Mandate of the Presidency

Go down

Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Aidsboat Nation on Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:53 am

I call for a vote of “No Confidence” in Current President, Lower Land.

As of now, no provisions have been established for election of the President, which seems to me like a dangerous precedent. If I were president, my first executive order would be to institute regular elections for the presidency,so that we will have the ability to freely elect our leadership, via the very principles our Free Society was founded on.

Also, I would not interfere in Congress’ work, nay, my name would seldom appear in those forums, as a separation of powers must be upheld, which currently is not.

I would not ignore the whims of my people, because as has been pointed out to me, It has taken the effort of men like Batiska and myself to make our EVERYONE’S voice heard in Congress.

Some may say that I have a chance to amend these concerns in the Constitution, but I am of the volition that those changes would have been obstructed.

One of the most pressing reasons is that I have been approached by Anonymous Nations and they have expressed their displeasure with our current leadership. People have had a lot to say about things like Lower Land’s failure to appoint Recruitment Officers as requested, despite the fact that it’s been proposed since July 24th, favored by multiple nations, and is CRITICAL to the growth of our region(Note: New membership has dwindled to barely a new member per day lately).

His seeming inexperience with political debate, with his penchant for simply agreeing or disagreeing with little to no reason given, is cause for concern. Likewise are some of the questionable ways he’s attempted to structure our government.

I have personal concerns about some of his motives, and his allowing personal prejudice to get in the way of objective lawmaking. In reference to a WA resolution to repeal the Condemnation of Nazi Europe, which I, acting as the voice of our region, wanted to vote for, due to the legitimate points made in the bill itself about the role of government in condemning ideologies, Lower Land had this to say:
“I believe that Nazi Europe should be condemned. Nazis preach hate, racism, etc. For that they should be condemned. Now if they preached love and peace I would vote to commend them.”

Most recently, his questionable decision to, without anyone else’s knowledge or consent, enter into alliances and has even tried to GIVE AWAY SOME OF OUR NATIONS TO A DIFFERENT REGION because of a previous relationship with that region’s president. Also his "Emergency Appointment" of a new Congressman, who, though I believe U.T. is more than capable, passed up many other more active and experienced nations, including Ministers and those who were in the Congressional Race (at the time I believe U.T. had been a member for three days, most every other option had been here at least a couple weeks).

This is in no way meant to be an affront on Lower Land as a person, because quite frankly I like Lower Land and find him to be a good guy and a more than worthy opponent. Some people, however, feel that some changes need to be made and things taken care of before we can move ahead as a region with things such as this proposed raid, and moving into the upper echelons of region-hood.

[large]With this, I propose a referendum on the Presidency, and with the formalization of this referendum by my peers, will announce my candidacy for President.[/large]
avatar
Aidsboat Nation
Regular Contributor

Posts : 330
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-07-18
Age : 27

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Fonzirelli on Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:44 am

I second this vote of no confidence.

Fonzirelli
Admin

Posts : 130
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-07-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Rat Racecar on Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:32 pm

First, this isn't a Congress bill, so what the hell are you voting on?

Second, the President and VP serve for life, or until resignation. This has been stated by the President at the dawn of this region.

Third, this isn't America. No one said anything about separation of powers.

Fourth, I would think that President Lower Land would command your respect by now, because, in case you're forgetting, he's the one that brought us all together as a Free Society and has been almost overgenerous with job appointments.

Fifth, exactly how has he hurt the region by entering into an alliance with Gath? And why would you be so selfish as to not help an ally of ours with their regional growth? We have over 40 members; they have 11 at the time of this post.

In case the situation has been unclear to you, you aren't necessarily the voice of the people, though of course you are allowed to voice your opinions. Just do it in the appropriate manner (i.e. not by striking up a random referendum).

Rat Racecar
Established Member

Posts : 99
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2009-07-15
Age : 30
Location : Florida

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Meadowdale on Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:14 pm

I will also back this motion.

Meadowdale
Admin

Posts : 221
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-07-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Fonzirelli on Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:29 pm

Racecar, who decided that president and the vice serve for life.

First off, I also don't believe you are doing your job correctly and with this argument are trying to preserve your position of "power".

Second, what kind of Free region are we to where our president, according to you, isn't decided by the people of the region in a voting manner.

Third, this doesn't belong in congress so don't even try that crap; this is a movement for the people. Apparently the president can just throw people into congress. Like Aidsboat said, the president straight up just put U.T. in congress with no vote or consent by anyone else not even the HoC. (Although U.T., don't get me wrong you're a good congressman and you're involved, but there was no vote.)

Fourth, yes he brought us together, but I, as well as others, do not deem him as a good leader. I'm not saying he didn't do well with recruiting and setting up because I wish I could do that.

Also you said he should command my respect, NO he earns my respect and you've lost mine for defending him with absolutely invalid points. Let him defend himself.

Fifth, we need members too. We started from scratch and they should too, it's not like they're incapable. The reason we're angry isn't the alliance itself, it is that he did this without consent or even just letting us know what was going on.

Lastly, shut up. Lower Land is absolutely capable of answering for himself and he can make it out of this on his own, we just want a fair system.

Fonzirelli
Admin

Posts : 130
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-07-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Fonzirelli on Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:31 pm

To answer my own first statement, you are right he did state that the president serves for life, but then he wouldn't be called a president then would he. Can you tell what he'd be called, use your big boy words.

Fonzirelli
Admin

Posts : 130
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-07-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  The Pastafarian People on Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:45 pm

Sorry I've been MIA for so long, but college (Ay!) has taken up most of my life. But I also would like to back this motion.
avatar
The Pastafarian People
Established Member

Posts : 58
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-07-31
Age : 28
Location : Places

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Rat Racecar on Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:01 pm

Normally I would ignore such a severely rude response to my controlled argument, but for the sake of debate I'll respond to each of your points anyways.

First off, I also don't believe you are doing your job correctly and with this argument are trying to preserve your position of "power".
If I wanted power, I would not have stepped down from my Ministerial position after taking the VP job. I also didn't run for Congress, and only ran for Delegate at Lower Land's behest, because before that Aidsboat was unopposed.

Second, what kind of Free region are we to where our president, according to you, isn't decided by the people of the region in a voting manner.
We're free enough to allow all nations to express themselves fairly, and Congress/Delegate positions are filled by elections, not appointment. Obviously, there is less freedom in not having Presidential elections, but this certainly does not mean that we have a dictatorship on our hands.

Third, this doesn't belong in congress so don't even try that crap; this is a movement for the people. Apparently the president can just throw people into congress.
I didn't say it belonged in Congress. I merely observed that Aidsboat's motion would have no effect on anything (in our current government structure) no matter how many people voted on it. If you put this into Congress and passed it with a Congressional vote, then Aidsboat's points could be addressed more officially.
And, I believe that the President made UT a Congressman because a previous member resigned, and a seat needed to be filled until the next election cycle. (With only 2 Congressmen serving at the time, it was a legitimate issue, no?)

Fourth, yes he brought us together, but I, as well as others, do not deem him as a good leader.
That's fine, but you must see that all he can do is change his ways or step down.

Also you said he should command my respect, NO he earns my respect and you've lost mine for defending him with absolutely invalid points. Let him defend himself.
About the "command respect" part, I meant only that you should give him kudos for creating such an active and rapidly growing region.
Also, I neither asked for nor require your respect, so that point is moot.
Finally, I wasn't directly defending the President, I was independently challenging Aidsboat's points as I saw them, showing that he should (in my opinion) clear up several of those points to gain wider support for them.

Fifth, we need members too. We started from scratch and they should too, it's not like they're incapable.
But we can use our experience and recruiting techniques to help our new friends, and hopefully they will be able to return the favor in the future (i.e. helping with raids or internal problems).

Lastly, shut up.
This I found ironic for wanting fairness while simultaneously trying to silence dissenters of your views.

To answer my own first statement, you are right he did state that the president serves for life, but then he wouldn't be called a president then would he. Can you tell what he'd be called, use your big boy words.
He would still be called the President...how would this be an inappropriate name? A President is simply the titular head of an organization. He doesn't have to be elected. Obama is the President of the U.S., and Saddam Hussein was the President of Iraq. How they got their power is, naturally, two different stories, but that doesn't mean one can be called a President and one can't.

Rat Racecar
Established Member

Posts : 99
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2009-07-15
Age : 30
Location : Florida

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Fonzirelli on Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:48 pm

You are right I was out of line trying to silence you of your opinion and I'm sorry for my absolutely nasty reply. I would like to bring this back to a debate though.

To answer your question, yes Saddam was a president but if you read how a president is actually chosen " president today is a common title for the heads of state of most republics, whether popularly elected, chosen by the legislature or by a special electoral college. It is also often adopted by dictators." - courtesy of wikipedia
None of these were used. I understand that at the time he and Gramstandard couldn't really use either if these since it was only them two. This mandate is to uphold one of these methods of choosing a President. We could put it through Congress, but as I've said before this is the people's choice. You also said he's not nesecarily elected but that is the only way I, since I do not know the others position on this, see fit.

For my power argument and to your response, I meant more that you were trying to stay in LL's good graces by defending him, although it is your right to do so, I don't believe it was your "fight".

"Obviously, there is less freedom in not having Presidential elections, but this certainly does not mean that we have a dictatorship on our hands."
Yes there is less freedom in not electing a president. This is what we're trying to prevent, less freedom.

Sorry but, you still are saying to put it through Congress in, "If you put this into Congress"
Putting it through Congress is a lost cause. If there happens to end in a tie the president breaks it. This is obviously flawed. Imagine if it were a trial and the defendant decided whether he or she was guilty, we all know that outcome.

What we want is for him to step down or change his ways so if that's all he can do then we did this right.

Where do you propose he attempts to gain his support? In the Forums, oh wait this is the forums. Where could he put this where the rest of the region would see this that isn't here?

If we gain enough members we won't need allies. Plus, us helping them could come back to bite us in the ass. We're all human and although you don't want to think about it, once they gain enough support they could easily turn on us. I'm not saying no allies. All I'm saying is I don't think we should give up our own members at the expense of another region.

Again Racecar I apologize for my blatantly obvious douchiness* (a word?) and would enjoy if we could continue our debate.

Fonzirelli
Admin

Posts : 130
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-07-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Aidsboat Nation on Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:11 pm

Glad there is such heated and insightful debate on this.

I admit that some points of RR are somewhat valid, though Fonzirelli has really captured the essence of what I was trying to say with my statement.

And this is a referendum, voted on for by the people, because it is something the people wanted.

Go read the posts Meadow and Pasta wrote about John Locke's Social Contract.
avatar
Aidsboat Nation
Regular Contributor

Posts : 330
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-07-18
Age : 27

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Lower Land on Sat Aug 22, 2009 7:30 pm

If we did create Elections for President, really, what could they do? He/she couldnt have access to regional controls. Only the founder and Delegate (if the founder were to allow it) have regional controls. So me being founder, I could do what every I like no matter what. The "Elected President" would have really no power at all. And I LOVE the debate. It's more than heated.... It's burnt, like charcoal. That's why we have the ability to voice opinions.

Lower Land
Admin

Posts : 420
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-07-14
Location : New Haven, Connecticut, USA

http://freesociety.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Lower Land on Sat Aug 22, 2009 7:50 pm

One of the most pressing reasons is that I have been approached by Anonymous Nations and they have expressed their displeasure with our current leadership. People have had a lot to say about things like Lower Land’s failure to appoint Recruitment Officers as requested, despite the fact that it’s been proposed since July 24th, favored by multiple nations, and is CRITICAL to the growth of our region(Note: New membership has dwindled to barely a new member per day lately).

I thought that the Minister of Diplomatic Affairs was going to appoint Recruitment Officers seeing as how that goes under his office.

Also his "Emergency Appointment" of a new Congressman, who, though I believe U.T. is more than capable, passed up many other more active and experienced nations, including Ministers and those who were in the Congressional Race (at the time I believe U.T. had been a member for three days, most every other option had been here at least a couple weeks).

I stand by my appointment.

Lower Land
Admin

Posts : 420
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-07-14
Location : New Haven, Connecticut, USA

http://freesociety.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Aidsboat Nation on Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:12 pm

There has to be some way to give access to the Regional Controls to a third party.....or we could just make it so that the WA Delegate is the Acting President (in this case, another Delegate/President election should be held).
avatar
Aidsboat Nation
Regular Contributor

Posts : 330
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-07-18
Age : 27

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Fonzirelli on Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:00 pm

I agree with Aidsboat. The WA Delegate should be the acting President, but a new election should be held.

Fonzirelli
Admin

Posts : 130
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-07-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Rat Racecar on Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:26 pm

Interesting. Perhaps there can be a compromise.

Here's my idea. Since Lower Land is Founder, he has complete Regional control; this power cannot be revoked or transferred. (And no, Aidsboat, only Founder and Delegate can have access to reg. controls.) So, I say we incorporate your idea of a President/Delegate fusion, but create a new title for Lower Land (Supreme Chancellor or Grand Poo-Bah, or whatever) and have that position be permanent. This office would be exclusive to Lower Land, and he would let the President (aka Delegate) generally run things, but Lower Land would have a final, incontrovertible authority over all matters, should the President become corrupt or run things in a manner adverse to the wishes of the Free Society.

If this idea were accepted, there would be no need for a Vice (insert grand title here), so I would, of course, step down. But in this way, we could establish a kind of bicameral government between Congress and the President, with The Founder presiding over everything.

(Looking back on all I wrote, it seems kind of ramble-y to me. If I was unclear at all, point it out for me. I'm kinda distracted right now....)

Rat Racecar
Established Member

Posts : 99
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2009-07-15
Age : 30
Location : Florida

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Lower Land on Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:44 pm

I guess I can work with that. Does anyone have any objections?

Lower Land
Admin

Posts : 420
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-07-14
Location : New Haven, Connecticut, USA

http://freesociety.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Meadowdale on Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:15 am

Another theory. How about we give Lower Land's password (if he is okay with that) to whoever is elected president. This password would change with each new president. This would only be for using regional controls. If a president is found to be using the account for anything else, they will be immediately stripped of their powers with no questions asked. Of course, Lower Land himself would still be using this account to play the game. Therefore, he could also use regional controls. This way we have our founder in his rightful position, a president that we the people choose to lead us, and a WA Delegate to be our voice. Of course, one person would never be allowed to hold two of these titles at once, with the exception of Lower Land currently. Perhaps the first election could be held September 1-5?

Meadowdale
Admin

Posts : 221
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-07-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Lower Land on Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:18 pm

Well, no I am not too comfortable with that, and we are holding special elections for the Presidency now. The next elections will be held at normal time.

Lower Land
Admin

Posts : 420
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-07-14
Location : New Haven, Connecticut, USA

http://freesociety.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Mandate of the Presidency

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum