[TWI ONLY] The Senate of the Western Isles

[Verdon]

Executive Orders Scope Act

---

"A law to narrow down the scope of Executive Orders in order to prevent Executive Officers from granting themselves or other Executive Officers unchecked powers"

---

Preamble

The Constitution in its current form allows, in certain cases, for Executive Officers to issue Executive Orders that grant themselves or other Executive Officers unchecked powers. While the Senate has faith that the contemporary members of the executive branch will not seek to abuse this, the Senate must accept that the contemporary members of the executive branch will not serve until the end of times and thus will at some point in the future step down to hand over their powers and responsibilities to new Executive Officers, some of whom may seek to abuse Executive Orders in order to grant themselves unchecked powers. In order to prevent this from ever occuring, this law narrows down the scope of Executive Orders in such a way that it is no longer possible for Executive Orders to grant unchecked powers to Executive Officers.

Narrowing down the scope of Executive Orders

(1) Executive Orders may not in any way, directly or indirectly, grant powers to, or otherwise alter the powers of, Executive Officers.

(2) This law is not retroactive and only affects Executive Orders after the date of its passage.

[Agadar]

Thank you Verdon for reposting the bill in question.

The reasoning behind the bill can be read in its entirety in its preamble.

I will open the debate by addressing the following post from Ventlimer:

I second it. There's no way to change this without a constitutional amendment and no good wording to stop it. Plus, the same checks come across. It isn't the Senate's duty to check this, its the court's. So, the court needs to review EO5. Not us.

"There's no way to change this without a constitutional amendment and no good wording to stop it."

My wording is rather clear. It explicitly makes it impossible for executive officers to grant themselves or other officers unchecked powers, which is exactly what it is supposed to do. And why can't this be implemented without a constitutional amendment, according to you? There is nothing that forbids a bill such as this of becoming law.

"Plus, the same checks come across. It isn't the Senate's duty to check this, its the court's. So, the court needs to review EO5. Not us."

The same checks do not come across. Presidential Executive Order 5 would have been illegal were the Executive Orders Scope Act in effect. Besides, the judiciary isn't supposed to be the only body with checks on the other branches. The executive and legislative branches are also supposed to have checks on eachother and on the judiciary. That's the entire point of the separation of powers: all branches have ways of curbing the powers of the other branches.

[Ventlimer]

Thank you Verdon for reposting the bill in question.

The reasoning behind the bill can be read in its entirety in its preamble.

I will open the debate by addressing the following post from Ventlimer:

I second it. There's no way to change this without a constitutional amendment and no good wording to stop it. Plus, the same checks come across. It isn't the Senate's duty to check this, its the court's. So, the court needs to review EO5. Not us.

"There's no way to change this without a constitutional amendment and no good wording to stop it."

My wording is rather clear. It explicitly makes it impossible for executive officers to grant themselves or other officers unchecked powers, which is exactly what it is supposed to do. And why can't this be implemented without a constitutional amendment, according to you? There is nothing that forbids a bill such as this of becoming law.

"Plus, the same checks come across. It isn't the Senate's duty to check this, its the court's. So, the court needs to review EO5. Not us."

The same checks do not come across. Presidential Executive Order 5 would have been illegal were the Executive Orders Scope Act in effect. Besides, the judiciary isn't supposed to be the only body with checks on the other branches. The executive and legislative branches are also supposed to have checks on eachother and on the judiciary. That's the entire point of the separation of powers: all branches have ways of curbing the powers of the other branches.

If you read the constitution, the Judiciary is the only branch that actively checks the other branches. The Executives have no recourse against the senate and the senate no recourse against the Executives. So, Unless you amend the constitution which IS the senate's job, there is no issue here. Now what we can do to an executive is petition the officer to amend or repeal the EO.

[Vancouvia]

I think this should be an amendment as it materially alters the meaning of II 2.

[Agadar]

Thank you Verdon for reposting the bill in question.

The reasoning behind the bill can be read in its entirety in its preamble.

I will open the debate by addressing the following post from Ventlimer:



"There's no way to change this without a constitutional amendment and no good wording to stop it."

My wording is rather clear. It explicitly makes it impossible for executive officers to grant themselves or other officers unchecked powers, which is exactly what it is supposed to do. And why can't this be implemented without a constitutional amendment, according to you? There is nothing that forbids a bill such as this of becoming law.

"Plus, the same checks come across. It isn't the Senate's duty to check this, its the court's. So, the court needs to review EO5. Not us."

The same checks do not come across. Presidential Executive Order 5 would have been illegal were the Executive Orders Scope Act in effect. Besides, the judiciary isn't supposed to be the only body with checks on the other branches. The executive and legislative branches are also supposed to have checks on eachother and on the judiciary. That's the entire point of the separation of powers: all branches have ways of curbing the powers of the other branches.

If you read the constitution, the Judiciary is the only branch that actively checks the other branches. The Executives have no recourse against the senate and the senate no recourse against the Executives. So, Unless you amend the constitution which IS the senate's job, there is no issue here. Now what we can do to an executive is petition the officer to amend or repeal the EO.

Off the top of my head, I recall at least two checks that exist that prove your statement false: one, the president (executive) appoints the chief justice (judiciary). Two, the vice president (executive) serves as speaker of the senate (legislative). Hence, the judiciary is not the only branch that has checks on other branches, and even if it were, the absence of checks is not an argument against implementing checks, but rather the exact opposite.

As for petitioning the officer to amend or repeal the EO: nothing in the Constitution states that the senate cannot pass laws that repeal EO's.

We're digressing here. Let's get back to discussing the actual bill.

I think this should be an amendment as it materially alters the meaning of II 2.

I have been thinking about this as well. One could argue like you are, but on the other hand one could also argue against that by claiming this bill doesn't explicitly materially alter it. With or without this bill becoming law, "Executive officers may issue executive orders, so long as those orders do not violate the Rights of Nations and are within the scope of their office" still holds true.

In practice, it will make little difference post-implementation whether the bill is an amendment or not, so I will alter it to be an amendment or not based on the preferences of my fellow senators.

[Ventlimer]

This really does alter the Constitution and should be an amendment to be approved by the Judiciary. Van, what say we write one like that?

[Agadar]

This really does alter the Constitution and should be an amendment to be approved by the Judiciary. Van, what say we write one like that?

Why are you reaching out to Vancouvia instead of the one whose bill is currently being debated, i.e. me? If you want me to edit it so that it is an amendment instead, then I assure you, I have the mental capacity to do so.

[Ventlimer]

This really does alter the Constitution and should be an amendment to be approved by the Judiciary. Van, what say we write one like that?

Why are you reaching out to Vancouvia instead of the one whose bill is currently being debated, i.e. me? If you want me to edit it so that it is an amendment instead, then I assure you, I have the mental capacity to do so.

You are taking this way too seriously, agadar. I'm not insulting you, I'm getting the founders opinion.

[Agadar]

Why are you reaching out to Vancouvia instead of the one whose bill is currently being debated, i.e. me? If you want me to edit it so that it is an amendment instead, then I assure you, I have the mental capacity to do so.

You are taking this way too seriously, agadar. I'm not insulting you, I'm getting the founders opinion.

Your question's ambiguity allowed for me to interpret it as you wanting to write an amendment together with Vancouvia. It seems you were merely asking for his opinion about making my proposed bill an amendment. In that case, I can give you the answer, because Vancouvia already wrote that he wants to see the bill as an amendment:

I think this should be an amendment as it materially alters the meaning of II 2.

I'll await the opinions of Dashgrinaar and Verdon before possibly writing an amendment version of the bill.

[Vancouvia]

You are taking this way too seriously, agadar. I'm not insulting you, I'm getting the founders opinion.

Your question's ambiguity allowed for me to interpret it as you wanting to write an amendment together with Vancouvia.

That's how I interpreted it too

[Ventlimer]

Your question's ambiguity allowed for me to interpret it as you wanting to write an amendment together with Vancouvia.

That's how I interpreted it too

It was not meant to come across that way. It should be an amendment though. That much we agree on.

[Dashgrinaar]

Yes, I also think this would have to be an amendment - a constitutional restriction on the power. It's not unconstitutional, so it should pass in the court quickly as well (hopefully). It could also be interpreted, though, as a clarification of Article II, section 2, and is setting a restriction and doesn't need to be amended to...

[Verdon]

Think it would probably work either way, but I think an amendment would be the more elegant fix.

[Agadar]

Executive Orders Scope Amendment

---

"A constitutional amendment to narrow down the scope of Executive Orders in order to prevent Executive Officers from granting themselves or other Executive Officers unchecked powers"

---

Preamble

The Constitution in its current form allows, in certain cases, for Executive Officers to issue Executive Orders that grant themselves or other Executive Officers unchecked powers. While the Senate has faith that the contemporary members of the executive branch will not seek to abuse this, the Senate must accept that the contemporary members of the executive branch will not serve until the end of times and thus will, at some point in the future, step down to hand over their powers and responsibilities to new Executive Officers, some of whom may seek to abuse Executive Orders in order to grant themselves unchecked powers. In order to prevent this from ever occuring, this amendment narrows down the scope of Executive Orders in such a way that it is no longer possible for Executive Orders to grant unchecked powers to Executive Officers.

Narrowing down the scope of Executive Orders

(1) Adds to Article II, Section 2:
-Executive Orders may not in any way, directly or indirectly, grant powers to, or otherwise alter the powers of, Executive Officers.

(2) This amendment is not retroactive and only affects Executive Orders after the date of its passage.

[Agadar]

If there are no more objections or suggestions, I move to vote.

[Ventlimer]

Seconded, Aye

[Agadar]

I vote FOR.

[Dashgrinaar]

I vote AYE

[Verdon]

FOR

[Dashgrinaar]

---Official---

The Bill has passed in the Senate, 4 for, none against, with one senator not casting their vote. The Exective Scope amendment will be presented to the court.

[Ventlimer]

I don't see a vote cast by GI.

[Dashgrinaar]

Sorry, got rid of that part.

[Great-Imperialonia]

I don't see a vote cast by GI.

It's okay, I followed the Senate this week and it's for anyway

[Agadar]

I don't see a vote cast by GI.

It's okay, I followed the Senate this week and it's for anyway

Unless he explicitly stated he voted for during the voting period, he didn't vote for, regardless of how likely it seems he would have voted for.

Anyhow, after the heated debates surrounding and preceding the Executive Orders Scope Amendment, I'll take this opportunity to take a break and wait with initiating new discussions until the court has come to a verdict on said amendment.

[Agadar]

Ban History Act

---

"A law to make ban histories more accessible by mandating the Founder and the President to write and publish reports covering bans"

---

Preamble

When the Founder, the sitting President, or a former President declares himself electable during elections, voters will want to know the ban history of that candidate in order to be fully informed before casting their definitive votes. When a banned nation lodges a case for an appeal with the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will want to have as much information about and surrounding the ban as possible in order to reach a fully informed verdict. Despite both voters and the Supreme Court having a need for easy access to ban histories, said histories are currently difficult to uncover due to a lack of reports covering bans.

This bill seeks to make ban histories more accessible by mandating the Founder and the President to write and publish reports covering bans.

Ban Reports

(1) When the President or the Founder bans a nation from the region, the official who performed the ban must write a report covering the date and arguments for the ban, as well as a description of the events leading up to the decision of the ban.

(2) This report must be published publically on the Regional Message Board and forwarded to the Secretary of Information within 24 hours after the ban.

(3) The Secretary of Information is to include this report in the information dispatch.

I promised I'd take a short break from lawmaking while the Supreme Court debates the Executive Orders Scope Amendment, but then Ventlimer contacted me with a great proposition for a bill. The arguments for the bill are included in its preamble, and are a rewording of Ventlimer's original arguments.