Executive Order - Printable Version +- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz) +-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html) +--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html) +---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html) +----- Forum: Government House (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-140.html) +------ Forum: Cabinet Office (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-13.html) +------- Forum: Situation Room (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-168.html) +------- Thread: Executive Order (/thread-4419.html) |
Executive Order - Drugged Monkeys - 08-29-2016 This thread is to discuss the immediate and pressing issue with the Election Act that allows anyone to hold multiple offices with no restriction. The Charter states: Quote:Executive Authorities We all must agree unanimously on an executive order, so any and all input will be recognized. Below is the draft I have written: Quote:The Charter states: It's pretty rough, so please provide input RE: Executive Order - sandaoguo - 08-29-2016 I would reword it: Our Charter creates a system of checks and balances, envisioning multiple co-equal branches of government that cannot dominate each other. Central to these tenets is the inability of one person to hold positions of power in branches that are meant to provide checks or balances to each other. The Cabinet is faced with the prospect of this tenet being violated, through holes in our constitutional electoral laws. Because this is such an important part of our democratic system, and we believe our system will fail without it, we must take the step of invoking our executive authority power to remedy this hole in our laws. This authority is vested in us by Article VI, Section 11 of the Charter: "11. The executive may exercise the collective authority of executive orders, by unanimous consent among the Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers. Executive orders may only be issued to address an immediate and pressing issue created by ambiguity or holes in a particular law, which will immediately have the effect of law." We are unanimous in the following: No person may hold more than one elected or appointed position, or positions in two or more branches of government, except when explicitly allowed for in the Charter and laws passed by the Assembly. With this executive order, nobody currently holding a position in the Cabinet, the High Court, or the Local Council may be elected for the open position of Chair of the Assembly, being the leader of the legislative branch of our government. We want to stress that we are not acting as a court interpreting the language of the Charter to somehow find this requirement within it all along, but rather using our executive order authority to address an immediate and pressing issue created by a hole in our electoral laws that allows a basic tenet of separation of powers to go violated. Pursuant to Article VI, Section 12 of the Charter, this executive order is immediately put on the floor of the Assembly for three days of debate. If the Assembly fails to incorporate this order into law under regular order, then it will expire. To expedite debate and drafting of an incorporating law, the Cabinet recommends amending the Elections Act with the following article: ... 6. Separation of Powers (1) No person may hold more than one elected or appointed position, or positions in two or more branches of government, except when explicitly allowed for in the Charter and laws passed by the Assembly. 7. Constitutional Law (1) The Election Act is a constitutional law, and further amendments to it must meet constitutional amendment requirements. RE: Executive Order - Roavin - 08-30-2016 Regarding "nobody currently holding a position in the Cabinet, the High Court, or the Local Council may be elected for the open position of Chair of the Assembly": What about the case that somebody currently holding one of these offices wishes to run for CoA and announces their intent to resign if they win? That'd be legitimate as far as I can tell. So an addendum that addresses that could be "unless a tentative resignation from the current position in case of victory is given". I believe, based on what I remember reading, that historically TSP has allowed this, though I don't know if it was explicit in the laws or just generally understood. Also "system will fail without it" -> "system risks failing without it". RE: Executive Order - Imkihca - 08-31-2016 I think there is some unnecessary paranoia over this issue but I approve of Glen's draft with the provision Roavin's suggested although I would prefer less dire wording than fail. Maybe risks instability? RE: Executive Order - Roavin - 08-31-2016 After brief discussion on Discord, I'm rewording Glen's proposal as such:
This would be the version we all agree with, then. Quote:Our Charter creates a system of checks and balances, envisioning multiple co-equal branches of government that cannot dominate each other. Central to these tenets is the inability of one person to hold positions of power in branches that are meant to provide checks or balances to each other. The Cabinet is faced with the prospect of this tenet being violated, through holes in our constitutional electoral laws. Because this is such an important part of our democratic system, and we believe our system risks instability without it, we must take the step of invoking our executive authority power to remedy this hole in our laws. This authority is vested in us by Article VI, Section 11 of the Charter: "11. The executive may exercise the collective authority of executive orders, by unanimous consent among the Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers. Executive orders may only be issued to address an immediate and pressing issue created by ambiguity or holes in a particular law, which will immediately have the effect of law." RE: Executive Order - Drugged Monkeys - 08-31-2016 http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4425-lastpost.html |