NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

[The Nihilistic view]

President can't be any longer than 2 months. Otherwise it will just get too boring.

Cutting down the frequency of something people liked the most is not going to do the RP any good at all.

[Estva]

What exactly does "Domestic minister" mean? That is extremely vague.

[Beta Test]

President can't be any longer than 2 months. Otherwise it will just get too boring.

Cutting down the frequency of something people liked the most is not going to do the RP any good at all.

Hmmm true.

[Estva]

Six months is still a long time in the RP. Aurentina's system was elections every two months and that seemed to work well.

Yeah i am keeping that similar for PM, but issue with Aruentina and Baltonia was politicisation of president - president as head of state shouldn't be involved in partisan politics and deal makings, instad they should be voted on character and impartiality. Since we cant ICly change voting (same person will vote for PM and president) so having diffren term lengths should moderate politics involved.
Although if 6 is too long, how about 2 month term for PM and 4 for president? I don't really mind duration as much as concept that they shouldn't have same terms.

Politicization is what is going to keep this RP alive.

[The Nihilistic view]

President can't be any longer than 2 months. Otherwise it will just get too boring.

Cutting down the frequency of something people liked the most is not going to do the RP any good at all.

Hmmm true.

As you know I think we should have votes for the legislature. If we have them every two months two but stagger them then every month for 48 - 96 hours we can have an election of some kind. I think that might keep people focused more as the last 2-3 weeks of a presidential term was usually a bit of a drag until the next election spurred more activity.

[The New World Oceania]

Again, a President and a Prime Minister can't give us the same success and stability as the President and Supreme Leader.

[Intermountain States]

Get rid of the idea of an elected President and approved Prime Minister, and instead have the elected President and an appointed Supreme Leader. The President is elected as typically whereas a special Council of experts decides on the appointment of the Supreme Leader, with regards to God's choice for the leadership of our glorious nation. President serves for a six month term, Supreme Leader rules for life (OOC nuances and technicalities to be determined).

Then, a bill passes through the parliament (elected members) and goes to the desk of the President for approval. Whether the President (elected) approves or vetoes, the Supreme Leader (appointed by Council (appointed by President then approved by parliament)) can reverse. The President has a Cabinet/Assembly of Advisors appointed by the Supreme Leader. The President and Advisors can pass executive actions which can be vetoed by either the parliament or Supreme Leader. Any bills or actions of questionable legality to the Council, whose decisions are then approved or vetoed by the Supreme Leader. Both the Counciland Supreme Leader are bound by precedent regarding their decisions.

This keeps for a stable, working government. Gridlock will be no issue in our glorious nation and the will of God will be ever-present in the State.

Supreme Leader sounds authoritarianish

[Ainin]

They can, someone calls the prosecutor who finds a judge to sign the warrant and gives go ahead.

By the time the prosecutor picks up, the Minister will have shot half the Cabinet. >_>

Either way I have fixed this issue, added exigent circumstance exception.

Fair enough.

No it isn't. Functional immunity covers international president, prime minister and even some high level ministers...
Nationally speaking sovereign immunity is quite widely accepted, and often goes much further than simply postponing it to such time that person leaves office.

Sovereign immunity is a concept dating from the doctrine of divine right to rule, and one that only exists in English common law and some continental European monarchies. As a whole, sovereign immunity is getting increasingly rejected, with the United States, Australia, Ireland and Canada all abolishing it. Almost no republic has sovereign immunity. IIRC, the only one that does is Italy, and Italy isn't exactly the epitome of justice and freedom from corruption.

High level government ministers enjoys special protection that others dont: functional immunity, sovereign immunity etc. Justice is always limited by state's interest and state has vested interest in not seeing pictures of its head of state in handcuffed plastered in newspapers.

The state has no interest in enforcing unjust treatment based on inequality. The state's interest to apply the law equally to all citizens and to protect the right to equality outweighs the interest to avoid bad PR.

Plus if you give a homeless guy 12 hour to surrender, you are quite likely not going to find him by then. You give Obama 12 hours to surrender and he flees, you will find him.

If you give Warren Buffett 12 hours to surrender and he flees, we would likely find him too. That doesn't mean we should give 12 hours to surrender. If you commit a crime, you get arrested as quickly as safely possible. Every minute lost is an increased chance of flight.

And even if we find him, by that time the minister could have escaped to somewhere we have no jurisdiction over and have extradition treaty with.

That is not absolute though. Even if judge completely ignores all evidence suggesting defendant is guilty of serial murder, sets aside jury verdict releasing the defendant who goes on to murder five people, you can't charge him with reckless manslaughter because what he was doing is covered by judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity only covers civil litigation. It doesn't cover criminal charges.

In this case, it goes even further - you can never prosecute him for his decision whereas executive immunity as in the bill only postpones the judgement until the president in your example is no longer the president (which will be quite quick).

Same with PM: you commit grievous crime covered by your job as PM, you loose the vote of confidence and then you go to jail. This is further reinforced by functional immunity which is equally broad...

Fair enough, but I really don't see why wait for the end of their term.

I am planning on standing as a prosecutor so...
But seriously, this is quite redundant: 99% of the prosecutors will never charge sitting PM or President for minor crimes and for major crimes they are going to be removed from office anyway. All this does is codify what is subject to tons of dispute (executive privilege in US for example).

Then that 99% of prosecutors are in the wrong, because justice is supposed to be equal for all.

[Great Nepal]

President can't be any longer than 2 months. Otherwise it will just get too boring.
Cutting down the frequency of something people liked the most is not going to do the RP any good at all.

People liked the presidential elections followed by prime ministerial elections for 4 days straight the most about RP?

Yeah i am keeping that similar for PM, but issue with Aruentina and Baltonia was politicisation of president - president as head of state shouldn't be involved in partisan politics and deal makings, instad they should be voted on character and impartiality. Since we cant ICly change voting (same person will vote for PM and president) so having diffren term lengths should moderate politics involved.
Although if 6 is too long, how about 2 month term for PM and 4 for president? I don't really mind duration as much as concept that they shouldn't have same terms.

Politicization is what is going to keep this RP alive.

If we have same politicising for president and PM, what is the difference between the two - might as well merge these into single head of state-government. President is a ceremonial position not a political one, lets treat it that way and treat head of executive - PM as the political position it is supposed.

[Kouralia]

Part III - Executive privilege

§1 - Immunity from arrest

a. Any sitting president, vice president, prime minister and ministers (for this part refereed as executive branch) may not be arrested by law enforcement except with arrest warrant signed by a judge or where there exists exigent circumstance requiring their arrest.
b. Where such warrant has been signed, sitting president, vice president and prime minister must be notified in advance and given no less than twelve hours to surrender except where it is determined in opinion of issuing judge that arrestee may flee the jurisdiction if given such notice.
c. Where arresting members of executive branch, it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to keep such arrest private and respectful.
d. Where arresting ministers, it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to notify the prime minister and while arresting prime minister or vice president it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to notify the president.
e. Prior to arrest of sitting member of executive branch, it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to make provisions for security and segregation from general prison populance.

Thoughts so far?

Not good.

What's the point of this? How is Exigent defined? For example, if the Minister of Social Affairs and Citizenship is harassing/stalking his ex, that's exigent to see him/her protected. If the Minister of Transport is speeding, that's exigent to see people on the public highways protected from his reckless behaviour.

I could come up with examples all day, but the point I'm making is that almost all Mala in Se offences, and some Mala prohibita offences could be argued to automatically bring about 'exigent circumstances'. I append below the power to arrest:

S5 - Powers
(1)

All [Law Enforcement Officers] have the power to arrest someone who they have witnessed commit a crime, has reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime, or have been charged to arrest by a warrant (see S5(9)). Resisting a lawful arrest is a crime of RESISTING LAWFUL ARREST. An unjustified arrest will likely constitute a minimum of unlawful application of force to another’s person. Upon arresting someone, as soon as is practicable, the following caution should be read to [The Arrestee]: “I am placing you under arrest for.../under suspicion of… . You do not have to say anything if you do not wish to do so, but anything you do say may be noted in evidence and used against you in a court of law.” This is the POWER OF ARREST.

[Britanno]

What exactly does "Domestic minister" mean? That is extremely vague.

Home Secretary/Interior Minister

I'm gonna change it to Interior if I can be arsed writing a bill. I've found them much more boring than they used to be.

[The Nihilistic view]

Part III - Executive privilege

§1 - Immunity from arrest

a. Any sitting president, vice president, prime minister and ministers (for this part refereed as executive branch) may not be arrested by law enforcement except with arrest warrant signed by a judge or where there exists exigent circumstance requiring their arrest.
b. Where such warrant has been signed, sitting president, vice president and prime minister must be notified in advance and given no less than twelve hours to surrender except where it is determined in opinion of issuing judge that arrestee may flee the jurisdiction if given such notice.
c. Where arresting members of executive branch, it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to keep such arrest private and respectful.
d. Where arresting ministers, it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to notify the prime minister and while arresting prime minister or vice president it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to notify the president.
e. Prior to arrest of sitting member of executive branch, it shall be responsibility of law enforcement to make provisions for security and segregation from general prison populance.

Thoughts so far?

Not good.

What's the point of this? How is Exigent defined? For example, if the Minister of Social Affairs and Citizenship is harassing/stalking his ex, that's exigent to see him/her protected. If the Minister of Transport is speeding, that's exigent to see people on the public highways protected from his reckless behaviour.

I could come up with examples all day, but the point I'm making is that almost all Mala in Se offences, and some Mala prohibita offences could be argued to automatically bring about 'exigent circumstances'. I append below the power to arrest:

S5 - Powers
(1)

All [Law Enforcement Officers] have the power to arrest someone who they have witnessed commit a crime, has reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime, or have been charged to arrest by a warrant (see S5(9)). Resisting a lawful arrest is a crime of RESISTING LAWFUL ARREST. An unjustified arrest will likely constitute a minimum of unlawful application of force to another’s person. Upon arresting someone, as soon as is practicable, the following caution should be read to [The Arrestee]: “I am placing you under arrest for.../under suspicion of… . You do not have to say anything if you do not wish to do so, but anything you do say may be noted in evidence and used against you in a court of law.” This is the POWER OF ARREST.

Yeah I agree. The only exemptions any politicians should get is parliamentary privilege when in the chamber for what they say if it's to do with their job. And no special treatment from the system either.

[Murkwood]

We should have a reference to God in the Oath of Office, like our neighbors Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. It's much more realistic that way.

How about this: "I,<full name>, do solemnly affirm before the people of placeholderstan that I will faithfully and with good faith fulfil my duties as President (or Acting President) of the placeholderstan, and to best of my ability preserve and defend its values, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of placeholderstan, so help me God."

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

We should have a reference to God in the Oath of Office, like our neighbors Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. It's much more realistic that way.

How about this: "I,<full name>, do solemnly affirm before the people of placeholderstan that I will faithfully and with good faith fulfil my duties as President (or Acting President) of the placeholderstan, and to best of my ability preserve and defend its values, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of placeholderstan, so help me God."

Is that mostly borrowed from America?

[Murkwood]

Does anyone know the history? I ask because I want to know if we are already a Commonwealth nation.

[Murkwood]

Does anyone know the history? I ask because I want to know if we are already a Commonwealth nation.

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

Does anyone know the history? I ask because I want to know if we are already a Commonwealth nation.

I think by default we aren't the members of any international organizations as that would be solved ICly.

[Murkwood]

Does anyone know the history? I ask because I want to know if we are already a Commonwealth nation.

I think by default we aren't the members of any international organizations as that would be solved ICly.

Ah, thanks.

[Heraklea-]

We should have a reference to God in the Oath of Office, like our neighbors Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. It's much more realistic that way.

How about this: "I,<full name>, do solemnly affirm before the people of placeholderstan that I will faithfully and with good faith fulfil my duties as President (or Acting President) of the placeholderstan, and to best of my ability preserve and defend its values, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of placeholderstan, so help me God."

We should be an explicitly secular state. No deity should be referenced in legal texts or oaths. If such language is ever introduced I will immediately sponsor legislation to remove the offending language.

[Murkwood]

We should have a reference to God in the Oath of Office, like our neighbors Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. It's much more realistic that way.

How about this: "I,<full name>, do solemnly affirm before the people of placeholderstan that I will faithfully and with good faith fulfil my duties as President (or Acting President) of the placeholderstan, and to best of my ability preserve and defend its values, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of placeholderstan, so help me God."

We should be an explicitly secular state. No deity should be referenced in legal texts or oaths. If such language is ever introduced I will immediately sponsor legislation to remove the offending language.

Secularism isn't popular in Central or South America.

[Murkwood]

How'd y'all react to a bill that applies to join the Commonwealth and to become a Commonwealth realm? I ask because I'm working on one now and want to test the waters.

[Dejanic]

How'd y'all react to a bill that applies to join the Commonwealth and to become a Commonwealth realm? I ask because I'm working on one now and want to test the waters.

You'd have my backing.

[Dejanic]

We should have a reference to God in the Oath of Office, like our neighbors Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. It's much more realistic that way.

How about this: "I,<full name>, do solemnly affirm before the people of placeholderstan that I will faithfully and with good faith fulfil my duties as President (or Acting President) of the placeholderstan, and to best of my ability preserve and defend its values, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of placeholderstan, so help me God."

We should be an explicitly secular state. No deity should be referenced in legal texts or oaths. If such language is ever introduced I will immediately sponsor legislation to remove the offending language.

You should of voted for Vestmark if you wanted a secular haven, this is Latin America.

[Geilinor]

We should be an explicitly secular state. No deity should be referenced in legal texts or oaths. If such language is ever introduced I will immediately sponsor legislation to remove the offending language.

Secularism isn't popular in Central or South America.

Do most Latin American countries mention religion in their constitutions?

[Great Nepal]

I thought there was pretty general consensus after Baltonia not to have realism restrictions.