Yes, the Cabinet has a lot of power. They were elected to wield that power. If people don't trust them, they'll elect new people. I wonder if you would be up in here all fluttery if it were Unibot who had his citizenship revoked for vote stacking?

The Cabinet sends a lot of things to the Assembly that they exclusively get to decide on first. Until you want to ban Cabinet participation in all those votes, this is plain political theater.

Not true. This isn't about banning the Cabinet from ever participating in Assembly votes, just certain ones, and this matter regarding Security Threats specifically needs special attention.

The odds are already stacked against someone who has a Security Threat Declaration placed against them by the Cabinet, now those same 6 people who voted to strip a citizen of their rights get to vote on the appeal in the Assembly and that vote has to be 75% for the appeal in order to overturn the Declaration?

With those odds, a Security Threat Declaration placed against anyone, for any reason, is more or less the kiss of death. The appeal will almost certainly fail, even with the majority of the Assembly voting for it. It's not getting overturned unless the Cabinet has a change in heart.

Or, you know, we change our laws.

(03-09-2015, 11:25 PM)Escade Wrote: I wonder if you would be up in here all fluttery if it were Unibot who had his citizenship revoked for vote stacking?

Everyone deserves a fair judgement, Escade, even Unibot.

As I said when this first came up, I view these specific appeals as a review of the decision the cabinet made by the rest of the region. As such, I think it makes sense the cabinet members do not vote, to see what the rest of the region feels about the decision, as the cabinet has already had their say and will have a major impact on any review decision. I do think you will find in most cases the decision will be upheld, as it would have with Belschaft (if you remove cabinet votes, it still did not reach anywhere near 75%).

This logic applies to treaties as well. The Cabinet forms an even more solid voting bloc in those votes.

That nobody is proposing to stop the Cabinet from voting on treaties shows to me that this is a political stunt, and that a few are falling for it.

I'm not willing to call this is a political stunt ... but I do agree with Escade that elections are held for Cabinet officials thereby offering a recourse everyone is overlooking here.

By security threat, are we only discussing issues of removing citizenship or also where applications are rejected? (The later would change course in the Cabinet since no official votes are taken.)

This has been said before and I'll say it again, even if The Cabinet is barred from such votes, it still needs 75% support to pass. Failure to reach 75% against does not mean an appeal passes. It is very unlikely that such appeals will reach the necessary support margin even without The Cabinet voting against them.

This proposal is only for citizens declared a security threat, not for citizenship appeals. The difference between this and treaties or wars is that the Assembly is reviewing a decision made by the Cabinet with potential to overturn it, not affirming a decision made by the Cabinet. The Assembly is supposed to be a check on the Cabinet's power here, and, as it stands, it is an ineffective check. This proposal would make it an effective check.

That's semantics Sopo. There is no substantive difference between a vote to overturn a Cabinet decision and a vote to affirm it. They are simply mirror images.

Also, it should be noted that decisions to deny citizenship application for non-clerical reasons ARE normally Cabinet decisions. So again, there's a real inconsistency in the argument that leads me to believe this is motivated in part by politics.

Of course, it's motivated by politics.