Post

I will like to thank Chokoku for presenting this Constitutional Amendment VII and for accepting few of my amendments for making the amendments better but I am opposed to Constitutional Amendment VII for various reasons.

1. There is a clear violation of separation of power when the President, the leader executive branch is also the Senate Consul, the leader of the legislative branch. How can one nation be the leader of 2 out of three branches of government?
2. CA VII is punishing the political parties, when it states that if the political wins more seats than Senators, those seats should be given to the other parties. That is not the will of the people. The people voted for a political party and yet of they have they win more seats than they have Senator they are going to lose the seats to the political that were elected in the legislative election.

3. The Chief of Staff position created in CA VII isn’t necessary. The Chief of Staff position is taking the duties and responsibilities of the President thus created a symbolic and weak President position. This region must have just one head of government, one leader per branch. Approving this, will cause the Chief of Staff to be a Co-Head of Government. We must have just one head of government and one leader per government branch.

4. The Senate Consul and the Author failed to ask the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding this amendment despite being the Court that indicated that CA V was wrong and made recommendation on how to solve the problem.

The author of CA VII stated that it is intention to have one nation to be leader of two branches of government thus eliminating the check and balances that each branch has between them. The author states that the Chief of Staff is needed because it will eliminate the monopoly power of the one nation as President. I believe he is wrong the current constitution does maintain check on the executive branch, with the legislative branch presenting bills and even going over Prime Minister veto. Also we have another branch of government that maintain the region in check, which is the judicial branch and the other branches does have the ability to maintain in check the Supreme Court.

Senators, again I appreciated Chokoku for bringing this CA VII up and for accepting the majority of my amendments but if CA VII is approved this will cause more problems and I am sure that this will end up in the Court. I was the only Senator that voted against CA V and did gave the warning to everyone that is wrong, sadly some of those articles of CA V are in CA VII thus causing potential problems to future government and lawsuit in which Chief Justice Zetox will have to review. The Court gave me the reason last time (without me even going to Court) I am sure that if this goes to the Court, the Court will probably say that I am correct.

Please vote against this amendment! Those Senator who have voted in favor of CA VII, please reconsider such vote and vote against CA VII.

If anyone has questions, please let me know and I will like to say to the Chairman South Waterford that I am available to answer any of his questions if this Constitutional Amendment VII does receive the 2/3 votes necessary to be sent to him for his approval or veto. But I will encourage him to veto this constitutional amendment if it does reach his desk.

Thank you for your time and VOTE NO to CA VII

Chokoku wrote:

1. There is no violation of the separation of power. The president, the chief of staff, and the cabinet ministries are all related to the legislature. Their powers are closely interconnected and works together to create appropriate policies. Ultimately, the executive and the legislative branch are, in any democratic country, democratically elected and sources their power from the people. This already explains the reason for the closeness between these two particular branches.

Once again, I will point out that the judicial branch remain completely independent, and this amendment attemmpts to strengthen this independence by including concepts such as independence of the prosecutory, and the power of precedents.

2. Additionally, the point on "punishing political parties" is untrue, as it is merely returning the power to the citizens who gives their powers to the government. I would like to remind citizens that sovereignty of this region comes from its people, REGARDLESS of their party membership. If in Elmito's logic this amendment is a punishment of political parties, then the old constitution would be a punishment to the people.

3. And, the Chief of Staff is extremely necessary. There needs to be two heads of government that leads the executive, exactly due to the nature of the executive branch and how it can be easily abused. As seen in the region's history, there has been past president who abuses power and lacks another executive branch leader who can stop him. I have even heard the claim of "The Vice President has to listen to me anyways, if he doesn't listen I can just switch him out."

If fellow senators and Chairman, we want our democracy to be stable, and that there are no monopoly of executive powers, and to truly preserve our democratic sovereignty, the Chief of Staff position is more than necessary, it is fundamental.

4. This is a completely false claim. The Chief Justice has clearly declared in past judicial cases that, he does NOT have the authority to decide on the legality of drafting legislations. I urge fellow senator Elmito to take a read of the court case where Chief Justice Zetox ruled on the request of former Consul Highlock to review constitutionality of a formerly drafting law.

Moreover, The Chief Justice has only declared the unconstitutionality of C.A.V, and ONLY due to the conflict between article VI and the C.A.V. He has recommended us to make another C.A. to amend the errors. For this exact reason, thsi constitutional amendment and C.A.VI was proposed. As the conflict/discrepancy between the articles have been cleared, there is NO LONGER any constitutionality issues. I recommend fellow Senator not to create a strawman and untrue statements to support your stance. I also recommend fellow Senator to withdraw claims such as "The court will probably say I am correct", as this is not only based on mistaken comprehension of the law and the last judicial decision, but also that it affects judicial independence by pre-judging for yourself.

With careful proofreading over a period of several weeks, I have edited this C.A.VII to clarify meanings, correct old mistakes, align wordings, and united the old document with the new articles. From my own reading, I am confident to say that the C.A. has satisfied all constitutional requirements.

I thank fellow Senator Elmito for many of the good suggestions, amid general inactivity of the Senate. I look forward to more Senate activity after thus C.A. passes and allows us to make R.P.B, a non-binding real-life parliament simulation mechanic.

I urge you all to support the C.A.VII, for its ability to fix our government system, further balances the powers, and opens up the doorway for us to propose bills and debate on various real-life affairs. Shall it pass, I invite fellow citizens to actively participate more, and debate with other fellow citizens on these R.P.B.!

Thank you for all of your time.