|
Author
|
Comment
|
Prime Executive
Austi Scot
Posts: 225
(12/11/01 2:47:05 pm)
198.152.13.69
| Del All
|
REF-003: I acted Constitutionally
I am, of course, happy to see the movement for impeachment has been set aside.
Let me say that I acted with the best interest of Tymaria in my heart. I believe I acted fully within the bounds of the Constitution of Tymaira.
I saw before us a time of great need, a looming crisis.
Over the months of my knowledge of this fight I have seen micro-nations attempt to solve the fight between Jacobus and Peter Hickey. I have seen the destruction that has been caused by this ongoing fight.
It would be far better for the nation not to allow the post that ensue over this matter between Peter Hickey/Pete Krembs and Jacobus. This was a fight that started before Tymaria was berthed as a nation. It is a fight that neither I personal nor Tymaria as a nation will be able to solve, it must be solved by those fighting. The fight doesn�t belong to us, it only threatens us.
The fight was not brought to us when Jacobus applied for admission here. Rather Jacobus was followed here by Peter Hickey and Pete Krembs who brought up their old fight.
Peter Hickey made threats to Tymaria and refused to withdraw those threats. This is the reason he was banned under Executive Order. I posted the Constitutional wording on the matter of Executive Orders, I followed the Constitution. It was my view that Pete Krembs had joined Peter Hickey in these threats.
In the future I shall act to protect Tymaria. Let the citizens of Tymaria question my motives and my actions at any time.
Austi Scot
Prime Executive
Tymaria
Edited by: Brrapa Lu Eraro at: 12/17/01 10:17:27 pm
|
PrinceEdwardI
Major Conway
Posts: 100
(12/12/01 3:03:46 am)
209.246.131.224
| Del
|
Re: I acted Constitutionally
Again, I would like to offer my apology for the articles.
In the week you were gone, I realized that these actions and the articles were the result of different people being on different pages, in regards to who is supposed to do what or make what decissions.
I hope that as Prime, you will work with the rest of the nation to lay down the correct procedures, powers, and decission-making perogatives of the various officials, so that we won't face this confusion again.
A couple of questions for Prime Austi Scot and everyone else to consider, so that we all agree on the answers:
1. Does the decision-making in a particular ministry fall to the Minister appointed, the Prime, or must there be a concensus? If the Prime, is he/she required to consult the Minister before deciding? The same question if the minister is in charge.
2. What constitutions a threat to the state sufficient to issue executive orders? If a person is to be punished or banned, must there be a stated warning first?
3. Are legislative bills (laws, procedures, etc.) passed through both HoN and HoP? Or just one house? What are the individual powers of both Houses?
Some people may say this is redundant, but I would point out that this whole argument was based on different people having different views of what the Prime can legally do. Let's sort this out now, before the next argument on jurisdiction comes along.
Regards,
Edward Conway
President of Lyrica
Machiavellia's Tymarian Senator
"Arrogantia et Suspico semper adesse publicus colloquium"
Maj. Conway - 406WM3556KB9QP9T -
Flame Corps |
Prime Executive
Austi Scot
Posts: 246
(12/12/01 9:19:21 pm)
198.152.13.70
| Del
|
Re: I acted Constitutionally
Quote:
1. Does the decision-making in a particular ministry fall to the Minister appointed, the Prime, or must there be a concensus? If the Prime, is he/she required to consult the Minister before deciding? The same question if the minister is in charge.
The Constitution says:Quote:
8. To assist the Prime Executive in his/her duties, there shall a Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a Ministry of Defense, a Ministry of Science, a Ministry of Financial Affairs, a Ministry of Research and Education, and a Ministry of Justice. The exact duties of these shall be regulated by law. Ministries may be added or subtracted by law.
It is my view that each Minister should act as an Executive within their Ministry. They should not have to get a consensus or the approval of the Prime Executive for each decision as long as they act within the law and within the policy of the administration.
If the Prime Executive is in disagreement with the Minister the issue can be discussed.
Each Minister need only keep in mind the line from the Constitution, �To assist the Prime Executive in his/her duties.� There is no reason for every decision to go to the Prime Executive first. Each Minister should act for the building of Tymaria within their Ministry while at the same time not attempting to usurp authority that is not given them by the Constitution nor delegated to them by the Prime Executive.
Quote:
2. What constitutions a threat to the state sufficient to issue executive orders? If a person is to be punished or banned, must there be a stated warning first? Can a minister be removed from office or stripped of administrative powers at the Prime's disgression, or only if they commit a crime?
The Constitution says:Quote:
4. In times of crisis or great need, the Prime Executive may issue executive orders, which shall have immediate effect. However, the House of the Nations reserves the right to veto an executive order, by unanimous vote, for a period of two hours after it is issued. He/she shall be required to immediately communicate the text of the executive order to all members of the House of the Nations. Executive Orders shall not be used to exercise any of the normal functions of the Prime Executive; rather they shall be for extraordinary circumstances in times of unusual circumstances.
It is impossible to foresee all possible crisis, great need, extraordinary and/or unusual circumstances. When the Prime Executive believes there to be a threat to Tymaria he/she must act to protect our great nation. It may be that some disagree on both the way things are seen by the Prime Executive and the steps taken.
That is why the House of Nations may veto an Executive Order. It is this rule of veto that needs to be worked on. I suggest that the House of Nations should be able to veto an EO upon a vote of a super majority and should be permitted to take such a vote perhaps every two weeks.
The Constitution says:Quote:
7. The House of the Nations shall have the power toconfirm executive appointments to ministries with a simple majority and to declare war on the request of the Chancellor with a 75% majority. It shall ratify treaties and remove ministers with a super majority. It shall hold impeachment trials of the Prime Executive or a High Judge, expelling him/her with a super majority. It shall have the power to remove ambassadors and ministers with a super majority.
I see nothing that says the Prime Executive may dismiss a Minister, that power is in the House of Nations. It seems the Prime Executive might be able to request such a dismissal or may withdraw any delegated duties not regulated by law. However, we must remember that administration is vested in the Prime Executive per the Constitution.
While I have my view on this matter I think the matter should be resolved either between the Chancellor and Speaker or via the court system.
With that said, here is my view. Both houses should be able to pass legislation without the consent of the other house.
The House of the People would be best served with a system that allows it to move quickly, not having to get a vote from every citizen but rather accepting a time frame for debate and then for voting. In this fashion those who want to vote will accept the responsibility and those who wish to not vote are not so required.
The House of the Nations should require a system of a majority vote in order to pass legislation.
After legislation is passed in either house it should be presented to the Prime Executive for either a signature promulgating it into law or a veto and return to the house where it was passed.
This should be done with regards to those specific issues mentioned in the Constitution that are reserved to either house. This is where the debate actually comes into play. In my view, the right to pass regular legislation is Constitutionally granted to both houses.
The House of the People has the exclusive right of impeachment, acceptance of another nation into Tymaria and the granting of independence from Tymaria.
The House of the Nations has the exclusive right of confirmation of appointments by the Prime Executive, the right to declare war at the request of the Chancellor or Prime Executive, ratifying treaties, removing Ministers and ambassadors, and holding any actual impeachment trail.
Your servant,
Austi Scot
Prime Executive
|
|
United Republic of Tymaria
Topic Commands (Moderator only)