The Senate Act 2002: Special Report

As you may recall, in last week’s edition, we had a story on the new Amerada Senate Act, 2002, which has been tabled in the House. Today, voting began on that bill, known as Bill 65 officially. The MFP has decided to do a comparison on the actual bill up for vote and the one that the Association of Amerada Governors (AAG) proposed to the President in late 2001. We would have done this earlier, but the AAG proposal had to be acquired from the AAG archives.

Let’s start with the key points of Bill 65 and how they relate to the AAG proposal:

ARTICLE I:
The Senate shall be a house of legislature, in addition to the current House. It shall have the right to propose bills, and henceforth, all bills by the other House must be approved by a majority vote of the Senate. The said bills then shall go to the President for approval. Should he veto the bill, the bill will return to the Senate for reconsideration. After reconsideration, if two-thirds of the Senate vote in the bill’s approval, it shall pass, without returning to the President.

This is a word-for-word article in the AAG proposal (article 2).

ARTICLE II:
The Senate shall have the right to keep a public journal of its resolutions, which may be kept secret in times of national emergency, and shall write a Constitution, to be approved by the other House before its full ratification. All treaties must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. In compensation, the other House shall have the sole powers over the exchange rate, and international financial agreements.

This article is based on Article 3 of the AAG draft bill. However, it has been modified to omit the following part which the AAG wanted to be included:

The Senate shall have the right to appoint Ameradian judges and tribunals, and appoint a regular speaker, and other officers,…

The omission of this portion means that the senate shall have no control over who is appointed to one of the most important positions in the Republic of Amerada – the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the body that decides on the legality of bills and should be an objective one. To insure this objectivity in the future, a judge should be appointed by a legislative body so that there is no “I owe You” relationship with the president that can cause corruption. Perhaps the main advantage of this point is that the President can continue appointing Supreme Court Judges in emergencies when the bureaucracy of going through senate hearings is an unacceptable delay.

ARTICLE III:
The Senate shall consist of one member from each official political parties in Amerada. Members shall be appointed by the leader of each party, and presented to the Prime Minister immediately following the ending of a term, an impeachment, or resignation. Each of these members will get a vote in the senate. The Prime Minister shall be the Speaker of the Senate. The Prime Minister may not have a vote, except in a tie. Members shall serve a term of 4 years, the first term shall begin on the first Day of June, 2002. A member can only be impeached if 2/3 of the Senate vote to do so.

About the Author

Liam Sinclair
Owner/Senior Editor. One of the longest-serving micronational journalists, Sinclair started reporting in 2001. His work has since been recognized by several community awards.
%d bloggers like this: