Letter: Veto on coercion

[Delfos]

Public letter to the Senate

Veto on coercion

The Taijituan Society Movement must express it's indignation with the statement of Delegate Gulliver quoted bellow:

I will sign the acts to end the filibuster and to integrate the school system in to law.

I will however be vetoing the proposed increase in education spending. Education already accounts for 33% of our total budget, and according to the numbers our overall intelligence is above the world average already. While the veto can obviously be easily overridden, I'd like to ask the Senate to reconsider.

Although we do not agree with the veto power, it is not the concern of this letter. We are most disgusted with the statement clearly coercing the Senate to dismiss their liberties and restrict their choices. This  is most anti-democratic of someone who is supposed to ensure the political system works as the constitution intends, the political freedoms of those in the Senate have been eliminated by this statement.

We urge the Senate to protect this democracy against coercion and corruption:
- ensure by legislation those in Senate cannot ever be pressed by any means towards or against certain proposal, so they can choose from clear conscience,
- discuss a set of clear penalties to those pressing Senators,
- setting macro-procedural steps for each Senate's powers to ensure that any of it's powers and responsibilities aren't overstepped by other offices,
- appeal the Court to investigate if, by current standards, considering Senators have the same rights and liberties set in the constitution to citizens, their rights and freedoms have been violated by Delegate Gulliver's statement.

In the event of dismissal of this letter we'll be forced to consider Taijituan Senate is not ready to defend democracy and we will appeal the Court of Taijitu ourselves. We expect the Senate to bring this letter to discussion and choose with clear conscience the path to follow. We hope democracy comes out stronger and that our freedoms won't be stricken again by any person in power.

Best regards,
Taijituan Society Movement
1601 S Pelargiri Ave
Apt 675
Serebursk, NV 34078
Taijitu

[Eluvatar]

How are the Senate's liberties being infringed on? 0.o

[Delfos]

Coercion infringes freedom of thought and liberties to act freely, in this case, the Senate liberty to execute a constitutional right.

Although none specific right protecting this freedom of thought in constitution, which there should be, I'd assume this type of coercion compromises Article 1 Section 2.7 and Article 2 Section 1.1 which should mean the Senate has the "democratic" freedom of functioning without being overstepped by coercive pressure, specially since in Article 3 Section 1.5 says nothing of coercing the Senate to change their vote.
If it can be coerced not to-

enact, amend, or repeal laws by a majority vote

-freely then there is no procedural need for the laws to be passed in the Senate, and they'd instead have the Delegate's opinion first and then the Senate would agree or not agree. It's a procedural error, overstepping, in practical terms, and politically it cuts democracy if you have limited choices because the Delegate has an opinion.

Follow what the constitution says, nothing there saying Delegate has the right to coerce the Senate before it may enact, amend or repeal laws by a coercive vote.

In more practical words "Ya doin'it wrong!", it's politically incorrect and incorrect process of powers.

PS: Adding wiki about Coercion. Also, it'll be the Court's decision to say this is actual coercion or not, I defend so and "We" would like the Senate to see the seriousness of this issue, either way "We" would like to see legislation that ensures the liberties of the Senate won't be disturbed again.

[Eluvatar]

But the veto power is clearly stated in the Constitution... and how is it coercive? The same 2/3 of the senate could choose to override his veto; it's effectively only advisory...

[Delfos]

It's not the veto power that is coercive and has nothing to do with this letter as it is stated here:

Although we do not agree with the veto power, it is not the concern of this letter.

It's the threat of veto that is coercive, it conditions the democratic process of the Senate to discuss and decide freely on issues. Delegate can veto AFTER this process is done, not before, nor should be able to coerce into a favorable opinion.

[Eluvatar]

I... think that vetoing after the Senate had voted is exactly what happened here??

[Delfos]

It happened, the powers worked properly, but he stated it in future tense which I consider coercion. He has power over Senate he can't use it as leverage for his political agenda. He has the right to just veto, not to coerce that he's going to veto.

[Myroria]

It is entirely within the Delegate's rights to veto any bill, as defined by the constitution. If the Senate, when meeting in congress again, decides to override the Delegate's veto, then that's that. In my personal opinion, I do believe in a very limited executive, but a veto power in the hands of the Delegate is an essential tool to maintain the balance of power between the executive and legislature.

[Delfos]

It is entirely within the Delegate's rights to veto any bill, as defined by the constitution. If the Senate, when meeting in congress again, decides to override the Delegate's veto, then that's that. In my personal opinion, I do believe in a very limited executive, but a veto power in the hands of the Delegate is an essential tool to maintain the balance of power between the executive and legislature.

And I think that's awesome, and I'm not questioning his right to veto.