Hello Judges, and whomever else it may concern,
I am xLayzur, speaker of parliament, and I am assisted by Cooleagles2005, Partner Attorney at I&P. Today we bring forth not an average lawsuit/prosecution, but an argument in which to persuade your acceptance of the most recently passed bill by Parliament, FlamingNinja728’s proposal for the Removal of President’s Veto. As this bill has become known to the public numerous people have questioned the legality and/or “constitutionality” of the procedure since very few changes to any of the government branches have been made. We bring this to the courts and/or our judiciary branch to support the idea of a constitutional supreme court in which they would have a say over un/constitutional decisions as well as to support the checks and balances system. In regards to the “Removal of President’s Veto” act we believe it should finalize passage into our federal code because of the president’s permission and request of said act, the withstanding precedent that a Prime Minister has held the veto power in the past as well as the allowing benefits this would include, and also the people’s voices on this decision and constant view on our President’s position.
To begin our argument, we begin with the President’s own opinion on this matter. In the political-discussion channel of the BC Discord Server (for the record our common source of photo evidence) a picture is posted in which President Koalition states, “It's the parliament that has to propose it.” Shortly after the pictures posting (Evidence 1), Koalition will also state, “Parliament is the one that votes on changes relating to the government. Seeing as this is a government change, it completely falls under the Parliament's jurisdiction.” He uses what we can presume is the Clarification of the current government system - Power Separation (Executive/Legislative) bill where it does state this to be true, “Parliament has the ability to change the Constitution (albeit unwritten) and thus change the government system in any way, shape or form, including the changes within the government departments, their powers, and positions in them.” The only reason this bill hasn’t been passed after the already successful vote is so that the judiciary branch has fair say, for it is their duties as written in our “constitution”. Otherwise, this bill would have already been into play and we most likely would have witnessed the first use of it in a short foreseen future.
Secondly, in the past, the Prime Minister has had the power to veto parliament bills. From the BusinessCraft Federal Code Document, Title IV Chapter 1 Section 2 (Changes to the government system act) July 25th, 2018, states under the Executive: The Cabinet “The Prime minister is able to veto passed laws. The veto will only be valid if the Prime Minister states a reason as to why the bill had been vetoed. Later on, this will be revoked at Section 5: (Change to the government system act) Jan 23rd, 2020 where it states, “The Prime Minister is still responsible for the approval of new laws and their implementation, but they can request a veto from the president informally. The Prime Minister will not be able to veto legislation on their own.” Giving veto power back to the Prime Minister furthermore increases the value of the position and responsibility. With this, more participation within bills being proposed in our government. If the President nominates the prime minister, he demonstrates trust and knows the nominee has the capability to hold the position to represent our government. If this demonstration of trust is to be true, the power of veto should be returned to the Prime Minister to apply said trust. Not to mention, but along with this the revival of an active atmosphere between both executive and legislative branches when it comes to bill approvals. Overall, it is the Prime Minister officially signing off on bills, not the ceremonial, non-participating president.
Finally, I want to bring in the opinions of our fellow citizens and experienced government officials, on how they feel about the president’s position and power. Numerous people will state and standby that the president’s position is almost unneeded. By saying this we do not neglect Koalition and his works, but the title in which given himself. Former Head Judge and current Member of Parliament, Matty707, explains this perfectly in his reply to the bill at question, “The president is viewed as a ceremonial, but the current President is Koalition, the owner of the server. Either he can do what he wants, cause he pays the bills, or, we get rid of “President” altogether, and Koal is simply just a “God” of the server. No offense to him, but he isn’t around much anymore anyway, but at least he works in mysterious ways.” Speaking out of a non-political view, Matty describes Koalition as the acting president due to ownership, not because of a democratic standpoint or position. The Current Economy Minister, Info, will agree with this statement by saying, “Well I think it’s a position that we need. Sure having a non-elected head of state with an unlimited term limit seems "undemocratic" but what are people going to do? Someone needs to nominate a candidate for Prime Minister, someone who knows what to look for and to ensure they are a sound choice. If it was a position nominated through a popular choice system there is no way to ensure that the nominee(s) are fit. For that reason the position isn't necessary, it is required to maintain the government’s sound operation. Of course, it shouldn't be removed. A poor cabinet can do a lot more damage than people think.”The amount of change and work Koalition has done will not be pushed aside, but the fact is, that this change only stands because of his ownership status. Not from an election of popular/electoral votes in which he is elected, but with the given fact that he pays the bills. Along with infos statement, a message from Koalition in the political-discussion channel discusses how we claimed to have been acting as a server owner (Evidence 2). Connecting this train of thought, Former Member of Parliament, MsGeorgia, states the obvious that Koalition’s position and self are needed, but perhaps his powers not as much, "I think it's good for there to be a president position, the only thing I disagree with is vetoes but not in the sense people think. I really think a veto should sit with the Prime Minister since they’re (in my opinion) more involved in the government. (This btw is not an attack against anyone this is just me looking at the two positions themselves, not who fills them). Other than that I think a presidential position is good but I feel like maybe their veto should ONLY come in after the prime minister and parliament can't come to an agreement on a bill. I feel like the president should have the final say but not the first veto power.” This selection of people are on the smallest bit of our server-wide base, and many people will and have agreed that this will be better for our system as a whole. With Koalition’s absences as well as ownership status, the president position stands only as a title. It is a ceremonial position granting him a place in our government when in reality he is slightly above it, in a respectable way of course. Even Matty had gone far to say that he could be called the “God” of our server. Whilst this “God” feeds us from above, we need someone to regulate the provisions, and with the power of veto, The Prime minister will do such.
To revamp and conclude our arguments, we believe the “Removal of President’s Veto” Bill is imperative and a fundamental factor to our government for the following, the President himself has found the creation/discussion of it to be perfectly legal under parliament’s jurisdiction, the Prime Minister has withheld the ability to veto bills in the past and due to the status of the president’s role and himself it would be more beneficial for him to once again hold said power, and finally the citizens and people of BusinessCraft have spoken. They have made their educated opinions, they believe that whilst the president has done phenomenal work and that should never be neglected, his position is simply that, a title. The role of the President is simply one to permit a place for Koalition in the government, and if so the powers must be handed to those who will use them further. As an additional note, this wouldn’t be taking away power from the executive branch, or any branch whatsoever. It's simply a transfer between the president and Prime Minister. No matter the person in office, the Prime Minister must hold this power so our government can flourish in the nature of democracy. One for all the people today and one for all those to come.
Thank you for reading our argument, may the choice rest in your hands, your honors.
I am xLayzur, speaker of parliament, and I am assisted by Cooleagles2005, Partner Attorney at I&P. Today we bring forth not an average lawsuit/prosecution, but an argument in which to persuade your acceptance of the most recently passed bill by Parliament, FlamingNinja728’s proposal for the Removal of President’s Veto. As this bill has become known to the public numerous people have questioned the legality and/or “constitutionality” of the procedure since very few changes to any of the government branches have been made. We bring this to the courts and/or our judiciary branch to support the idea of a constitutional supreme court in which they would have a say over un/constitutional decisions as well as to support the checks and balances system. In regards to the “Removal of President’s Veto” act we believe it should finalize passage into our federal code because of the president’s permission and request of said act, the withstanding precedent that a Prime Minister has held the veto power in the past as well as the allowing benefits this would include, and also the people’s voices on this decision and constant view on our President’s position.
To begin our argument, we begin with the President’s own opinion on this matter. In the political-discussion channel of the BC Discord Server (for the record our common source of photo evidence) a picture is posted in which President Koalition states, “It's the parliament that has to propose it.” Shortly after the pictures posting (Evidence 1), Koalition will also state, “Parliament is the one that votes on changes relating to the government. Seeing as this is a government change, it completely falls under the Parliament's jurisdiction.” He uses what we can presume is the Clarification of the current government system - Power Separation (Executive/Legislative) bill where it does state this to be true, “Parliament has the ability to change the Constitution (albeit unwritten) and thus change the government system in any way, shape or form, including the changes within the government departments, their powers, and positions in them.” The only reason this bill hasn’t been passed after the already successful vote is so that the judiciary branch has fair say, for it is their duties as written in our “constitution”. Otherwise, this bill would have already been into play and we most likely would have witnessed the first use of it in a short foreseen future.
Secondly, in the past, the Prime Minister has had the power to veto parliament bills. From the BusinessCraft Federal Code Document, Title IV Chapter 1 Section 2 (Changes to the government system act) July 25th, 2018, states under the Executive: The Cabinet “The Prime minister is able to veto passed laws. The veto will only be valid if the Prime Minister states a reason as to why the bill had been vetoed. Later on, this will be revoked at Section 5: (Change to the government system act) Jan 23rd, 2020 where it states, “The Prime Minister is still responsible for the approval of new laws and their implementation, but they can request a veto from the president informally. The Prime Minister will not be able to veto legislation on their own.” Giving veto power back to the Prime Minister furthermore increases the value of the position and responsibility. With this, more participation within bills being proposed in our government. If the President nominates the prime minister, he demonstrates trust and knows the nominee has the capability to hold the position to represent our government. If this demonstration of trust is to be true, the power of veto should be returned to the Prime Minister to apply said trust. Not to mention, but along with this the revival of an active atmosphere between both executive and legislative branches when it comes to bill approvals. Overall, it is the Prime Minister officially signing off on bills, not the ceremonial, non-participating president.
Finally, I want to bring in the opinions of our fellow citizens and experienced government officials, on how they feel about the president’s position and power. Numerous people will state and standby that the president’s position is almost unneeded. By saying this we do not neglect Koalition and his works, but the title in which given himself. Former Head Judge and current Member of Parliament, Matty707, explains this perfectly in his reply to the bill at question, “The president is viewed as a ceremonial, but the current President is Koalition, the owner of the server. Either he can do what he wants, cause he pays the bills, or, we get rid of “President” altogether, and Koal is simply just a “God” of the server. No offense to him, but he isn’t around much anymore anyway, but at least he works in mysterious ways.” Speaking out of a non-political view, Matty describes Koalition as the acting president due to ownership, not because of a democratic standpoint or position. The Current Economy Minister, Info, will agree with this statement by saying, “Well I think it’s a position that we need. Sure having a non-elected head of state with an unlimited term limit seems "undemocratic" but what are people going to do? Someone needs to nominate a candidate for Prime Minister, someone who knows what to look for and to ensure they are a sound choice. If it was a position nominated through a popular choice system there is no way to ensure that the nominee(s) are fit. For that reason the position isn't necessary, it is required to maintain the government’s sound operation. Of course, it shouldn't be removed. A poor cabinet can do a lot more damage than people think.”The amount of change and work Koalition has done will not be pushed aside, but the fact is, that this change only stands because of his ownership status. Not from an election of popular/electoral votes in which he is elected, but with the given fact that he pays the bills. Along with infos statement, a message from Koalition in the political-discussion channel discusses how we claimed to have been acting as a server owner (Evidence 2). Connecting this train of thought, Former Member of Parliament, MsGeorgia, states the obvious that Koalition’s position and self are needed, but perhaps his powers not as much, "I think it's good for there to be a president position, the only thing I disagree with is vetoes but not in the sense people think. I really think a veto should sit with the Prime Minister since they’re (in my opinion) more involved in the government. (This btw is not an attack against anyone this is just me looking at the two positions themselves, not who fills them). Other than that I think a presidential position is good but I feel like maybe their veto should ONLY come in after the prime minister and parliament can't come to an agreement on a bill. I feel like the president should have the final say but not the first veto power.” This selection of people are on the smallest bit of our server-wide base, and many people will and have agreed that this will be better for our system as a whole. With Koalition’s absences as well as ownership status, the president position stands only as a title. It is a ceremonial position granting him a place in our government when in reality he is slightly above it, in a respectable way of course. Even Matty had gone far to say that he could be called the “God” of our server. Whilst this “God” feeds us from above, we need someone to regulate the provisions, and with the power of veto, The Prime minister will do such.
To revamp and conclude our arguments, we believe the “Removal of President’s Veto” Bill is imperative and a fundamental factor to our government for the following, the President himself has found the creation/discussion of it to be perfectly legal under parliament’s jurisdiction, the Prime Minister has withheld the ability to veto bills in the past and due to the status of the president’s role and himself it would be more beneficial for him to once again hold said power, and finally the citizens and people of BusinessCraft have spoken. They have made their educated opinions, they believe that whilst the president has done phenomenal work and that should never be neglected, his position is simply that, a title. The role of the President is simply one to permit a place for Koalition in the government, and if so the powers must be handed to those who will use them further. As an additional note, this wouldn’t be taking away power from the executive branch, or any branch whatsoever. It's simply a transfer between the president and Prime Minister. No matter the person in office, the Prime Minister must hold this power so our government can flourish in the nature of democracy. One for all the people today and one for all those to come.
Thank you for reading our argument, may the choice rest in your hands, your honors.
Attachments
Last edited:
