[Speaker] Congress, Immigration, and ATO
DMV3
The newly elected Speaker greeting Congress
Congress has two very important jobs, moving money out of the treasury and issuing citizenship. Other than that Congress has no real power mechanically that the CP can not do himself. Personally, I have no interest in being in Congress as it's usually just a bunch of people debating for the sake of "hearing themselves speak." The Executive branch is where all the sexy things happen. Unfortunately this month I found myself elected to Congress so I decided to make the most of it and run for Speaker.
I ran for Speaker for a couple of reasons, but the main reason was to help prevent the PTO of Canada. Back in May Congress passed legislation creating the Immigration Council (IC). I personally don't like the idea, but it's the system we have. The legislation itself is very vague and spends more time describing structure than duty. The only real line that describes function is the following:
"The mandate of the council is to confirm applicants for Canadian citizenship. They may employ any means they deem necessary to accomplish this task."
I take this line to mean it is the job of the IC to approve any and all applicants who apply for citizenship. At the beginning of the current term IC issued an announcement that we would be freezing Immigration requests. Several Congress members then decided to take it upon themselves to approve a bunch of PTOers. I was then elected Speaker, and decided enough was enough. The results are that I banned all the offending Congress members from the Congressional forums for seven days per offence.
The Speaker is granted the power to regulate and moderate Congress. The following are the pertinent parts of the Canadian Rules of Order:
Article II Section 1 Part b: impose a ban of up to one week upon any Member who takes an action is considered inappropriate
Article V Section 2: The Speaker of Congress shall be the ultimate interpreter of the Rules of Order limited only by a motion to overturn a ruling of the Speaker. Any ruling of interpretation of the Speaker may be overturned by a motion requiring a simple majority.
Some people have taken offence to my actions and have started a Motion of No Confidence. I do not take this action personally, but I believe it was a poor decision and will ultimately fail. The fact is I was heavy handed by the standards set by most Speakers, but I believe the punishments were too lenient for the offenses committed by these members of Congress. If I had the power I would ensure not one of them, including a member of my own party, ever stepped foot into Congress again.
Their actions were reckless and put the security of nation at risk. The fact is we are faced with fighting off a PTO, and if we are not successful we are faced with less appealing options down the road. My goal with pushing forward with these bans was to let Congress know that no further attempts to subvert the IC would be acceptable. The IC, while imperfect, is our only means of defense against this PTO. Anyone who violates the rulings of the IC is either a PTO member or does not care about the current PTO attempt. The PTO is very real and very dangerous.
In order to combat this PTO we will need to stop the flow of malicious immigrants into Canada and we will need all Congress members to save their cs passes for ATO operations. While the UF may not pose a threat to Canada, the fact that the PTO members do not have a party to defend actually makes them more dangerous. They will be targeting our Top Five parties and we will need superior numbers in order to defeat them. Instead of just having to attack their party, we now have to defend all Canadian parties. This means that every cs pass we can use for ATO operations could be the one that pushes our efforts over the limit we need for victory. Each month we can keep them out of the Top Five means their movement weakens, each month we keep them out means fewer members we have to fight, but even one month where they win could spell disaster for Canada. I will not stand idly by and watch this happen, and neither should the other members of Congress. From this point forward we must stand together, or we risk losing eCanada to a bunch of PTOing scumbags.
Comments
v2
Dmv you said you are not taking this personally... Then why are you ignoring my pms, and just simply refusing to speak with me.....
BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
My vote for speaker went to the guy you banned.
That being said, it was the right call.
I'm glad that even though you may not like me personally, you still know right from wrong. o/
@Xander Knross This just shows you are thinking about the entire issue all wrong. By saying this you are saying you believe in retroactive punishment. You are even taking it one step further by saying laws are not contingent upon the actions of congress. This is ofc true if we are punishing people for a notion that has been created but not substantiated. Which I contend we are.
As the current law is written the IC serves a function. Congress never made it punishable for going around them. Furthermore you are assuming Funky acted recklessly which he did not.
You can claim the pto was dangerous, which it was but this adds nothing to the case of Funky as he was not part of said PTO. So to break this down, we are punishing Funky for doing his job.
He was not part of a PTO.
He broke no Laws.
Funky is innocent.
Funky thinks he is above the law and got punished for breaking the law. It's not retroactive punishment. Everyone who violated the law this Congressional term was punished. I didn't ban people who were approving cs last term.
How about you answer my pms...
This just shows you know nothing about the antagonism between me and McVicker. I'd rather have literally anyone else in power than DMV.
hehe pick me as your deputy, i wanna ban people too! :'D
I'm deputy 😛
lol pic
Let the PTO of Canada continue...
Wait, that's real now. Sorry, Dennis; but hey look on the bright side: you're not responsible.
Who is ptoing u?
The same group that was just trying to PTO the eUK.
Why would serbs go for an ally???
Good question.
Because they are an organisation with completely different goals to Serbia. They are only in it for themselves and they enjoy making the game miserable for others.
I wish you luck with the ATO.
eUK, however, is coming for you. U scared Canada?
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/euk-war-further-developments-2436468/1/20
o7
o7
I banned myself from Kongress this month.
DMV kicking ass
Sometimes you kick ass, sometimes your ass gets kicked LOL
o7
Just so we're clear, you can only ban someone for up to 7 days AT A TIME.
There is precedent that once Funky's (or whoever else's) week is up, you can re-ban them for another 7 days without them actually committing another offense.
Probably a hard pill for Congress to swallow in Funky's case, but depending on who the other people are, you could probably get away with it.
I realized that right away, the CRoO is written beautifully.
I don't read the CRoO that way. The inappropriate action they committed was admitting people into Canada without approval. That action can therefore result in a ban of up to 7 days. I don't see how that can be interpreted to mean multiple 7 day bans. They violated on rule, therefore they should only suffer one ban under the CRoO.
The way it's written is super vague, and could be read either way.
It also says that the Speaker is the final interpreter of the rules, so if DMV wants to read it as "You can ban them for as long as you want, but only 7 days at a time" he has every right to do so.
Muglack, you are correct, the second part does pretty much throw out the first lol.
You have still yet to ever present real evidence of this "PTO" 😃
Such paranoia can indicate a serious health condition. Unless you're really naive enough to devote 90% of your RL time to fighting hearsay.
What are we all supposed to do, remove your brain for dissection so we know for sure what you were thinking? circumstantial evidence is not the same as worthless. People are convicted IRL all the time based only on circumstantial evidence
The proof has already circulated through Open Door Congress... you really shouldn't have been concocting plans with people who took screenshots of your PTO plans and shared them for all to see lol.
Please share these PTO plans with me 🙂 They are news to me.
[removed]
... Why are there former eUSA patriots who haven't proven their worth, in eCanada's congress? If they didn't mean any harm, they wouldn't be trying to gain access to congress! It seems they're here to further their political agenda against eSerbia... And that makes them PTOers!
PS. One of my minions(employees) got a message from an eAmerican PTOer who asked him to join them in their quest to stop an eSerbian PTO. We figured he was full of s***. But now that we're under PTO threat from eUSA, I may move back to eCanada...
Things are really getting rough in Kanada. I hope you guys can keep it together up there.
We'll be fine.
Get ur stuff together, don't force me to take cs or you'll feel the heavy hand of my dictatorship!
Do ett! Together we can make eCanada an epic empire for the ages!
Good to know as an incoming citizen.
Please stay in your country. Immigration is closed in Canada.
Not so fast, junior!
Have fun with that, DMV.
The Jon of the Speaker is to be a moderator and not use the position to support his own goals. You are banning the very same people who support your removal. Feels like a conflict of interest.
Even if you weren't a dirty PTOer and even if you were allowed back into Congress you couldn't muster the votes to remove me. The vast majority of Congress members approve of my actions. I showed no preference in who I banned, I banned everyone who violated the moratorium on immigration.
Not sure what will last longer. The ban or people whining about the ban?
It's Funky so several months?
""The mandate of the council is to confirm applicants for Canadian citizenship. They may employ any means they deem necessary to accomplish this task."
I take this line to mean it is the job of the IC to approve any and all applicants who apply for citizenship."
Well, that's not what it means.
He really left a big opening with that one.
What he should of said is that he decided to agree with the IC, and since they have no power themselves he would enforce it with the Speaker's. That way it would all fall nicely within the Rules of Order.
But the way he's done it here has left you a pretty sturdy leg to stand on.
When you are Speaker, you can interpret it as you wish. That's if you ever get back into Congress.