House of Judah wrote:Nariterrr wrote:I will address these concerns anyone would have
1. Yes, the President is both the Head of State and government and that comes with power, however, my President is clearly and coherently checked in a sufficient manner. In fact, my proposal places more restrictions on the executive than that of Altantica, who places little restriction on the Council. Also note that it is the Cabinet's job to manage the day to day affairs of government with the Presidents overside,
2. I think that it should be up to the people to decide (there really isn't much difference though), my proposal allows for a simple vote of no confidence on the office of President.
3. The President should not be a member of the Senate, in my opinion separation of powers is necessary,
4. My proposal allows for the President to choose his ministers and aids coherently, however said ministers require the confidence of the Parliament.
5. My proposal grants the President to appoint ambassadors to foreign states (the admins are automatic members of the Supreme Court). While my proposal does not require the advice and consent of the Parliament, said indiviuals can be removed by a recall vote with a simple majority.
1. Due respect, but it is my belief that it is best if the role of the executive is to execute those duties and responsibilities as has been deemed appropriate by the legislature in their role as representatives of the people. This ensures that the executive is not only checked but indeed serves the people by being entirely dependent on the people's representatives and further avoids the often untenable situation of cohabitation between an executive and legislature that are mutually hostile. We have seen the dangers of such situations when we look at the government shut downs that the United States has faced during the past decade when one party controlled the executive and the other the legislature.
2. This proposal also allows for a simple motion of no confidence, but also allows the legislature to, if it shall determine a more desirable means of selecting an executive, to do so without a need for amending the constitution according to the protocols that we shall establish at this convention.
3. A separation of powers is unnecessary in that there is sufficient check on the power of the legislature in the form of constitutional restrictions and the judiciary. The role of the executive is to carry out the day to day affairs of the nation, and acting beyond this role only in times of emergency. Matters of policy should be the province only of the legislature.
4. There is either confidence in the government as a whole or there is not. The president is the chief actor for the executive which serves the legislature, and so should have the authority to appoint his cabinet as he needs to provided he has the confidence of the legislature. It is worth noting however that the legislature may, if it deems necessary, make those ministerial posts ones which require their expressed consent to appoint as the language does not forbid such a reservation.
5. This is a minor quibbling point, but since the ambassadors serve the people and their representatives in the legislature and not the President, it is only right and proper that the legislature hold authority over the appointment to the post. [And that's great and all but 1) the admins run the RP, but the judiciary is an IC body that doesn't necessarily need to be the admin team and it may enhance the RP to have not be and 2) we still need an IC way that the judiciary gets selected.]Merizoc wrote:"Selected by the senate"
Does this mean confidence, or the dumbass way we chose the interim president?
It's also worth noting that a president is almost always, if not always, elected by the people, not the legislature.
It says "Selected by the Senate in accordance with their own protocols and holds the post until a demonstration of no confidence in the President of Elizia by the Senate." If the Senate should bizarrely choose the to utilize the same system, the President would still be obliged to maintain the confidence of the Senate.
And it is indeed not always, though the use of the term President here is not necessary. Just as with the term Senate, if we should choose another term for such an office, the text can easily be amended to use that language instead. I merely selected it in place of the term Prime Minister as Prime Minister seemed inappropriate for the nature of the office I proposed.
Let's have a chancellor.
