or at least the privileges and duties thereof) could be granted in the form of a Commission, as this happens with several -Medieval- offices that still exist in the United Kingdom today. I will see if I can write a Bill on the subject.